Calalang vs.
Williams
G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940
Laurel, J:
Facts:
 Maximo Calalang in his capacity as a private citizen and a
taxpayer of Manila filed a petition for a writ of prohibition
against the respondents.
 It is alleged in the petition that the National Traffic Commission,
in its resolution of July 17, 1940, resolved to recommend to the
Director of the Public Works and to the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications that animal-drawn vehicles be
prohibited from passing along Rosario Street extending from
Plaza Calderon de la Barca to Dasmariñas Street from 7:30 Am
to 12:30 pm and from 1:30 pm to 530 pm; and along Rizal
Avenue extending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street
to Echague Street from 7 am to 11pm for a period of one year
from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic.
 The Chairman of the National Traffic Commission on July 18,
1940 recommended to the Director of Public Works with the
approval of the Secretary of Public Works the adoption of the
measure proposed in the resolution aforementioned in
pursuance of the provisions of the Commonwealth Act No. 548
which authorizes said Director with the approval from the
Secretary of the Public Works and Communication to
promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the
use of and traffic on national roads.
 On August 2, 1940, the Director recommended to the Secretary
the approval of the recommendations made by the Chairman of
the National Traffic Commission with modifications. The
Secretary of Public Works approved the recommendations on
August 10, 1940.
 The Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila
have enforced and caused to be enforced the rules and
regulation. As a consequence, all animal-drawn vehicles are not
allowed to pass and pick up passengers in the places above
mentioned to the detriment not only of their owners but of the
riding public as well.
Issue:
1. Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the
respondents pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act
NO. 548 constitute an unlawful inference with legitimate
business or trade and abridged the right to personal liberty
and freedom of locomotion?
2. Whether the rules and regulations complained of infringe
upon the constitutional precept regarding the promotion of
social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of
all the people?
Held:
1. No. The promulgation of the Act aims to promote safe transit
upon and avoid obstructions on national roads in the interest
and convenience of the public. In enacting said law, the
National Assembly was prompted by considerations of public
convenience and welfare. It was inspired by the desire to
relieve congestion of traffic, which is a menace to the public
safety. Public welfare lies at the bottom of the promulgation
of the said law and the state in order to promote the general
welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property,
and with business and occupations. Persons and property may
be subject to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to
secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State.
To this fundamental aims of the government, the rights of the
individual are subordinated. Liberty is a blessing which should
not be made to prevail over authority because society will fall
into anarchy. Neither should authority be made to prevail over
liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The
paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of
liberty is precisely the very means of insuring its preserving.
2. No. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the
people, the adoption by the Government of measures
calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper
economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community, constitutionally, through the
adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-
constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the
existence of all governments on the time-honored principles of
salus populi est suprema lex.
Social justice must be founded on the recognition of the
necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of
a society and of the protection that should be equally and
evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social
and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and
paramount objective of the state of promoting health, comfort
and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the greatest
good to the greatest number.”
THE PETITION IS DENIED WITH COSTS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.
 Heirs of Mario Malabanan v Republic of the Philippines  Alienable and disposable lands has two categories:
G.R. No. 179987, September 3,2013 a. Patrimonial lands of the state, or those classified as lands of
Bersamin, J: private ownership under Art 425 of NCC without limitation
b. Lands of the public domain, r the public lands as provided by
FACTS the Consti, but limited only to Agricultural lands.
 The property subject of the application for registration is a
parcel of land in Silang Cavite.
 Applicant Mario Malabanan, who had purchased the property
from Eduardo Velazco, claiming that the property formed part
of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, and
that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open,
continuous, uninterrupted, public and adverse possession and
occupation of the land for more than 30yrs, thereby entitling
him to the judicial confirmation of his title.

RTC RULING
 Rendered judgment granting Malabanan’s application for land
registration

 OSG appealed the judgment to the CA, arguing that Malabanan

had failed to prove that the property belonged to the alienable
and disposable land of the public domain

CA RULING
 CA promulgated its decision reversing the RTC and dismissing
the application for registration of Malabanan

ISSUE

HELD

 Land may be classified as either of:

1. Public Dominion, if it is intended for:
a. Public Use
b. Public Service or
c. For Development of the National Wealth

 Land belonging to the state that is not of such character

or although of such character but no longer intended for
public use or for public service forms part of the
patrimonial property of the state

2. Private Ownership
a. Land that is other than part of the patrimonial property
of the state, provinces, cities and municipalities is of
private ownership if it belongs to a private individual

 REGALIAN DOCTRINE – all lands of the public domain belong to

the state; The state is the source of any asserted right to
ownership of land, and is charged with the conservation of such
patrimony.

 All lands not appearing to be clearly under private ownership

are presumed to belong to the state.
 Public Lands remain part of the inalienable land of the public
domain unless the state is shown to have reclassified or
alienated them to private person

 Under Sec 2, Art 12 of the Consti, only agricultural lands of the

public domain may be alienated; all other resources may not
be.