CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS and PEDRO P.

ROXAS , plaintiffs,
vs.THE CITY OF MANILA and ROBERT G. DIECK, as city
engineer, defendants.
G.R. No. L-3144, 19 November 1907

FACTS:

The parties in the instant case are CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS, joined by her
husband, PEDRO PABLO ROXAS, who was actually her cousin, as plaintiffs,
and the CITY OF MANILA and its then City Engineer, ROBERT G. DIECK.

Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of that parcel of land situated at

Escolta, Binondo District, Manila City, consisting with an area of 658.19
square meters, more or less. Over said lot was a two-storey building long
constructed in 1836 or seventy years ago. Adjoining the subject lot on its
eastern boundary is the San Jacinto or Sibacon canal to the extent of 23.50
meters.

On January 15, 1906, plaintiffs filed their application for a building

license/permit with the Office of the City Engineer of Manila, headed by
defendant Robert G. Dieck. The purpose of which is to effect the
construction of a terrace over the strip of land 3 meters in width between
the main wall of plaintiffs house and the edge of the said canal of Sibacon
or San Jacinto.

City Engineer Dieck refused to grant the license or authorize the

plaintiff to build the terrace. The reason set forth by Engr. Dieck is the
intent to reserve the said strip for the establishment an easement of public
use for the general interest of navigation, flotation, fishing, and salvage,
citing the Law of Waters and the Civil Code.

A similar petition was addressed by plaintiffs to the Municipal Board of

the City of Manila on January 30, 1906 but the same, however, was also
denied. Hence, plaintiff filed the complaint against both the City of Manila
and City Engineer Robert G. Dieck.

In her complaint, plaintiff Ayala de Roxas contend that their ownership

and exclusive enjoyment as the absolute owner over the subject portion for
more than 70 years had been lost and reduced for the benefit the general
public.

What the defendants have therefore done is to prevent the plaintiffs

from continuing to enjoy, use, and freely dispose of such strip of their lot, as
they had been doing up to the time when they applied for a license to
construct a terrace over said strip, and the defendants prevented it with the
intention of establishing a public easement provided for in an ordinance of
their own which they consider is pursuant to the provisions of the Law of
Waters and of the Civil Code in force.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the applicable provision of the Law of Waters and the Civil
Code cited by the defendants prevents the plaintiff the exclusive use of the
subject portion of her own land.
 2
RULINGS:

Notably, the City of Manila had not instituted, priorly or simultanoeously,

any proceedings to expropriate either in part or in whole the subject lot and
for which, indemnify the plaintiff for loss and damage.

Thus, on May 5, 1906, the Court rendered its judgment, that in all
easement of zones for public use, the owner of the property supports the
easement shall be indemnified for loss and damage.

It is, therefore, erroneous to pretend that the right of the owner of the
property bordering upon the stream can be reduced to the level of the
public right. On the contrary he should only be called upon to bear those
burdens which are in the general interest, but not without prior, or
subsequently indemnity.

Pursuant to article 349 of the Civil Code, no one shall be

deprived of his property, except by competent authority and with
sufficient cause of public utility, always after proper indemnity; if
this requisite has not been fulfilled the courts must protect, and eventually
restore possession to the injured party.

Under section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, no legislation

shall be enacted in the Philippine Islands which shall deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The refusal to grant a
license or the enactment of an ordinance whereby a person may be deprived
of property or rights, or an attempt thereat is made, without previously
indemnifying him therefor, is not, nor can it be, due process of law.

The question involved here is not the actual establishment of

an easement which might be objected to by an action in court, but a
mere act of obstruction, a refusal which is beyond the powers of the
city of Manila, because it is not simply a measure in connection with
building regulations, but is an attempt to suppress, without due
process of law, real rights which are attached to the right of
ownership.

Therefore, the defendants were directed to immediately issue a license

in favor of the plaintiff herein, Doa Carmen Ayala de Roxas, to construct
the terrace as aforesaid in accordance with the plan and specification as per
Exhibit A, the said defendants to pay the costs of these proceedings.

FYI

Carmen Ayala de Roxas is the grandmother of Andres Soriano of San

Miguel Corporation.