G.R. No. L-9865, December 24, 1915
VERGO D. TUFEXIS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO OLAGUERA and THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF GUINOBATAN, represented by its president, Agapito Paulate, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
Vergo D. Tufexis (appellant) acquired at a public execution sale a frame building (a public market) erected on municipal land in Guinobatan, Albay. The building was originally constructed by Ricardo Pardo y Cabañas under a Spanish-era government concession (Exhibit A). The judgment debtor was Ricardo Pardo y Pujol, son of the original grantee. The building was completely destroyed by fire on January 2, 1912. Tufexis alleged that the Municipal Council of Guinobatan, in bad faith, negotiated to purchase his rights but instead allowed Francisco Olaguera to occupy the land with stalls and billiard tables, preventing Tufexis from reconstructing the market. Tufexis filed an action for recovery of possession and damages. The provincial fiscal, representing the municipality, demurred to the complaint, arguing Tufexis lacked personality to sue and the complaint stated no cause of action. The trial court sustained the demurrer and, after Tufexis refused to amend, dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether the appellant, Vergo D. Tufexis, acquired any right, title, or interest in the administrative concession or the usufruct of the municipal land by virtue of his purchase at the execution sale of the market building constructed under said concession.

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The concession granted to Ricardo Pardo y Cabañas was a personal privilege to construct and operate a public market on municipal land. Such an administrative concession, being of a public character and intended for public use, is inalienable and not subject to attachment and sale to satisfy a private debt. The only property right that could be subject to execution was the income or proceeds derived from the operation of the market, not the concession itself or the usufruct of the land. Since the execution sale purported to sell the building and “all right, interest, title, and participation” of the judgment debtor, and not merely the income, the sale was illegal and void. Consequently, Tufexis acquired no rights under the concession. His right to possess the land and reconstruct the building was contingent upon a valid concession, which he did not have. The trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.