MacasianovsDioknoGR

97764(August10,1992)
PostedonOctober19,2012

211SCRA464
G.R.No.97764
August10,1992
Facts:
RespondentMunicipalitypassedOrdinanceNo.86whichauthorized
theclosureofJ.Gabriel,G.G.Cruz,Bayanihan,Lt.GarciaExtension
andOpenaStreetsandtheestablishmentofafleamarketthereon.
ThiswaspassedpursuanttoMMCOrdinanceNo.2andwasapproved
bytheMetropolitanManilaAuthorityonJuly20,1990.
OnAugust8,1990,respondentmunicipalityandPalanyagenteredinto
acontractagreementwherebythelattershalloperate,maintain&
managethefleamarketsand/orvendingareasintheaforementioned
streetswiththeobligationtoremitduestothetreasuryofthemunicipal
governmentofParaaque.
OnSeptember13,1990Brig.Gen.Macasianoorderedthedestruction
andconfiscationofstallsalongG.G.Cruz&GabrielStreetin
Baclaran.HealsowrotealettertoPalanyagorderingthedestructionof
thefleamarket.
Hence,respondentfiledajointpetitionprayingforpreliminary
injunction.ThetrialcourtupheldtheassailedOrdinanceandenjoined
petitionerfromenforcinghisletterorderagainstPalanyag.

Issues:
WONanordinance/resolutionissuedbythemunicipalcouncilof
Paraaqueauthorizingthelease&useofpublicstreets/thoroughfares
assitesforthefleamarketisvalid.
Held:

No.
J.Gabriel,G.G.Cruz,Bayanihan,Lt.GarciaExtensionandOpena
Streetsarelocalroadsusedforpublicserviceandaretherefore
consideredpublicpropertiesofrespondentmunicipality.Propertiesof
thelocalgovernmentdevotedtopublicservicearedeemedpublicand
areundertheabsolutecontrolofCongress.Hence,localgovernments
havenoauthoritytocontrol/regulatetheuseofpublicpropertiesunless
specificauthorityisvesteduponthembyCongress.
Sec.10,ChapterIIoftheLGCshouldbereadandinterpretedin
accordancewithbasicprinciplesalreadyestablishedbylaw.
Theclosureshouldbeforthesolepurposeofwithdrawingtheroador
otherpublicpropertyfrompublicusewhencircumstancesshowthat
suchpropertyisnolongerintended/necessaryforpublicuse/service.
Oncewithdrawn,thepropertythenbecomespatrimonialpropertyofthe
LGUconcernedandonlythencansaidLGUusethepropertyasan
objectofanordinarycontract.Roadsandstreetsavailabletothe
publicandordinarilyusedforvehiculartrafficarestillconsideredpublic
propertydevotedtopublicuse.TheLGUhasnopowertouseitfor
anotherpurposeortodisposeoforleaseittoprivatepersons.
Also,thedisputedordinancecannotbevalidlyimplementedbecauseit
cantbeconsideredapprovedbytheMetropolitanManilaAuthoritydue
tononcompliancewiththeconditionsitimposedfortheapprovalof
saidordinance.
ThepowersofanLGUarenotabsolute,butsubjecttothelimitations
laiddownbytheConstitutionandlawssuchastheCivilCode.Every
LGUhastheswornobligationtoenactmeasuresthatwillenhancethe
publichealth,safety&convenience,maintainpeace&orderand
promiotethegeneralprosperityoftheinhanbitantspfthelocalunits.
AsintheDacanaycase,thegeneralpublichavetherighttodemand
thedemolitionoftheillegallyconstructedstallsinpublicroads&
streets.Theofficialsoftherespondentmunicipalityhavethe
correspondingdutyarisingfrompublicofficetoclearthecitystreets
andrestorethemtotheirspecificpublicpurpose.
Theordinanceisvoidandillegalforlackofbasisinauthorityinlaws
applicableduringitstime.