L
Facts:
On June 13, 1990, the municipality of Paranaque passed an ordinance authorizing
the closure of some streets located at Baclaran, Paranaque, Metro Manila and
the establishment of a flea market thereon. By virtue of this Paranaque Mayor
Ferrer was authorized to enter into a contract to any service cooperative for
the establishment, operation, maintenance and management of flea market and/or
vending areas. Because of this purpose, respondent Palanyag entered into an
agreement with the municipality of Paranaque with the obligation to remit dues
to the treasury. Consequently, market stalls were put up by respondent Palanyag
on the said streets.
On September 30, 1990, Brig. Gen
Macasiano, PNP Superintendent of Metropolitan Traffic Command ordered the
destruction and confiscation of the stalls. These stalls were later returned to
Palanyag. Petitioner then sent a letter to Palanyag giving the latter 10 days
to discontinue the flea market otherwise the market stalls shall be dismantled.
Hence, respondents filed with the court a joint petition for prohibition and
mandamus with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction, to which the
petitioner filed his memorandum/opposition to the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction. The court issued a temporary restraining order to
enjoin petitioner from enforcing his letter pending the hearing on the motion
for writ of preliminary injunction.
Issue:
Whether an ordinance issued by the municipality of Paranaque authorizing the
lease and use of public streets or thoroughfares as sites for flea market is
valid?
Held:
Article 424 lays down the basic principle that properties of public domain
devoted to public use and made available to the public in general are outside
the commerce of man and cannot be disposed or leased by the local government
unit to private persons. Aside from the requirement of due process, the closure
of the road should be for the sole purpose of withdrawing the road or other
public property from public use when circumstances show that such property is
no longer intended or necessary for public use or public service. When it is
already withdrawn from public use, the property becomes patrimonial property of
the local government unit concerned. It is only then that respondent
municipality can use or convey them for any purpose for which other real
property belonging to the local unit concerned might lawfully used or conveyed.
Those roads and streets which are
available to the public in general and ordinarily used for vehicular traffic
are still considered public property devoted to public use. In such case, the
local government has no power to use it for another purpose or to dispose of or
lease it to private persons. Hence the ordinance is null
and void.
No comments:
Post a Comment