Dacanay v.

Asistio GR 93654 (May 6, 1992)

FACTS: On January 1979, the Metropolitan Manila Commission enacted an ordinance designating certain city and municipal streets, and open spaces as sites for flea markets. One of these streets was the Heroes del 96 where Francisco Dacanay lives. In 1987, Antonio Martinez, city mayor of Caloocan, caused the demolition of the market stalls on Heroes del 96, V. Gozon, and Gonzales streets. As a result, several stallowners filed an action for prohibition against the City of Caloocan to enjoin Martinezs efforts to clear the streets. The Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction but which was lifted on Dec. 1987. Shortly after the decision came out, a new mayor of Caloocan City was elected Mayor Macario Asistio, Jr. He did not continue the former Mayors policy of clearing the city streets. Invoking the courts decision, Dacanay wrote a letter to Asistio asking for the demolition of the illegally constructed stalls on Heroes del 96. He wrote a follow-up letter to Asistio and the city engineer, and without receiving any response, sought the intervention of then President Aquino and the Ombudsman. A letter was referred to Asistio wherein it was stated that after conducting a preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman recommends the filing of an information in court for the violation of Sec. 3(e) and (f) of RA 3019. Nevertheless, the stallholders continued to occupy Heroes del 96 through the tolerance of the city officials and in clear violation of the decision of the RTC of Caloocan. Dacanay filed a petition for mandamus on June 19, 1990, praying that the city officials be ordered to enforce the final decision in the prior civil case which upheld the Mayors authority to order the demolition of market stalls on Heroes del 96, V. Gozon, and Gonzales, and to enforce PD 772. ISSUE: WON public streets may be leased to market stallholders by virtue of a city ordinance or resolution of Metropolitan Manila Commission HELD: No. The streets, being of public dominion must be outside the commerce of men. The following are the principles from jurisprudence: 1) Property of public dominion cannot be alienated or leased or otherwise be the subject matter of contracts.

2) It cannot be acquired by prescription against the State. Even municipalities cannot acquire it for use as communal lands against the State. 3) It is not subject to attachment and execution. 4) It cannot be burdened by any voluntary easement. Thus, the lease or licenses are null and void for being contrary to law. The interests of the few should not prevail over the good of the greater number in the community whose health, peace, safety, good order and general welfare, the respondent city officials are under legal obligations to protect.