Sec 21. Closure of Roads and Opening of Roads

54. Municipalit of Cavite vs Rojas

Facts:

The defendants occupy a 93 squeare meter parcel of land, which is a part of Plaza Soledad owned by plaintiff Municipality, by virtue of a lease secured from the latter. The defendants are paying monthly rentals to the Municipality and had constructed a house thereon, also by virtue of a permit obtained from the same Municipality. When plaintiff ordered the defendant to vacate and deliver possession of said land, the latter refused. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants. Hence this appeal by bill of exceptions.

Issue:

Whether the trial court is correct in ruling that Municipality has no legal right to the disputed land considering that it is subject to a lease contract to which it is a party of.

HELD: No.

The said Plaza Soledad being a promenade for public use, the municipal council of Cavite could not in withdraw or exclude from public use a portion thereof in order to lease it for the sole benefit of the defendant Hilaria Rojas. In leasing a portion of said plaza or public place to the defendant for private use the plaintiff municipality exceeded its authority in the exercise of its powers by executing a contract over a thing of which it could not dispose, nor is it empowered so to do.

The Civil Code, articles 1271, prescribes that everything which is not outside he commerce of man may be the object of a contract, and plazas and streets are outside of this commerce.

Therefore, the contract, is null and void and of no force or effect, because it is contrary to the law and the thing leased cannot be the object of a contract. The defendant must restore and deliver possession of the land to the municipality of Cavite, which in its turn must restore to the efendant all the sums it may have received from rentals just as soon as she restores the land improperly leased.

55. Kwong Sing vs The City of Manila

Facts:

Petitioner is questioning the validity of Ordinance No. 532 issued by the City of Manila, requiring establishments engaged in laundry and dyeing services to issue receipts in duplicate in English and Spanish. The trial court granted the preliminary injuction but in the end denied the granting of the permanent injuction. Hence this appeal on the ground that the questioned ordinance is enacted beyond the scope of the City’s police power.

Issue:

Whether Ordinance No. 532 is a valid exercise of police power.

Held: Yes.

The government of the city of Manila possesses the power to enact Ordinance No. 532. The Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 2744, section 8, authorizes the municipal board of the city of Manila, with the approval of the mayor of the city to regulate business establishments. The word regulate as embodied in the Administrative Code, means and includes the power to control, to govern, and to restrain. Under the power to regulate laundries, the municipal authorities could make proper police regulations as to the modein which the employment or business shall be exercised. Hence, the business of laundries and dyeing and cleaning establishments could be regulated, as this term is above construed, by an ordinance in the interest of the public health, safety, morals, peace good order, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and the general welfare.

56. Primicias vs Fugoso

Facts: