What is property of public dominion?
Property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man. They cannot be the subject matter of private contracts, cannot be acquired by prescription and they are not subject to attachment and execution nor burdened with a voluntary easement.
The Heroes del '96 street, V. Gozon street and Gonzales street, being of public dominion must, therefore, be outside of the commerce of man. Considering the nature of the subject premises, the following jurisprudence/principles are applicable on the matter: (G.R. No. 93654; May 6, 1992)
[1] They cannot be alienated or leased or otherwise be the subject matter of contracts. (Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas, 30 Phil. 602);
[2] They cannot be acquired by prescription against the state (Insular Government vs. Aldecoa, 19 Phil. 505). Even municipalities cannot acquire them for use as communal lands against the state (City of Manila vs. Insular Government, 10 Phil. 327);
[3] They are not subject to attachment and execution (Tan Toco vs. Municipal Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52);
[4] They cannot be burdened by any voluntary easement (2-II Colin & Capitant 520) (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Phils., Vol. II, 1983 Ed. pp. 29-30).
In the aforecited case of Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas, it was held that properties for public use may not be leased to private individuals. Such a lease is null and void for the reason that a municipal council cannot withdraw part of the plaza from public use. If possession has already been given, the lessee must restore possession by vacating it and the municipality must thereupon restore to him any sums it may have collected as rent.In the case of City of Manila vs. Gerardo Garcia, the Supreme Court held: The property being a public one, the Manila Mayors did not have the authority to give permits, written or oral, to the squatters, and that the permits granted are therefore considered null and void.
This doctrine was reiterated in the case of Baguio Citizens Action Inc. vs. The City Council, where it was held that: An ordinance legalizing the occupancy by squatters of public land is null and void.
The authority of respondent Municipality of Makati to demolish the shanties of the petitioner's members is mandated by P.D. 772, and Sec. 1 of Letter of Instruction No. 19 orders certain public officials, one of whom is the Municipal Mayor to remove all illegal constructions including buildings on and along esteros and river banks, those along railroad tracks and those built without permits on public or private property (Zansibarian Residents Association vs. Mun. of Makati, 135 SCRA 235). The City Engineer is also among those required to comply with said Letter of Instruction.
The occupation and use of private individuals of sidewalks and other public places devoted for public use constitute both public and private nuisances and nuisance per se, and this applies to even case involving the use or lease of public places under permits and licenses issued by competent authority, upon the theory that such holders could not take advantage of their unlawful permits and license and claim that the land in question is a part of a public street or a public place devoted to public use, hence, beyond the commerce of man. (Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, Vol. II, p. 59, 6th Ed., citing Umali vs. Aquino, IC. A. Rep. 339.)
[1] They cannot be alienated or leased or otherwise be the subject matter of contracts. (Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas, 30 Phil. 602);
[2] They cannot be acquired by prescription against the state (Insular Government vs. Aldecoa, 19 Phil. 505). Even municipalities cannot acquire them for use as communal lands against the state (City of Manila vs. Insular Government, 10 Phil. 327);
[3] They are not subject to attachment and execution (Tan Toco vs. Municipal Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52);
[4] They cannot be burdened by any voluntary easement (2-II Colin & Capitant 520) (Tolentino, Civil Code of the Phils., Vol. II, 1983 Ed. pp. 29-30).
In the aforecited case of Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas, it was held that properties for public use may not be leased to private individuals. Such a lease is null and void for the reason that a municipal council cannot withdraw part of the plaza from public use. If possession has already been given, the lessee must restore possession by vacating it and the municipality must thereupon restore to him any sums it may have collected as rent.In the case of City of Manila vs. Gerardo Garcia, the Supreme Court held: The property being a public one, the Manila Mayors did not have the authority to give permits, written or oral, to the squatters, and that the permits granted are therefore considered null and void.
This doctrine was reiterated in the case of Baguio Citizens Action Inc. vs. The City Council, where it was held that: An ordinance legalizing the occupancy by squatters of public land is null and void.
The authority of respondent Municipality of Makati to demolish the shanties of the petitioner's members is mandated by P.D. 772, and Sec. 1 of Letter of Instruction No. 19 orders certain public officials, one of whom is the Municipal Mayor to remove all illegal constructions including buildings on and along esteros and river banks, those along railroad tracks and those built without permits on public or private property (Zansibarian Residents Association vs. Mun. of Makati, 135 SCRA 235). The City Engineer is also among those required to comply with said Letter of Instruction.
The occupation and use of private individuals of sidewalks and other public places devoted for public use constitute both public and private nuisances and nuisance per se, and this applies to even case involving the use or lease of public places under permits and licenses issued by competent authority, upon the theory that such holders could not take advantage of their unlawful permits and license and claim that the land in question is a part of a public street or a public place devoted to public use, hence, beyond the commerce of man. (Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, Vol. II, p. 59, 6th Ed., citing Umali vs. Aquino, IC. A. Rep. 339.)