Case Summary (G.R. No. 24950)
Factual Background
The appellant sued the municipality for P42,966.40 as the purchase price of two strips of land taken to widen streets, one on Calle J. M. Basa of 592 square meters and the other on Calle Aldiguer of 59 square meters. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo adjudged the municipality liable for the amount, and this court affirmed that judgment on appeal. Because the municipality lacked funds to satisfy the judgment, the appellant procured a writ of execution. The sheriff levied attachments upon municipal property consisting of two street-sprinkling trucks, one police patrol automobile, the police stations on Mabini Street and in Molo and Mandurriao, and the concrete market structures with their lots in Iloilo, Molo, and Mandurriao.
Trial Court Proceedings
After notices of sale had been issued and a few days before the scheduled sale, the provincial fiscal moved in the Court of First Instance to dissolve the attachments and to declare them null and void as illegal and violative of the municipality's rights. The appellant's counsel opposed the motion. The trial court granted the fiscal's motion and, by order of August 12, 1925, declared the attachments null and void. The appellant prosecuted a bill of exceptions to this order.
Issue on Appeal
The principal question on appeal was whether the municipal property levied upon was exempt from execution. A subsidiary question contested by appellant was whether, if the property was exempt, the proper remedy to compel payment of the judgment was an action in mandamus rather than execution.
Parties' Contentions
The appellant contended that the attachments were lawful and that the municipal property seized could be levied upon to satisfy the judgment. The fiscal and the municipality maintained that the property levied upon comprised public property held for public use and was therefore not subject to levy and sale under execution. The trial court also concluded that, if no property was subject to execution, the appellant's remedy lay in mandamus to require the municipality to discharge the judgment.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court examined section 2165 of the Administrative Code, and articles 343 and 344 of the Civil Code, which distinguish property of municipalities into property for public use and patrimonial property. The Court accepted the governing principle that property held for public use by a municipality is not within the commerce of man, is inalienable while used for the public, and is not subject to prescription. The Court cited authoritative commentary and decisions applying equivalent rules in American jurisprudence, including treatises by McQuillin and Dillon and authorities in Corpus Juris, to demonstrate the established rule that public buildings, streets, parks, markets, and similar property held for governmental or public purposes are exempt from attachment and execution. The Court relied upon United States decisions such as City of New Orleans v. Louisiana Construction Co., Ltd. and Klein v. City of New Orleans to illustrate that wharves and similar public facilities remained public property and were not subject to creditors' levies, and that municipal revenues derived therefrom were likewise protected. The Court also relied on this tribunal's prior ruling in Tufexis v. Olaguera and Municipal Council of Guinobatan to show that special concessions of usufruct in public markets could not be attached and sold; creditors could only seek satisfaction from the income produced by such concessions. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the movable and immovable property of a municipality necessary for governmental purposes may not be attached and sold to satisfy judgments against the municipality, and that municipal income is likewise generally exempt from levy.
Ruling on Mandamus Remedy
The Court addressed the appellant's assignment that the trial court erred in stating that the proper remedy was mandamus. The Court observed that where a judgment against a municipality cannot be satisfied because the municipality has no proper
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 24950)
Parties and Posture
- VIUDA DE TAN TOCO sued THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO for PHP 42,966.40 as the purchase price of two strips of land appropriated for street widening.
- The Court of First Instance of Iloilo rendered judgment for the plaintiff and this Court affirmed that judgment on appeal in R. G. No. 22617.
- Execution issued on the judgment and the sheriff attached municipal movable and immovable property for levy.
- The provincial fiscal moved in the trial court to dissolve the attachment and to declare it null and void, and the trial court granted the motion by order dated August 12, 1925.
- The plaintiff appealed the order dissolving the attachment to this Court by bill of exceptions.
Facts
- The suit sought payment for two strips of land, one on Calle J. M. Basa containing 592 square meters and one on Calle Aldiguer containing 59 square meters, appropriated by the municipality for street widening.
- The municipality lacked funds to satisfy the judgment, prompting execution proceedings against municipal property.
- The sheriff attached two auto trucks used for street sprinkling, one police patrol automobile, police stations on Mabini Street and in Molo and Mandurriao, and concrete market structures with corresponding lots used as markets by Iloilo, Molo, and Mandurriao.
- Notice of sale of the attached property was given, but a few days before the sale the provincial fiscal moved to dissolve the attachment.
Statutory Framework
- Section 2165 of the Administrative Code defines municipalities as political bodies corporate with capacity to acquire and hold real and personal property for municipal purposes.
- Article 343 of the Civil Code divides the property of provinces and towns into property for public use and patrimonial property.
- Article 344 of the Civil Code classifies provincial roads, squares, streets, fountains, public waters, drives, and public improvements of general benefit built at the expense of towns or provinces as property for public use.
- Section 452 of the Code of Civil Procedure is invoked by analogy as providing exemptions necessary to secure governmental functions.
Issues
- Whether the municipal property levied upon was exempt from execution because it constituted property for public use.
- Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel satisfaction of a judgment against a municipality that has no property subject to execution.
Contentions
- The appellant con