Manila Lodge No. 761 Vs CA 73 SCRA 162
Uploaded by
Mir SolaimanManila Lodge No. 761 Vs CA 73 SCRA 162
Uploaded by
Mir SolaimanManila Lodge No. 761, Benevolent and Protective Order Of The Elks, Inc., vs.
Court Of
Appeals, City Of Manila, and Tarlac Development Corporation 73 SCRA 162
Facts:
Act No. 1306 authorized the City of Manila to reclaim a portion of Manila Bay to form
part of the Luneta extension. The act provided that the reclaimed area shall be the property of
the City of Manila, and that the city is authorized to set aside a tract of the reclaimed land for a
hotel site. Act No 1657 further authorized the City of Manila to lease or to sell the same. Later,
the City of Manila conveyed a portion of the reclaimed area to Manila Lodge No. 761
(Petitioner). A TCT was issued, and later Petitioner asked the court for the cancellation of the
right of the City of Manila to repurchase the property which was granted. Then Petitioner sold
the land, together with all the improvements, to the Tarlac Development Corporation (TDC).
When the right of the City of Manila was later reinstated, TDC was reserved the right to bring
an action for clarification of its rights. The trial court held that the subject land was a “public
park or plaza”, that the sale of the subject land by the City of Manila to Manila Lodge No. 761,
BPOE, was null and void; that plaintiff TDC was a purchaser thereof in g faith and for value
from BPOE and can enforce its rights against the latter; and that BPOE is entitled to recover
from the City of Manila whatever consideration it had 'paid the latter.’
Issue:
Is the subject land a park or plaza and not patrimonial property?
Held:
We hold that it is of public dominion, intended for public use. Firstly, if the reclaimed
area was granted to the City of Manila as its patrimonial property, the City could, by virtue of
its ownership, dispose of the whole reclaimed area without need of authorization to do so from
the lawmaking body. The right to dispose (jus disponendi) of one's property is an attribute of
ownership. Act No. 1360, as amended, however, provides by necessary implication, that the
City of Manila could not dispose of the reclaimed area without being authorized by the
lawmaking body. At most, only the northern portion reserved as a hotel site could be said to be
patrimonial property for, by express statutory provision it could be disposed of, and the title
thereto would revert to the City should the grantee fail to comply with the terms provided by
the statute.
Secondly, If the reclaimed area is an extension of the Luneta, then it is of the same
nature or character as the old Luneta. It is not disputed that the old Luneta is a public park or
plaza hence the "extension to the Luneta" must be also a public park or plaza and for public
use.
Thirdly, the reclaimed area was formerly a part of the manila Bay. When the shore or
part of the bay is reclaimed, it does not lose its character of being property for public use.
Fourthly, Act 1360, as amended, authorized the lease or sale of the northern portion of
the reclaimed area as a hotel sites. The subject property is not that northern portion
authorized to be leased or sold; the subject property is the southern portion. Hence, applying
the rule of expresio unius est exlusio alterius, the City of Manila was not authorized to sell the
subject property.
Fifthly, the executive and legislative department has the power to make the declaration
that a property is no longer required for public use, and until such declaration is made, the
property must continue to form paint of the public domain
