G.R. No. L-7909; January 18, 1957
CIPRIANO E. UNSON, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, as Mayor of the City of Manila, and GENATO COMMERCIAL CORPORATION, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Cipriano E. Unson is the owner of a lot leased to the government for use as a school annex. The lot is bounded on the south by a narrow strip known as Lot No. 9, claimed by the City of Manila as its patrimonial property, and immediately south of Lot No. 9 is the northern half of Callejon del Carmen. The Municipal Board of Manila passed Ordinance No. 3470, which withdrew the northern portion of Callejon del Carmen from public use, declared it patrimonial property of the City, and authorized its lease to respondent Genato Commercial Corporation. Upon the ordinance’s approval, a lease contract was executed, and Genato constructed a building on that portion of the alley. This construction was about 0.765 meters from the southern boundary of Lot No. 9, creating an open space of about 2.445 meters between Genato’s new building and Unson’s “Commerce Building.” Prior to this, Unson’s lot had two exits onto Callejon del Carmen, which had to be closed due to the construction. Unson filed an action to annul the ordinance and cancel the lease contract, alleging their illegality. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the petition, upholding the City’s authority to withdraw the alley from public use and convert it into patrimonial property. Unson appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Municipal Board of Manila has the legal authority to pass Ordinance No. 3470, which withdraws a portion of Callejon del Carmen from public use, declares it patrimonial property, and authorizes its lease to a private corporation.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. The Municipal Board of Manila lacks the legal authority to enact such an ordinance. Republic Act No. 409 (the Manila Charter), specifically section 18(x), authorizes the Board to provide for the laying out, construction, and improvement of streets and alleys but is silent on the power to close or withdraw them from public use. This silence is significant when contrasted with the explicit grant of such power to regular municipalities under section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code, which requires indemnity and Department Head approval. The absence of a similar express grant to the City of Manila indicates the power was withheld. Municipal corporations, as creatures of Congress, possess only powers expressly granted or necessarily implied, and any doubt must be resolved against the corporation and in favor of the State. Furthermore, the ordinance is repugnant to law, specifically Article 638 of the Civil Code, which subjects the banks of streams, within a three-meter zone, to a public easement for navigation, floatage, fishing, and salvage. The construction on Callejon del Carmen, which is adjacent to the Estero de San Sebastian, renders this public easement impossible to exercise. Therefore, Ordinance No. 3470 and the consequent contract of lease are illegal and null and void.