Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    Dacanay V. Asistio (1992) : Topic: Outside The Commerce of Man

    Uploaded by

    Maria Analyn
    Public respondents violated Petitioner Dacanay's right to use public streets by leasing them to private vendors through ordinances without legal authority to do so, as public streets are considered property for public use under Philippine property law and outside the commerce of man. While respondents have responsibilities to constituents, they cannot contravene law or deprive public access. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Petitioner, finding the ordinances unauthorized.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dacanay V. Asistio (1992) : Topic: Outside The Commerce of Man

    Uploaded by

    Maria Analyn
    57 views7 pages
    Public respondents violated Petitioner Dacanay's right to use public streets by leasing them to private vendors through ordinances without legal authority to do so, as public streets are considered property for public use under Philippine property law and outside the commerce of man. While respondents have responsibilities to constituents, they cannot contravene law or deprive public access. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Petitioner, finding the ordinances unauthorized.

    Original Description:

    Property

    Original Title

    Dacanay v Asistio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Public respondents violated Petitioner Dacanay's right to use public streets by leasing them to private vendors through ordinances without legal authority to do so, as public streets are considered property for public use under Philippine property law and outside the commerce of man. While respondents have responsibilities to constituents, they cannot contravene law or deprive public access. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Petitioner, finding the ordinances unauthorized.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    57 views7 pages

    Dacanay V. Asistio (1992) : Topic: Outside The Commerce of Man

    Uploaded by

    Maria Analyn
    Public respondents violated Petitioner Dacanay's right to use public streets by leasing them to private vendors through ordinances without legal authority to do so, as public streets are considered property for public use under Philippine property law and outside the commerce of man. While respondents have responsibilities to constituents, they cannot contravene law or deprive public access. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Petitioner, finding the ordinances unauthorized.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 7

    DACANAY V.

    ASISTIO (1992) Topic:


    Outside the Commerce of Man
    ISSUE
    CONCLUSION RULES
    CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
    CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
    CONCLUSION

    Whether or not public respondents (city officials) may lease or license public streets or
    thoroughfares to private respondents (market stallholders) through a city ordinance

    Petitioner Dacanay asserts that his right to use the public place as a resident of the disputed area
    is violated by public respondents’ actions of leasing to private respondents.
    ISSUE
    CONCLUSION RULES
    CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
    CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
    CONCLUSION

    • Art. 420, New Civil Code – property of public dominion


    • Art. 424, New Civil Code – property for public use
    • MMC Ordinance No. 79-02 (1979) – designated some city and municipal streets as venues for flea
    markets
    • Local Government Code, Sec. 185, par. 4 – powers of the City Engineer
    • RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Sec. 3(e) – causing undue injury to any part or giving
    any private party unwarranted benefits
    • Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas (30 Phil 602) - Property of public dominion, cannot be alienated, leased,
    or otherwise be the object of a contract.
    • Insular Government v. Aldecoa (19 Phil 505) – Property of public dominion cannot be acquired by
    prescription.
    • City of Manila v. Insular Government (10 Phil 327) – Municipalities cannot acquire property of public
    dominion for use as communal lands against the State.
    • Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo (49 Phil 52) – Property of public dominion cannot be subject to
    attachment and execution.
    • Baguio Citizens Action Inc. v. The City Council (121 SCRA 368) – An ordinance legalizing the occupancy
    of squatters of public land is null and void.
    ISSUE
    CONCLUSION RULES
    CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
    CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
    CONCLUSION

    Property in dispute:
    Flea market stalls located at Heroes del 96 Street where Petitioner Dacanay resides

    Petitioner: Respondents:
    Francisco U. Dacanay Caloocan City Mayor Asistio
    Caloocan City Engineer Sarne
    Stallholders of flea market
    ISSUE
    CONCLUSION RULES
    CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
    CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
    CONCLUSION

    In 1979, pursuant to an ordinance, Caloocan city mayor opened flea markets. He


    issued licenses to private respondents (vendors) to conduct vending activities in certain
    streets.

    Eight years later, the OIC Mayor caused the demolition of the stalls. Private
    respondents then filed for a writ of preliminary injunction; the RTC ultimately ruled
    against them – the streets are of public dominion, hence, outside the commerce of
    man.

    However, when the court decision came out, respondent Mayor Asistio did not
    continue his successor’s policy of cleaning up the streets.

    Petitioner Dacanay, a resident living in the disputed area, filed for mandamus to
    compel public respondents to remove the market stalls and private respondents to
    vacate the streets. He also filed complaints with the Ombudsman
    ISSUE
    CONCLUSION RULES
    CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
    CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
    CONCLUSION

    Petitioner: Dacanay Respondents: Caloocan City public


    officials and vendors/stallholders
    Deprivation of his right to use the public Moral and social responsibility to their
    space constituents
    Lower court decision re classification of Transfer to the disputed area for the flea
    streets markets was pursuant to MMC Ordinance
    and later on a Municipal EO
    Public respondents violated Sec. 3(e) of RA LGC also gives discretion to City Engineer
    3019 and Mayor
    ISSUE
    CONCLUSION RULES
    CONCLUSION ANALYSIS
    CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
    CONCLUSION
    On the basis of Property law, Petitioner Dacanay has stronger arguments because:

    • Public streets are for public purposes; they are property of public dominion and hence, are outside the
    commerce of man (Art. 420, 424)
    • Disputed areas are considered as public streets, as found by the lower court. They are property of public
    dominion; hence, they are outside the commerce of man. As such, the following principles apply:
    • Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas: They cannot be alienated, leased, or be the object of contracts.
    • Insular Government v. Aldecoa: They cannot be acquired by prescription.
    • City of Manila v. Insular Government: Municipalities cannot acquire them for use as communal lands
    against the State.
    • Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo: – They cannot cannot be subject to attachment and execution.
    • Baguio Citizens Action Inc. v. The City Council (121 SCRA 368) – An ordinance legalizing the occupancy
    of squatters of public land is null and void.
    • Private respondent’s licenses are null and void for being issued by public respondents without authority to
    do so (Baguio Citizens Action v. The City Council). The city mayor cannot contravene the law for the interests of
    a few people.

    You might also like