MACASIANO v. DIOKNO, Mun. of Paranaque, and Palanyag Kilusang Bayan GR 97764 (Aug.

10, 1992)

FACTS: On June 13, 1990, the Municipality of Paranaque passed an Ordinance, which authorized the closure of several streets and the establishment of a flea market thereon. The said Ordinance was approved by the municipal council pursuant to MCC Ordinance 2 series of 1979, authorizing and regulating the use of certain city and/or municipal streets and open spaces as sites for flea market and/or vending area under certain terms and conditions. On June 20, 1990, the municipal council issued a Resolution authorizing the Paranaque Mayor to enter into a contract with any service cooperative for the establishment and operation of flea markets. On Aug 8, 1990, the municipality and Palanyag, a service cooperative, entered into an agreement whereby the latter shall operate, maintain and manage the flea market with the obligation to remit dues to the treasury of the Mun. of Paranaque. Consequently, Palanyag put up market stalls on subject streets. On Sept. 13, 1990, Brig. Gen. Macasiano, PNP Superintendent of the Metropolitan Traffic Command, ordered the destruction and confiscation of stalls along GG Cruz and J Gabrielle St. in Baclaran. These stalls were returned to Palanyag. Thereafter, Macasiano wrote a letter to Palanyag, giving the latter 10 days to discontinue the flea market, otherwise the market stalls shall be dismantled. On Oct. 13, 1990, the Mun. of Paranaque and Palanyag filed a joint petition for prohibition and mandamus with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction. The trial court (Judge Dikono) issued an Order upholding the validity of the Ordinance allowing the use of public streets for the operation of flea markets, and enjoining Macasiano from enforcing his letter-order to Palanyag. Hence, a petition for certiorari was filed by Macasiano thru the OSG. ISSUE: WON an Ordinance or Resolution, issued by the municipal council of Paranaque, authorizing the lease and use of public streets as sites for a flea market is valid HELD: No. The property of provinces, cities, and municipalities is divided into property for public use and partrimonial property (Art. 423, Civil Code). As to property for pulic use, in the provinces, cities, and municipalities, it

consists of the provincial roads, city streets, the squares, the fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for public use paid for by said provinces, cities or municipalities. All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by the Civil Code, without prejudice to the provisions of special laws. In the present case, the streets in question are local roads used for public service and therefore considered public properties of the municipality. Properties of the local government which are devoted to public service are deemed public and are under the absolute control of Congress. Hence, local government has no authority whatsoever to control or regulate the use of public properties unless specific authority is vested upon them by Congress.