City of Manila vs.

IAC
Facts:
Vivencio Sto. Domingo, Sr., deceased husband of plaintiff Irene Sto. Domingo and father
of the litigating minors, died on June 4, 1971 and buried on June 6, 1971 in Lot No. 159, Block
No. 194 of the North Cemetery which lot was leased by the City of Manila to Irene Sto.
Domingo from June 6, 1971 to June 6, 2021. Full payment of the rental therefor of P50.00 is
evidenced by the said receipt which appears to be regular on its face. Apart from the
aforementioned receipt, no other document was executed to embody such lease over the
burial lot in question.
In accordance with Administrative Order No. 5, the City Mayor of Manila prescribing
uniform procedure and guidelines in the processing of documents pertaining to and for the
use and disposition of burial lots and plots within the North Cemetery, subject lot was certified
on January 25, 1978 as ready for exhumation. On the basis of such certification, the
authorities of the North Cemetery then headed by defendant Joseph Helmuth authorized the
exhumation and removal from subject burial lot the remains of the late Vivencio Sto.
Domingo, Sr., placed the bones and skull in a bag or sack and kept the same in the depository
or bodega of the cemetery. Subsequently, the same lot in question was rented out to another
lessee so that when the plaintiffs herein went to said lot on All Souls Day in their dear
departed did not anymore bear the stone marker which they lovingly placed on the tomb.
Indignant and disgusted over such a sorrowful finding, she filed a case before the trial court
and a judgment in favor of her was held. The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals
which rendered a decision modifying the decision appealed from. The petitioners' motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied. Hence, this instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or Not the operations and functions of a public cemetery are a governmental,
or a corporate or proprietary function of the City of Manila.
Held:
Under the Philippine laws, the City of Manila is a political body corporate and as such
endowed with the faculties of municipal corporations to be exercised by and through its City
Government in conformity with law, and its proper corporate name. It may sue and be sued,
and contract and be contracted with. Its powers are two-fold in character public,
governmental or political on the one hand, and corporate, private and proprietary on the
other. Governmental powers are those exercised in administering the powers of the state and
promoting the public welfare and they include the legislative, judicial, public and political.
Municipal powers on the one hand are exercised for the special benefit and advantage of the
community and include those which are ministerial, private and corporate. In connection with
the powers of a municipal corporation, it may acquire property in its public or governmental
capacity, and private or proprietary capacity. The New Civil Code divides such properties into
property for public use and patrimonial properties (Article 423), and further enumerates the
properties for public use as provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares,
fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said
provisions, cities or municipalities, all other property is patrimonial without prejudice to the
provisions of special laws.
Under the foregoing considerations and in the absence of a special law, the North
Cemetery is a patrimonial property of the City of Manila which was created by resolution of
the Municipal Board. The City of Manila furthermore prescribes the procedure and guidelines
for the use and dispositions of burial lots and plots within the North Cemetery through
Administrative Order No. 5. With the acts of dominion, there is, therefore no doubt that the
North Cemetery is within the class of property which the City of Manila owns in its proprietary
or private character. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the burial lot was leased in favor of
By: Janice P. Borja

City of Manila vs. IAC

the private respondents. Hence, obligations arising from contracts have the force of law
between the contracting parties. Thus, a lease contract executed by the lessor and lessee
remains as the law between them. Therefore, a breach of contractual provision entitles the
other party to damages even if no penalty for such breach is prescribed in the contract.

By: Janice P. Borja