Dacanay v. Asistio, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: MMC Ordinance No. 79-02 designated certain city streets as flea market sites. Pursuant to this, Caloocan City Mayor licensed stallholders on Heroes del '96 Street. In 1987, a subsequent mayor ordered the demolition of these stalls, but stallholders filed a prohibition case and obtained a preliminary injunction. The trial court eventually dismissed their petition and lifted the injunction, finding the ordinance and licenses void. Procedural History: The trial court in Civil Case No. C-12921 ruled that Heroes del '96, V. Gozon, and Gonzales streets are of public dominion, hence outside the commerce of man, and cannot be leased to private individuals. It held that any lease or license for such use is null and void, citing jurisprudence. The court affirmed the city mayor's authority to order the demolition of the stalls. The Petition: Despite the trial court's decision, the new Caloocan City Mayor, Macario Asistio, Jr., did not enforce the demolition order. Francisco U. Dacanay, a resident, repeatedly wrote to the mayor and city engineer, but no action was taken. The Ombudsman found that the respondents' inaction was a violation of Sections 3(e) and (f) of R.A. 3019. Dacanay then filed a petition for mandamus to compel the city officials to enforce the decision in Civil Case No. C-12921 and clear the streets.
Issue(s)
Whether public streets may be leased or licensed to market stallholders by virtue of a city ordinance or resolution. Whether the respondents, as city officials, have a legal duty to remove market stalls from public streets and enforce a prior court decision upholding their authority to do so.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is meritorious. The Supreme Court ordered the respondents City Mayor and City Engineer of Caloocan City, or their successors in office, to immediately enforce and implement the decision in Civil Case No. C-12921, declaring Heroes del '96, V. Gozon, and Gonzales Streets as public streets for public use, and to remove or demolish, or cause to be removed or demolished, the market stalls occupying said city streets with utmost dispatch within thirty (30) days from notice of this decision. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether public streets may be leased or licensed to market stallholders: The Supreme Court held that public streets are property of public dominion and are outside the commerce of man, as provided by Articles 420 and 424 of the Civil Code. Consequently, they cannot be the subject of lease or any other contract. The Court reiterated the principle established in Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas and City of Manila vs. Gerardo Garcia, stating that properties for public use may not be leased to private individuals and that any such lease or license is null and void. The Court emphasized that the right of the public to use city streets for their intended purpose, as arteries of travel, cannot be bargained away through contract, and the interests of a few should not prevail over the good of the greater number. On the issue of the duty of city officials to remove market stalls and enforce court decisions: The Court found that the respondents had a legal duty, arising from their public office, to clear the city streets and restore them to their specific public purpose, citing Enriquez vs. Bidin and City of Manila vs. Garcia et al.. The Court noted that the Executive Order issued by Acting Mayor Robles, authorizing the use of Heroes del '96 Street as a vending area, contravened the general law reserving city streets for public use. The Court found that the city officials had ample time to relocate the street vendors, as they had been looking for alternative sites since 1989. The inaction of the respondents in enforcing the prior court decision and clearing the streets was deemed a dereliction of duty, constituting a violation of Sections 3(e) and (f) of R.A. 3019, as found by the Ombudsman.
Main Doctrine
Public streets, being property of public dominion and outside the commerce of man, cannot be leased or licensed for private vending activities. Any ordinance or executive order authorizing such use is null and void, and city officials have a duty to remove obstructions and restore the streets to their public purpose.