MunicipalityofParaaquevsV.M.

RealtyCorporationGR127820(July20,1998)
PostedonOctober4,2012
G.R.No.127820
292SCRA676
July20,1998
Facts:
PursuanttoSangguniangBayanResolutionNo.9395,Seriesof1993,theMunicipalityofParaaquefileda
ComplaintforexpropriationagainstV.M.RealtyCorporation,overtwoparcelsofland.Allegedly,thecomplaintwas
filedforthepurposeofalleviatingthelivingconditionsoftheunderprivilegedbyprovidinghomesforthehomeless
throughasocializedhousingproject.Petitioner,pursuanttoitsSangguniangBayanResolutionNo.577,Seriesof
1991,previouslymadeanoffertoenterintoanegotiatedsaleofthepropertywithprivaterespondent,whichthelatter
didnotaccept.TheRTCauthorizedpetitionertotakepossessionofthesubjectpropertyuponitsdepositwiththeclerk
ofcourtofanamountequivalentto15%ofitsfairmarketvalue.PrivateRespondentfiledananswerallegingthat(a)
thecomplaintfailedtostateacauseofactionbecauseitwasfiledpursuanttoaresolutionandnottoanordinanceas
requiredbyRA7160;and(b)thecauseofaction,ifany,wasbarredbyapriorjudgmentorresjudicata.Onprivate
respondentsmotion,itsanswerwastreatedasamotiontodismiss.Thetrialcourtdismissedthecomplaint
Issue:
WhetheraLocalGovernmentUnitcanexerciseitspowerofeminentdomainpursuanttoaresolutionbyitslaw
makingbody.
Held:
UnderSection19,ofthepresentLocalGovernmentCode(RA7160),itisstatedasthefirstrequisitethatLGUscan
exerciseitspowerofeminentdomainifthereisanordinanceenactedbyitslegislativebodyenablingthemunicipal
chiefexecutive.Aresolutionisnotanordinance,theformerisonlyanopinionofalawmakingbody,thelatterisa
law.ThecasecitedbyPetitionerinvolvesBP337,whichwasthepreviousLocalGovernmentCode,whichis
obviouslynolongerineffect.RA7160prevailsovertheImplementingRules,theformerbeingthelawitselfandthe
latteronlyanadministrativerulewhichcannotamendtheformer.
HeirsoftheEstateofJBLReyesvsCityofManila
PostedonDecember6,2012
422SCRA550
February13,2004
FACTS:
PetitionersacquiredafavorablejudgmentofevictionagainstrespondentsAbiogandMaglonso.In1998,thesaid
judgmentsbecamefinalandexecutory.Consequently,writsofexecutionwereissued.
Duringthependencyofthecomplaintsforunlawfuldetainer,respondentCityfiledacasefortheexpropriationofthe
samepropertiesinvolvedintheejectmentcases.
ThetrialcourtallowedrespondentCitytotakepossessionoftheproperty;itdeniedthemotionsforinterventionand
injunction,and,afterallowingrespondentCitytoopposethemotiontodismiss,dismissedthecomplaintfor
expropriation.
Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourtandfoundthatrespondentCityproperlyexerciseditsrightto
expropriatethesubjectproperties.PetitionersappealedtheCAdecisiontothisCourt.Thereafter,onmotionof
respondentoccupants,theCourtofAppealsissuedprotectiveordersthatrequiredthepartiestomaintainthestatusquo
(prohibitinganyejectment)pendingthisCourtsresolutionoftheappeal.
PetitionernowquestionsthelegalityoftheCAsexpropriationorderandtheproprietyofitsactenjoiningthe
executionofthefinaljudgmentsintheejectmentcases.
ISSUES:
WhethertherespondentCitymaylegallyexpropriatethesubjectproperties,consideringthatanegativefindingwill
necessarilymoottheissueoftheproprietyoftheprotectiveordersoftheCourtofAppeals.
DidthecityofManilacomplywithRA7279(Secs.910)whenitexpropriatedpetitionersproperties?
HELD:

WhetherrespondentCitydeprivedpetitionersoftheirpropertywithoutdueprocessoflawdependsonwhetherit
compliedwiththelegalrequirementsforexpropriation.BeforerespondentCitycanexerciseitspowerofeminent
domain,thesamemustbesanctionedandmustnotviolateanylaw.
Alocalgovernmentunitcanonlyexercisepowersgrantedtoitbythelegislaturesinceitisonlyamerecreationofthe
latter.
BasisofManilaCitysexpropriation:
LocalGovtCode:
Sec.19EminentDomain.LGU,throughitschiefexecutive+actingpursuanttoanordinance,mayexerciseEminent
Domainfor:
publicuse/purposeor
benefitofthepoorandthelandless
uponpaymentofjustcompensation.
Provided:
Validanddefiniteofferhasbeenpreviouslymadetotheowner,andwasnotaccepted
LGUmayimmediatelytakepossessionofthepropertyupon
>filingoftheexpropriationproceedings&
>makingadepositwiththepropercourtofatleast15%ofthepropertysfairmarketvaluebasedonitscurrenttax
declaration
amounttobepaidfortheexpropriatedpropertydeterminedbythepropercourt,basedonthefairmarketvalueat
thetimeofitstaking
RA409(RevisedCharteroftheCityofManila):
PowerofManilaCitytoexpropriateprivatepropertyinthepursuitofitsurbanlandreformandhousingprogram.
RespondentCity,however,isalsomandatedtofollowtheconditionsandstandardsprescribedbyRA7279(theUrban
DevelopmentandHousingActof1992).
RA7279:
Sec.9PrioritiesinLandacquisitionAcquirelandsforsocializedhousinginthefollowingorder:
(a)ThoseownedbyGovt,subdivisions,instrumentalities+GOCCsandsubsidiaries
(b)Public,Alienablelands
(c)Unregisteredorabandonedandidlelands
(d)Thosew/indeclaredareasAreasofPriorityDevt,ZonalImprovementSites,&SlumImprovementSitesnotyet
acquired
(e)BLISS(BagongLipunanImprovementSites&Services)notyetacquired
(f)Privatelyownedlands
Prioritiesnotapplywhenonsitedevtisfoundmorepracticable&advantageoustobeneficiaries
LGUgivebudgetaryprioritytoonsitedevtofGovtlands
Sec.10ModesofLandAcquisitioninclude:
CommunityMortgage
Landswapping
Landassembly/consolidation
Landbanking
donationtotheGovt
Jointventureagreement
Negotiatedpurchase
Expropriation
Provided:
Onlyresorttoexpropriationwhenothermodesofacquisitionhavebeenexhausted
Exemptparcelsoflandownedbysmallpropertyowners
RevertandescheatabandonedpropertytotheStateinaproceedinganalogoustoRule91,RoC
Filstreamvs.CourtofAppeals
theabovequotedprovisionsarelimitationstotheexerciseofthepowerofeminentdomain.Privatelandsranklast
intheorderofpriorityforpurposesofsocializedhousing.
expropriationproceedingsaretoberesortedtoonlyaftertheothermodesofacquisitionhavebeenexhausted.

Compliancewiththeseconditions=mandatory>onlysafeguardsofprivatepropertyownersagainstviolationof
dueprocess

RespondentCityfailedtoprovestrictcompliancewiththerequirementsofSections9and10ofRA7279.
>RTC:noallegationsinitscomplaint;noproofduringproceedings
>CA:noshowinginitspleadings.
TheCAwaslikewisesilentonthisspecificjurisdictionalissue.
Thisisaclearviolationoftherighttodueprocessofthepetitionerswhichmustaccordinglyberectified.
ItmustbeemphasizedthattheStatehasaparamountinterestinexercisingitspowerofeminentdomainforthe
generalgood.
Statesrighttoexpropriateprivatepropertyforpublicusealwaystakesprecedenceovertheinterestofprivate
propertyowners.
However,theindividualrightsaffectedbytheexerciseofsuchrightarealsoentitledtoprotection.
Theexerciseofthissuperiorrightcannotoverridetheguaranteeofdueprocessextendedtopropertyowners.
DuetothefatalinfirmityintheCitysexerciseofthepowerofeminentdomain,itscomplaintforexpropriationmust
necessarilyfail.
Thecomplaintforexpropriationisdismissed.ThepetitionersappealfromtheCAisfavorablyadjudicated.
ThepetitionforcertiorariquestioningthevalidityoftheCourtofAppealsresolutionsbecomesmootandacademic.
Filstreamissubstantiallysimilarinfactsandissuestothecaseatbar.
Republicvs.Feliciano(Consti1)
RepublicofthePhilippines,petitionerappellee,vs.PabloFelicianoandIntermediateAppellateCourt,respondents
appellants.
March12,1987
Yap,J:
Facts:
RespondentPabloFelicianofiledacomplaintwiththeCourtofFirstInstanceagainsttheRepublicofthePhilippines,
representedbytheLandAuthority,fortherecoveryofownershipandpossessionofaparcelofland.
ThetrialcourtrenderedadecisiondeclaringLotNo.1tobetheprivatepropertyofFelicianoandtherestofthe
propertyrevertedtothepublicdomain.
Thetrialcourtreopenedthecaseduetothefilingofamotiontointerveneandtosetasidethedecisionofthetrial
courtby86settlers,allegingthattheyhadbeeninpossessionofthelandformorethan20yearsunderclaimof
ownership.
Thetrialcourtorderedthesettlerstopresenttheirevidencebuttheydidnotappearatthedayofpresentationof
evidence.Feliciano,ontheotherhand,presentedadditionalevidence.Thereafter,thecasewassubmittedfordecision
andthetrialcourtruledinfavorofFeliciano.
Thesettlersimmediatelyfiledamotionforreconsiderationandthenthecasewasreopenedtoallowthemtopresent
theirevidence.
FelicianofiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeAppellateCourtbutitwasdenied.
ThesettlersfiledamotiontodismissonthegroundthattheRepublicofthePhilippinescannotbesuedwithoutits
consentandhencetheactioncannotprosper.ThemotionwasopposedbyFeliciano.
Issue:
Whetherornotthestatecanbesuedforrecoveryandpossessionofaparcelofland.
Held:
No
Ratio:
Asuitagainstthestateisnotpermitted,exceptuponashowingthatthestatehasconsentedtobesued,eitherexpressly
orbyimplicationthroughtheuseofstatutorylanguagetooplaintobemisinterpreted.
ThecomplaintinvolveslandnotownedbythestatebutprivatelandbelongingtoFeliciano,hencethegovernmentis
notbeingdivestedofanyofitsproperties.

Manilavs.IAC
FACTS:VivencioSto.Domingo,Sr.deceasedhusbandofplaintiffIreneSto.Domingoandfatherofthelitigating
minors,diedonJune4,1971andburiedonJune6,1971inLot.No.159,BlockNo.194oftheNorthCemeterywhich
lotwasleasedbythecitytoireneSto.DomingofortheperiodfromJune6,1971toJune6,2021.Fullpaymentofthe
rentalthereforofP50.00isevidencedbyareceiptwhichappearstoberegularonitsface.TheburialrecordforBlock
No.149ofManilaNorthCemeteryinwhichsubjectLot.159issituateddoesnotreflectthetermofdurationofthe
leasethereoverinfavoroftheSt.Domingo.
OnJanuary25,1978,thesubjectLotNo.159ofBlock194inwhichthemortalremainsofthelateVivencioSto.
DomingowerelaidtorestwasmadereadyforexhumationinaccordancewithAdministrativeOrderNo.5,Seriesof
1975,datedMarch6,1975.Onthebasisofsuchcertification,theauthoritiesoftheNorthCemeterythenheadedby
defendantJosephHelmuthauthorizedtheexhumationandremovalfromsubjectburiallottheremainsofthelate
VivencioSto.Domingo.,placedthebonesandskullinabagorsackandkeptthesameinthedepositoryorbodegaof
thecemetery.Subsequently,thesamelotinquestionwasrentedouttoanotherlesseesowhentheSto.Domingoswent
tosaidlotonAllSoulsDaytheywereshockedanddismayedthattherestingplaceoftheirdeardeparteddidnot
anymorebearthestonemarkerwhichtheylovinglyplacedonthetomb.IreneSto.Domingowastoldaboutthelease
ofthelottoanotherlesseeandthatshecanlookforthebonesofherdeceasedhusbandinthewarehouseofthe
cemeterywheretheexhumedremainsfromthedifferentburiallotsoftheNorthCemeteryarebeingkeptuntiltheyare
retrievedbyinterestedparties.Whatshewasadvisedtodowassimplyunacceptable;hence,thebereavedwidowcame
tocourtforreliefevenbeforeshecouldformallypresentherclaimsanddemandstothecitygovernmentandtothe
otherdefendantsnamedinthepresentcomplaint.
TheRTCrendereditsDecisioninfavorofthecomplainants.ThedecisionwasappealedtotheCAwhichrendereda
decisionmodifyingthedecisionappealedfrom.
PetitionersallegedintheirpetitionthattheNorthCemeteryisexclusivelydevotedforpublicuseorpurposeasstated
inSec.316oftheCompilationoftheOrdinancesoftheCityofManila.TheyconcludethatsincetheCityisapolitical
subdivisionintheperformanceofitsgovernmentalfunction,itisimmunefromtortliabilitywhichmaybecausedby
itspublicofficersandsubordinateemployees.FurtherSection4,ArticleIoftheRevisedCharterofManilaexempts
thecityfromliabilityfordamagesorinjuriestopersonsorpropertyarisingfromthefailureoftheMayor,the
MunicipalBoard,oranyothercityofficer,toenforcetheprovisionofitscharteroranyotherlaws,orordinance,or
fromnegligenceofsaidMayor,MunicipalBoardoranyotherofficerswhileenforcingorattemptingtoenforcesaid
provisions.TheyallegethattheRevisedCharterofManilabeingaspeciallawcannotbedefeatedbytheHuman
RelationsprovisionsoftheCivilCodebeingagenerallaw.
PrivaterespondentsontheotherhandmaintainthattheCityofManilaenteredintoacontractofleasewhichinvolve
theexerciseofproprietaryfunctionswithprivaterespondentIreneSto.Domingo.Thecityanditsofficerstherefore
canbesuedforanyviolationofthecontractoflease.
ISSUE:WONtheoperationsandfunctionsofapubliccemeteryareagovernmental,oracorporateorproprietary
functionoftheCityofManila.
HELD:Privaterespondents'areright.
UnderPhilippinelaws,theCityofManilaisapoliticalbodycorporateandassuchendowedwiththefacultiesof
municipalcorporationstobeexercisedbyandthroughitscitygovernmentinconformitywithlaw,andinitsproper
corporatename.Itmaysueandbesued,andcontractandbecontractedwith.Itspowersaretwofoldincharacter
public,governmentalorpoliticalontheonehand,andcorporate,privateandproprietaryontheother.Governmental
powersarethoseexercisedinadministeringthepowersofthestateandpromotingthepublicwelfareandtheyinclude
thelegislative,judicial,publicandpolitical.Municipalpowersontheonehandareexercisedforthespecialbenefit
andadvantageofthecommunityandincludethosewhichareministerial,privateandcorporate.InMcQuillinon
MunicipalCorporation,theruleisstatedthus:"Amunicipalcorporationproperhas...apubliccharacterasregardsthe
stateatlargeinsofarasitisitsagentingovernment,andprivate(socalled)insofarasitistopromotelocalnecessities
andconveniencesforitsowncommunity.Inconnectionwiththepowersofamunicipalcorporation,itmayacquire
propertyinitspublicorgovernmentalcapacity,andprivateorproprietarycapacity.TheNewCivilCodedividessuch
propertiesintopropertyforpublicuseandpatrimonialproperties(Article423),andfurtherenumeratestheproperties

forpublicuseasprovincialroads,citystreets,municipalstreets,thesquares,fountains,publicwaters,promenades,
andpublicworksforpublicservicepaidforbysaidprovisions,citiesormunicipalities,allotherpropertyis
patrimonialwithoutprejudicetotheprovisionsofspeciallaws.
ThusinToriov.Fontanilla,supra,theCourtdeclaredthatwithrespecttoproprietaryfunctionsthesettledruleisthata
municipalcorporationcanbeheldliabletothirdpersonsexcontractuorexdelicto.
TheCourtfurtherstressedthatMunicipalcorporationsaresubjecttobesueduponcontractsandintort....Theruleof
lawisageneralone,thatthesuperiororemployermustanswercivillyforthenegligenceorwantofskillofitsagent
orservantinthecourseorlineofhisemployment,bywhichanotherwhoisfreefromcontributoryfault,isinjured.
Municipalcorporationsundertheconditionshereinstated,fallwithintileoperationofthisruleoflaw,andareliable
accordingly,tocivilactionsfordamageswhentherequisiteelementsofliabilitycoexist....
Thecourtaddedthatwhilethefollowingarecorporateorproprietaryincharacter,viz:municipalwaterworks,
slaughterhouses,markets,stables,bathingestablishments,wharves,ferriesandfisheries.Maintenanceofparks,golf
courses,cemeteriesandairportsamongothers,arealsorecognizedasmunicipalorcityactivitiesofaproprietary
character.Undertheforegoingconsiderationsandintheabsenceofaspeciallaw,theNorthCemeteryisapatrimonial
propertyoftheCityofManilawhichwascreatedbyresolutionoftheMunicipalBoardofAugust27,1903and
January7,1904.TheadministrationandgovernmentofthecemeteryareundertheCityHealthOfficer,theorderand
policeofthecemetery,theopeningofgraves,niches,ortombs,theexhumingofremains,andthepurificationofthe
sameareunderthechargeandresponsibilityofthesuperintendentofthecemetery.TheCityofManilafurthermore
prescribestheprocedureandguidelinesfortheuseanddispositionsofburiallotsandplotswithintheNorthCemetery
throughAdministrativeOrderNo.5,s.1975.Withtheactsofdominion,thereis,thereforenodoubtthattheNorth
CemeteryiswithintheclassofpropertywhichtheCityofManilaownsinitsproprietaryorprivatecharacter.
Furthermore,thereisnodisputethattheburiallotwasleasedinfavoroftheprivaterespondents.Hence,obligations
arisingfromcontractshavetheforceoflawbetweenthecontractingparties.Thusaleasecontractexecutedbythe
lessorandlesseeremainsasthelawbetweenthem.Therefore,abreachofcontractualprovisionentitlestheotherparty
todamagesevenifnopenaltyforsuchbreachisprescribedinthecontract.
AsregardstheissueofthevalidityofthecontractofleaseofgravelotNo.159,BlockNo.195oftheNorthCemetery
for50yearsbeginningfromJune6,1971toJune6,2021asclearlystatedinthereceiptdulysignedbythedeputy
treasureroftheCityofManilaandsealedbythecitygovernment,thereisnothingintherecordthatjustifiesthe
reversaloftheconclusionofboththetrialcourtandtheIntermediateAppellateCourttotheeffectthatthereceiptisin
itselfacontractoflease.
Underthedoctrineofrespondentsuperior,(Toriov.Fontanilla,supra),petitionerCityofManilaisliableforthe
tortiousactcommittedbyitsagentswhofailedtoverifyandcheckthedurationofthecontractoflease.The
contentionofthepetitionercitythattheleaseiscoveredbyAdministrativeOrderNo.5,seriesof1975datedMarch6,
1975oftheCityofManilaforfive(5)yearsonlybeginningfromJune6,1971isnotmeritoriousforthesaid
administrativeordercoversnewleases.WhensubjectlotwascertifiedonJanuary25,1978asreadyforexhumation,
theleasecontractforfifty(50)yearswasstillinfullforceandeffect.
ThedecisionoftheIACisherebyAFFIRMED
SANDIEGOVSMUNICIPALITYOFNAUJAN
[107PHIL118]
FACTS:
FollowingapublicbiddingconductedbythemunicipalityofNaujan,OrientalMindorofortheleaseofitsmunicipal
waters,Resolution46waspassedawardingtheconcessionoftheButasRiverandtheNaujanLaketoBartolomeSan
Diego.AcontractwasenteredintobetweenthesaidSanDiegoandthemunicipality,foraperiodofleasefor5
years.Thelesseethenrequestedforafiveyearextensionoftheoriginalleaseperiod,thiswasgrantedbythemunicipal
council.AftertheresolutionhadbeenapprovedbytheProvincialBoardofOrientalMindoro,thelessorandthelessee,
contractedfortheextensionoftheperiodofthelease.ThecontractwasapprovedandconfirmedonDecember29,
1951byResolution229ofthemunicipalcouncilofNaujanwhosetermwasthenabouttoexpire.Pursuanttothe
saidcontract,thelesseefiledasuretybondofP52,000andthenreconstructedhisfishcorralsandstockedtheNaujan
Lakewithbangusfingerlings.OnJanuary2,1952,themunicipalcouncilofNaujan,thistimecomposedofanewsetof
members,adoptedResolution3,seriesof1952,revokingResolution222,seriesof1951.Onthesamedate,thenew

councilalsopassedResolution11,revokingResolution229oftheoldcouncilwhichconfirmedtheextensionofthe
leaseperiod.ThelesseerequestedforreconsiderationandrecallofResolution3,ontheground,amongothers,thatit
violatedthecontractexecutedbetweenhimandthemunicipalityonDecember23,1951,and,therefore,contraryto
ArticleIII,section1,clause10oftheConstitution.Therequest,however,wasnotgranted.Thelesseeinstituted
proceedingstoannultheResolution.Thedefendantassertedthattheoriginalleasecontract,reducingtheleaserentals
andrenewingtheleasearenullandvoidfornothavingbeenpassedinaccordancewithlaw.Thetrialcourtupheld
thevalidityoftheleasecontract.
ISSUE:
WONResolutionNo.3,seriesof1952,revokingResolution222,seriesof1951,ofthemunicipalcouncilofNaujanis
valid
HELD:
YesThelaw(Sec.2323oftheRevisedAdministrativeCode)requiresthatwhentheexclusiveprivilegeoffisheryor
therighttoconductafishbreedinggroundisgrantedtoaprivateparty,thesameshallbelettothehighestbidderin
thesamemannerasisbeingdoneinexploitingaferry,amarketoraslaughterhousebelongingtothemunicipality.The
requirementofcompetitivebiddingisforthepurposeofinvitingcompetitionandtoguardagainstfavoritism,fraudand
corruptioninthelettingoffisheryprivileges.Thereisnodoubtthattheoriginalleasecontractinthiscasewasawarded
tothehighestbidder,butthereductionoftherentalandtheextensionofthetermoftheleaseappeartohavebeen
grantedwithoutpreviouspublicbidding.Furthermore,ithasbeenruledthatstatutesrequiringpublicbiddingapplyto
amendmentsofanycontractalreadyexecutedincompliancewiththelawwheresuchamendmentsalterthe
originalcontractinsomevitalandessentialparticular.Inasmuchastheperiodinaleaseisavitalandessential
particulartothecontract,webelievethattheextensionoftheleaseperiodinthiscase,whichwasgrantedwithoutthe
essentialrequisiteofpublicbidding,isnotinaccordancewithlaw.AnditfollowstheResolution222,seriesof1951,
andthecontractauthorizedthereby,extendingtheoriginalfiveyearleasetoanotherfiveyearsarenullandvoidas
contrarytolawandpublicpolicy.WeagreewiththedefendantinthatthequestionResolution3isnotanimpairmentof
theobligationofcontract,becausetheconstitutionalprovisiononimpairmentrefersonlytocontractlegallyexecuted.
While,apparently,Resolution3tendedtoabrogatethecontractextendingthelease,legallyspeaking,therewasno
contractabrogatedbecause,aswehavesaid,theextensioncontractisvoidandinexistent.
Thelowercourt,inholdingthatthedefendantappellantmunicipalityhasbeenestoppedfromassailingthevalidityof
thecontractintowhichitenteredonDecember23,1951,seemstohaveoverlookedthegeneralrulethatthedoctrineof
estoppelcannotbeappliedasagainstamunicipalcorporationtovalidateacontractwhichithasnopowertomakeor
whichitisauthorizedtomakeonlyunderprescribedconditions,withinprescribedlimitations,orinaprescribedmode
ormanner,althoughthecorporationhasacceptedthebenefitsthereofandtheotherpartyhasfullyperformedhispartof
theagreement,orhasexpendedlargesumsinpreparationforperformance.Areasonfrequentlyassignedforthisruleis
thattoapplythedoctrineofestoppelagainstamunicipalityinsuchcasewouldbetoenableittodoindirectlywhatit
cannotdodirectly.Also,whereacontractisviolativeofpublicpolicy,themunicipalityexecutingitcannotbeestopped
toasserttheinvalidityofacontractwhichhascededaway,controlled,orembarrasseditslegislativeorgovernment
powers.Aspointedoutabove,"publicbiddingsareheldforthebestprotectionofthepublicandtogivethepublicthe
bestpossibleadvantagesbymeansofopencompetitionbetweenthebidders."Thus,contractsrequiringpublicbidding
affectpublicinterest,andtochangethemwithoutcomplyingwiththatrequirementwouldindeedbeagainstpublic
policy.Thereis,therefore,nothingtoplaintiffappellee'scontentionthatthepartiesinthiscasebeinginparidelicto
shouldbeleftinthesituationwheretheyarefound,for"althoughthepartiesareinparidelicto,yetthecourtmay
interfereandgrantreliefatthesuitofoneofthem,wherepublicpolicyrequiresitsintervention,eventhoughtheresult
maybethatabenefitwillbederivedbyaplaintiffwhoisinequalguiltwithdefendant.Butheretheguiltoftheparties
isnotconsideredasequaltothehigherrightofthepublic,andtheguiltypartytowhomthereliefisgrantedissimply
theinstrumentbywhichthepublicisserved."Inconsonancewiththeprinciplesenunciatedabove,Resolution59,series
of1947,reducingtherentalsby20%oftheoriginalprice,whichwasalsopassedwithoutpublicbidding,should
likewisebeheldvoid,sinceareductionoftherentaltobepaidbythelesseeisasubstantialalternationinthecontract,
makingitadistinctanddifferentleasecontractwhichrequirestheprescribedformalityofpublicbidding.
Fernandovs.CA
FACTS:
November7,1975:BibianoMorta,marketmasteroftheAgdaoPublicMarketfiledarequisitionrequestwiththe
ChiefofPropertyoftheCityTreasurer'sOfficeforthereemptyingoftheseptictankinAgdaowhereinBasconwon

November22,1975:bidderBertulanowithfourothercompanionsnamelyJoselitoGarcia,WilliamLiagoso,Alberto
FernandoandJoseFajardo,Jr.werefounddeadinsidetheseptictank.
Thebodieswereremovedbyafireman.
ThebodyofJoselitoGarcia,wastakenoutbyhisuncle,DaniloGarciaandtakentotheRegionalHospitalbuthe
expiredthere.
TheCityEngineer'sofficeinvestigatedthecaseandlearnedtheyenteredtheseptictankwithoutclearancefromitnor
withtheknowledgeandconsentofthemarketmaster.
Sincetheseptictankwasfoundtobealmostempty,theywerepresumedtobetheoneswhodidthereemptying.
Dr.JuanAbearoftheCityHealthOfficefoundthemtohavediedfrom"asphyxia"diminutionofoxygensupplyin
thebodyandintakeoftoxicgas
November26,1975:Basconsignedthepurchaseorder
RTC:Dismissedthecase
CA:Reversedlawintendedtoprotecttheplightofthepoorandtheneedy,theignorantandtheindigent
ISSUE:W/NDavaocityisnegligentanditsnegligenceistheproximatecausethereforecanbeliablefordamages
HELD:NO.CAaffirmed.
testbywhichtodeterminetheexistenceofnegligenceinaparticularcase:
Didthedefendantindoingtheallegednegligentactusethatreasonablecareandcautionwhichanordinarilyprudent
personwouldhaveusedinthesamesituation?Ifnot,thenheisguiltyofnegligence
standardsupposedtobesuppliedbytheimaginaryconductofthediscreetpaterfamiliasoftheRomanlaw
Conductissaidtobenegligentwhenaprudentmaninthepositionofthetortfeasorwouldhaveforeseenthataneffect
harmfultoanotherwassufficientlyprobablewarranthisforegoingtheconductorguardingagainstitsconsequences
Thequestionastowhatwouldconstitutetheconductofaprudentmaninagivensituationmustofcoursebealways
determinedinthelightofhumanexperienceandinviewofthefactsinvolvedintheparticularcase
Reasonableforesightofharm,followedbytheignoringofthesuggestionbornofthisprovision,isalwaysnecessary
beforenegligencecanbeheldtoexist
Distinctionmustbemadebetweentheaccidentandtheinjury
Wherehecontributestotheprincipaloccurrence,asoneofitsdeterminingfactors,hecannotrecover
Where,inconjunctionwiththeoccurrence,hecontributesonlytohisowninjury,hemayrecovertheamountthatthe
defendantresponsiblefortheeventshouldpayforsuchinjury,lessasumdeemedasuitableequivalentforhisown
imprudence
ToiletsandseptictanksarenotnuisancesperseasdefinedinArticle694oftheNewCivilCodewhichwould
necessitatewarningsignsfortheprotectionofthepublic
Whiletheconstructionofthesepublicfacilitiesdemandsutmostcompliancewithsafetyandsanitaryrequirements,the
puttingupofwarningsignsisnotoneofthoserequirements
accidentsuchastoxicgasleakagefromtheseptictankisunlikelytohappenunlessoneremovesitscovers
Consideringthenatureofthetaskofemptyingaseptictankespeciallyonewhichhasnotbeencleanedforyears,an
ordinarilyprudentpersonshouldundoubtedlybeawareoftheattendantrisks.Thevictimsarenoexception;moreso
withMr.Bertulano,anoldhandinthiskindofservice,whoispresumedtoknowthehazardsofthejob.Hisfailure,
therefore,andthatofhismentotakeprecautionarymeasuresfortheirsafetywastheproximatecauseoftheaccident.
proximateandimmediatecauseofthedeathofthevictimswasduetotheirownnegligence.Consequently,the
petitionerscannotdemanddamagesfromthepublicrespondent.
Manilavs.Teotico
22SCRA267CivilLawTortsandDamagesLiabilityofmunicipalcorporationsincertaincases
InJanuary1958,atabout8pm,GenaroTeoticowasabouttoboardajeepneyinP.Burgos,Manilawhenhefellintoan
uncoveredmanhole.Thiscausedinjuriesuponhim.ThereafterhesuedfordamagesunderArticle2189oftheCivil
CodetheCityofManila,themayor,thecityengineer,thecityhealthofficer,thecitytreasurer,andthechiefofpolice.
CFIManilaruledagainstTeotico.TheCA,onappeal,ruledthattheCityofManilashouldpaydamagestoTeotico.
TheCityofManilaassailedthedecisionoftheCAonthegroundthatthecharterofManilastatesthatitshallnotbe
liablefordamagescausedbythenegligenceofthecityofficersinenforcingthecharter;thatthecharterisaspecial
lawandshallprevailovertheCivilCodewhichisagenerallaw;andthattheaccidenthappenedinnationalhighway.
ISSUE:WhetherornottheCityofManilaisliableinthecaseatbar.

HELD:Yes.Itistruethatincaseofconflict,aspeciallawprevailsoveragenerallaw;thatthecharterofManilaisa
speciallawandthattheCivilCodeisagenerallaw.However,lookingattheparticularprovisionsofeachlaw
concerned,theprovisionoftheManilaCharterexemptingitfromliabilitycausedbythenegligenceofitsofficersisa
generallawinthesensethatitexemptsthecityfromnegligenceofitsofficersingeneral.Thereisnoparticular
exemptionbutmerelyageneralexemption.Ontheotherhand,Article2189oftheCivilCodeprovidesaparticular
prescriptiontotheeffectthatitmakesprovinces,cities,andmunicipalitiesliableforthedamagescausedtoacertain
personbyreasonofthedefectiveconditionofroads,streets,bridges,publicbuildings,andotherpublicworks
undertheircontrolorsupervision.
TheallegationthattheincidenthappenedinanationalhighwaywasonlyraisedforthefirsttimeintheCitysmotion
forreconsiderationintheCourtofAppeals,henceitcannotbegivendueweight.Atanyrate,eventhoughitisa
nationalhighway,thelawcontemplatesthatregardlessifwhetherornottheroadisnational,provincial,city,or
municipal,solongasitisundertheCityscontrolandsupervision,itshallberesponsiblefordamagesbyreasonof
thedefectiveconditionsthereof.Inthecaseatbar,theCityadmittedtheyhavecontrolandsupervisionovertheroad
whereTeoticofellwhentheCityallegedthatithasbeendoingconstantandregularinspectionofthecitysroads,P.
Burgosincluded.