G.R. No. L-8892; April 11, 1956
ALFREDO HALILI and TOMAS P. JACOBO for themselves and in behalf and for the benefit of forty-one other persons all owning their respective houses inside the Palomar Compound, Tondo, Manila, petitioners-appellants, vs. ARSENIO H. LACSON, as Mayor of the City of Manila and ALEJO AQUINO, as City Engineer, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners, on behalf of themselves and forty-one other occupants, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to enjoin the respondents (the Mayor and City Engineer of Manila) from carrying out an order of demolition of their houses erected inside the Palomar Compound in Tondo, Manila. The City of Manila was allowed to intervene. Petitioners alleged they built their houses in 1945-1947 and that the City subsequently allowed their occupation either through lease contracts or by accepting rental payments. On May 5, 1952, respondents ordered the removal of the houses as part of a policy to restore public use of streets, parks, plazas, esteros, and other public lands, deeming the houses a public nuisance. Petitioners claimed this action was arbitrary and illegal. Respondents countered that petitioners initially occupied the premises without authority, though two petitioners (Halili and Jacobo) later obtained written permits from the city mayor subject to conditions, including that the permission was revocable at will after notice, structures would be removed if affected by city planning at the occupants’ expense, no permanent structures were to be erected, and they would abide by future city actions. The lower court, finding the pleadings sufficient, dismissed the petition and ordered petitioners to vacate and remove their structures, authorizing demolition at their cost upon failure to comply.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents acted within their authority in ordering the demolition of the petitioners’ structures on the Palomar Compound.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, ruling that the respondents acted within their authority. The Court found it undisputed that petitioners initially occupied the premises without the City’s knowledge or consent. The subsequent written permits granted to two petitioners were merely acts of tolerance by the City, considering the petitioners’ plight after the battle for Manila’s liberation, and were subject to express conditions allowing revocation and removal. The structures constituted a public nuisance under Articles 694 and 695 of the New Civil Code, as they obstructed public use of parks, plazas, streets, and sidewalks. The city authorities were empowered to order their demolition under Section 1122 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila. The Court rejected petitioners’ contentions: (1) that the order ignored valid lease contracts, holding the permits were not true leases but revocable concessions; (2) that the leases were void because the compound was reserved as a school site by presidential proclamation, holding the reservation did not deprive the City of its dominion and the permits were merely tolerated occupancy; and (3) that they were entitled to a refund of rentals under Article 1412 of the New Civil Code, holding the City was not at fault as it acted out of grace and the nominal rentals were compensation for use. The order for petitioners to vacate and remove the structures at their cost was upheld.