Usero v CA Digest

G.R. No. 152115, 26 January 2005

Property Law
Facts: This is a consolidated petition assailing the decision of the Court of Ap
peals (CA).
Petitioners and the private respondent are registered owners of neighboring parc
els of land wherein between the lots is a low-level strip of land with stagnant
body of water. Whenever there is a storm or heavy rain, the water therein would
flood thereby causing damage to houses of the Polinars prompting them to build a
concrete wall on the bank of the strip of land about 3meters from their house a
nd riprapped the soil in that portion.
The Useros claimed ownership of the strip, demanded the halt of the construction
but the Polinars never heeded believing that the strip is part of a creek. Howe
ver, the Polinars offered to pay for the land. As the parties still failed to se
ttle, both filed separate complaints for forcible entry. The Municipal Trial Cou
rt ruled in favor of the petitioner, while the regional trial court reversed and
ordered the dismissal of the complaint and confirmed the existence of the creek
between the lots.
Issue: Whether or not the disputed strip of land is part of the creek hence part
of public domain
Held: YES. Art. 420 of the Philippine New Civil Code (NCC) provides for properti
es which are part of public domain. A creek is included in the phrase "and other
s of similar character". A creek, which refers to a recess or arm of a river is
a property belonging to the public domain, therefore not susceptible of private
ownership. Being a public water, it cannot be registered under the Torrens syste
m under the name of any individual.
Viuda de Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of
Iloilo
Iloilo was sentenced to pay Tan Toco
compensation for properties taken from her
and used for street-widening. Because Iloilo
had no money, Tan Toco caused a writ of
execution to be issued against municipal
property: street sprinkling trucks, police cars,
police stations, and markets.
Iloilo s defense is that the properties are
public and exempt from execution.
HELD: The properties are public and exempt
from execution.
The vehicles and the police station all serve
governmental functions. The market, though
not purely public is also exempt because it
would allow a third party to the franchise
agreement to assume control without the
approval of the administration.
Under the Law of Municipal Corporations,
it is enough that the property be devoted
for governmental purposes for it to be
classified as public.

Province of Zamboanga v. City of

Zamboanga
Zamboanga City ceased to become the
provincial capital and a law was passed
declaring the province s property located
within the city to be transferred to the city
free of charge. The properties were the capital
site, hospitals, playgrounds, and schools
ISSUE: Whether Congress can transfer the
properties to the City without compensating
the province.
HELD: Yes; the properties are public and
subject to the absolute control of Congress.
If the province owns the properties in it public
and governmental capacity, the property is
public and Congress has absolute control over
it.
Salas v. Jarencio
L-29788, August 30, 1972
FACTS: The City of Manila had a Torrens Title over a 7,490-square-meter lot. The
municipal Board of Manila requested the President of the Philippines to have th
e lot declared as patrimonial property of the City so that it could be sold by t
he City to the actual occupants of the lot. In 1964, Congress enacted Republic A
ct 4118 whereby the lot was made disposable or alienable land of the State (not
of the City), and its disposal was given to a national government entity, the La
nd Tenure Administration.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act of the National Government in giving the disposal
of the lot in question to the Land Tenure Administration can be lawfully done.
HELD: Yes. There being no proof that the lot had been acquired by the City with
its own funds, the presumption is that it was given to it by the State IN TRUST
for the benefit of the inhabitants. Residual control remained in the State, and
therefore the STATE can lawfully dispose of the lot. Thus, Republic Act 4118 is
valid and constitutional and this is so even if the City of Manila will receive
NO COMPENSATION from the State.
CEBU OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE CO. V. BERCILLES
66 SCRA 431
FACTS:
The land sought to be registered
f a street. Through a resolution, it
not part of the City development plan.
c bidding and petitioner was the
register said land but his application

in this case was formerly a part o

was declared to be an abandoned road and
Thereafter, it was sold through a publi
highest bidder.
He then sought to
was dismissed.

HELD:
The portion of the city street subject to petitioner s application for r
egistration of title was withdrawn from public use.
Then it follows
that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property of the State.

It is also very clear from the Charter that property thus withdrawn from pub
lic servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other
real property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed.
or
FACTS: In 1968, a terminal portion of a street in Cebu was excluded in the city s
development plan hence the council declared it as abandoned and was subsequently
opened for public bidding. Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co., Inc. was the highest bi
dder at P10,800.00. Cebu Oxygen applied for the land s registration before CFI Ce
bu but the provincial fiscal opposed it, so did the court later through Judge Pa
scual Bercilles, as it was ruled that the road is part of the public domain henc
e beyond the commerce of man.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cebu Oxygen can validly own said land.
HELD: Yes. Under Cebu s Charter (RA 3857), the city council may close any city road
, street or alley, boulevard, avenue, park or square. Property thus withdrawn fr
om public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real
property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed. Since that port
ion of the city street subject of Cebu Oxygen s application for registration of ti
tle was withdrawn from public use, it follows that such withdrawn portion become
s patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary contract.
Article 422 of the Civil Code expressly provides that Property of public dominion
, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part
of the patrimonial property of the State.
MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL, BULACAN,
petitioner,vs.
HONORABLE OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ,