MANILA LODGE NO. 761 v. CA, GR No.

L-41001, 1976-09-30 Issues:

Facts: What kind of property of the City is the reclaimed land? Is it of public...
ownership (dominion) or of private ownership?
On June 26, 1905 the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1360 which
authorized the City of Manila to reclaim a portion of Manila Bay. The reclaimed Ruling:
area was to form part of the Luneta extension. The Act provided that the
reclaimed area "shall be the property of the City of The grant made by Act No. 1360 of the reclaimed land to the City of Manila is
a grant of a "public" nature, the same having been made to a local political
Manila" and that "the City of Manila is hereby authorized to set aside a tract of subdivision.
the reclaimed land formed by the Luneta extension x x x at the north end not
to exceed five hundred feet by six hundred feet in size, for a hotel site, and to We hold that it is of public dominion, intended for public use.
lease the same, with the approval of... the Governor General, to a responsible
person or corporation for a term not to exceed ninety-nine years." Firstly, if the reclaimed area was granted to the City of Manila as its
patrimonial property, the City could, by virtue of its ownership, dispose of the
Subsequently, the Philippine Commission passed on May 18, 1907 Act No. whole reclaimed area without need of authorization to do so from the
1657, amending Act No. 1360, so as to authorize the City of Manila either to lawmaking body.
lease or to sell the portion set aside as a hotel site.
Act No. 1360, as amended, however, provides by necessary implication, that
On July 13, 1911 the City of Manila, affirming a prior sale dated January 16, the City of Manila could not dispose of the reclaimed area without being
1909, conveyed 5,543.07 square meters of the reclaimed area to the Manila authorized by the lawmaking body.
Lodge No. 761, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the U.S.A. (BPOE,
for short) on the basis of which TCT No. Act No. 1360 furthermore qualifies the verb "authorize" with the adverb
"hereby," which means "by means of this statute or... section." Hence without
2195[2] was issued to the latter the authorization expressly given by Act No. 1360, the City of Manila could not
lease or sell even the northern portion; much less could it dispose of the whole
Manila Lodge No. 761, BPOE, subsequently sold the said 5,543.07 square reclaimed area. Consequently, the reclaimed area was granted to the City of
meters to the Elks Club, Inc., to which was issued TCT No. 67488.[4] The Manila, not as its... patrimonial property. At most, only the northern portion
registered owner, "The Elks Club, Inc.," was later changed by court order to reserved as a hotel site could be said to be patrimonial property, for, by
"Manila Lodge No. 761,... Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Inc." express statutory provision it could be disposed of, and the title thereto would
revert to the City should the grantee fail to comply with the... terms provided by
In January 1963 the BPOE petitioned the Court of First Instance of Manila, the statute.
Branch IV, for the cancellation of the right of the City of Manila to repurchase
the property. This petition was granted on February 15, 1963. Secondly, the reclaimed area is an "extension to the Luneta in the City of
Manila."
On November 19, 1963 the BPOE sold for the sum of P4,700,000 the land
together with all the improvements thereon to the Tarlac Development It is not disputed that the old Luneta is a public park or plaza and it is so
Corporation (TDC, for short) considered by Section 859 of the Revised Ordinances of... the City of Manila.
[42] Hence the "extension to the Luneta" must be also a public park or plaza the statute. The subject property is not that northern portion authorized to be
and for public use. leased or sold; the subject property is the southern portion. Hence, applying
the rule of expresio unius est exlusio alterius, the City of Manila was not
Thirdly, the reclaimed area was formerly a part of the Manila Bay. A bay is authorized to sell the subject property. Article 344 of the Civil Code of Spain
nothing more than an inlet of the sea. Pursuant to Article 1 of the Law of provides that to property of public use, in provinces and in towns, comprises
Waters of 1866, bays, roadsteads, coast sea, inlets and shores are parts of the provincial and town roads, the squares streets fountains, and public waters
the national domain open to public use. the promenades, and public works of general service paid for by such towns or
provinces." A park or plaza, such as the extension to the Luneta, is
These are also property of public ownership devoted to public use, according undoubtedly comprised in said article. (2) The sale of the subject property
to Article 339 of the Civil Code of Spain. executed by the City of Manila to the Manila Lodge No. 761, BPOE, was void
and inexistent for lack of subject matter. It suffered from an incurable defect
MANILA LODGE NO. 761, BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF that could not be ratified either by lapse of time or by express ratification. The
THE ELKS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Manila Lodge No. 761 therefore acquired no right by virtue of the said sale.
CITY OF MANILA, and TARLAC DEVELOPMENT Hence to consider now the contract inexistent as it always has seen, cannot
CORPORATION,respondents. be, as claimed by the Manila Lodge No. 761, an impairment of the obligations
of contracts, for there was it, contemplation of law, no contract at all. –
Issues: Whether or not property subject of the action, pursuant to the
provisions of Act No. 1360, as amended by Act No. 1657, was patrimonial Manila Lodge No. 176 v. Court of Appeals
property of the City of Manila and not a park or plaza?
Case No. 165 G.R. No.L-41001 and G.R. No.L-41012 (September 30, 1976)
Petitions in both G.R. Nos. L-41001 and L-41012 are denied for lack of merit, Chapter VI, Page 264, Footnote No. 63
and the decision of the Court of Appeals of June 30, 1975, is hereby affirmed.
Ruling: (1) Although the City of Manila was to pay for the construction of such FACTS: The Philippine Commission enacted Act No. 1306 which authorized
work and timber bulkheads or sea walls as may be necessary for the making the City of Manila to
of the Luneta extension, the area to be reclaimed would be filled at the
expense of the Insular Government and without cost to the City of Manila, with reclaim a portion of Manila Bay. The reclaimed area was to form part of the
material dredged from Manila Bay. Hence, the letter of the statute should be Luneta extension. The act provided that the reclaimed area shall be the
narrowed to exclude maters which if included would defeat the policy of the property of the City of Manila, and the city is authorized to set aside a tract of
legislation. The reclaimed area, an extension to the Luneta, is declared to be the reclaimed land for a hotel site and to lease or to sell the same. Later, the
property of the City of Manila. Property, however, is either of public ownership City of Manila conveyed a portion of the reclaimed area to Petitioner. Then
or of private ownership. It is of public dominion, intended for public use. Petitioner sold the land, together with all the improvements, to the Tarlac
Development Corporation (TDC). ISSUE: W/N the subject property was
Without the authorization expressly given by Act No. 1360, the City of Manila patrimonial property of the City of Manila. HELD: The petitions were denied for
could not lease or sell even the northern portion; much less could it dispose of lack of merit. The court found it necessary to analyze all the provisions of Act
the whole reclaimed area. Consequently, the reclaimed area was granted to No. 1360, as amended, in order to unravel the legislative intent. The grant
the City of Manila, not as its patrimonial property. At most, only the northern made by Act No. 1360 of the reclaimed land to the City of Manila is a grant of
portion reserved as a hotel site could be said to be patrimonial property for, by a “public” nature. Such grants have always been strictly construed against the
express statutory provision it could be disposed of, and the title thereto would grantee because it is a gratuitous donation of public money or resources,
revert to the City should the grantee fail to comply with the terms provided by which resulted in an unfair advantage to the grantee. In the case at bar, the
area reclaimed would be filled at the expense of the Insular Government and
without cost to the City of Manila. Hence, the letter of the statute should be
narrowed to exclude matters which, if included, would defeat the policy of
legislation.

LATIN MAXIM: 2a, 6c, 9a, 36b, 37, 43

143 Almeda v. Florentino Case No. 10 G.R. No.L-23800 (December 21, 1965)
Chapter VI, Page 265, Footnote No. 67

FACTS: RA183, the charter of Pasay City (enacted June 21, 1947), provides
in its Sec. 14 that “the Board shall have a secretary who shall be appointed by
it to serve during the term of office of the members thereof…” On June 18,
1960, RA 2709 amended Sec. 12 of RA 183. On the strength of Par. 2 of Sec.
12 of the Pasay City Charter, as amended, the Vice-Mayor of Pasay City
appointed Petitioner Almeda as secretary of the Municipal Board of said City.
The very next day, the Board refused to recognize Petitioner as its secretary
and, in turn, appointed Respondent Florentino to the position, purportedly
under Sec. 14 of the City Charter. ISSUE: Which law applies on the matter of
the appointment of the Secretary of the Municipal Board of Pasay City? HELD:
The petition was dismissed. There is nothing in RA 2709 that indicates any
intention on the part of the Legislature to repeal, alter, or modify in any way the
provisions of Sec. 14 of R.A 183. Repeals by implication are not favored,
unless it is manifested that the legislature so intended. LATIN MAXIM: 9c, 37,
49, 50