VILLANUEVA v. CASTAÑEDA, JR.
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
VILLANUEVA v. CASTAÑEDA, JR.
FACTS
Petitioners are owners of stalls in a talipapa located in a land owned by the municipal government. They were ed to lease the said land through a municipal council resolution in 1961.
The municipal government demolished the the stalls and subsequently issued a new resolution revoking the right previously granted to the vendor. Said resolution indicated that the said area will be a parking space for the town plaza.
Petitioners brought an action against the municipal government alleging that they have the right to use the said lang because the resolution allowing them to use the area constitutes a contract between them (vendors) and the municipal government.
CFI dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioners to be evicted from the area. But such eviction was not enforced and the number of stall owners even grew.
After a few years, the municipal again resolved to demolish the stalls
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the resolution in 1961 conferred contractual rights to the stall owners making them lawful lessees of the land
2. Whether or not the said area are dedicated for public use
HELD:
1. There was no dispute that the land occupied by the petitioners was previously used as a town plaza and being such it is considered as beyond the commerce of man and cannot be the subject of lease or any contractual undertaking. The petitioners had no right in the first place to occupy the disputed premises.
2. The proliferation of the stalls caused several repercussions to the area such as
> the makeshift and flammable materials has made the area susceptible of fire endangering public safety
> said stalls have obstructed the way going to the real public market
> the filthy conditions of the stalls has aggravated health and sanitation problems
> the area has contributed to the obstruction of the flow of traffic
3. Assuming that there was a valid contract (and that the land is not for public use), the petitioners must yield to the police power exercised by the municipal government. It is a well settled rule that any valid contract may be cancelled if it causes danger to the public.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
VILLANUEVA v. CASTAÑEDA, JR.
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
VILLANUEVA v. CASTAÑEDA, JR.
FACTS
Petitioners are owners of stalls in a talipapa located in a land owned by the municipal government. They were ed to lease the said land through a municipal council resolution in 1961.
The municipal government demolished the the stalls and subsequently issued a new resolution revoking the right previously granted to the vendor. Said resolution indicated that the said area will be a parking space for the town plaza.
Petitioners brought an action against the municipal government alleging that they have the right to use the said lang because the resolution allowing them to use the area constitutes a contract between them (vendors) and the municipal government.
CFI dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioners to be evicted from the area. But such eviction was not enforced and the number of stall owners even grew.
After a few years, the municipal again resolved to demolish the stalls
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the resolution in 1961 conferred contractual rights to the stall owners making them lawful lessees of the land
2. Whether or not the said area are dedicated for public use
HELD:
1. There was no dispute that the land occupied by the petitioners was previously used as a town plaza and being such it is considered as beyond the commerce of man and cannot be the subject of lease or any contractual undertaking. The petitioners had no right in the first place to occupy the disputed premises.
2. The proliferation of the stalls caused several repercussions to the area such as
> the makeshift and flammable materials has made the area susceptible of fire endangering public safety
> said stalls have obstructed the way going to the real public market
> the filthy conditions of the stalls has aggravated health and sanitation problems
> the area has contributed to the obstruction of the flow of traffic
3. Assuming that there was a valid contract (and that the land is not for public use), the petitioners must yield to the police power exercised by the municipal government. It is a well settled rule that any valid contract may be cancelled if it causes danger to the public.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 6 days, 8 hours ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
Cooperation Clause
What is a cooperation clause? It is that which provides that the insured shall give all such information and assistance as the insurer may require, usually including attendance at trials or hearings.
Read morePHILIPPINE AMUSEMEN…
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION VS. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUEISSUE:Is Republic Act 9337 constitutional insofar as it excluded PAGCOR from the enumeration of GOCCs exempt from the payment of corporate income tax?HELD:YES. The original exe...
Read moreName Of The Offende…
Name Of The Offended PartySec. 12. Name of the offended party. – The complaint or information must state the name and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was committed,...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more