OF MANILA - Defendant G.R. No. L-3144 November 19, 1907
CHRISTIAN PATRICK C. LABAJOY
JD 101 Issue : Whether or not there is a sufficient justification on the refusal of the City of Manila and the City Engineer to issue a license for the construction of a terrace over the strip of land privately owned by herein plaintiff Ayala De Roxas along the canal of San Jacinto or Sibacon. Rules and Regulations O Law of Waters of 1866 Article 160- 164 : The general interest on behalf of which the easement is supported is intended for navigation ; for flotation; for salvage and for fishing ; in all of them the owner of the riverside property supports the easement upon being previously indemnified for loss and damage. Article 154 and 157 : It must be remembered that the law does not grant it along navigable canals and, at all events, the establishment thereof must be preceded by the corresponding indemnity. O July 28, 1866 Supreme Court Decision: Ayuntamientos are not authorized to impose an easement upon private property; therefore, any order thus given cannot be held to have been issued in the exercise of their lawful powers.
O Civil Code Article 349
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 ecentually restore possession to the injured party. ARGUMENTS CITY OF MANILA & CITY ENGINEER (ROBERT G. DIECK) – DEFENDANT
The defendants alleges that the
strips of land is used for discharging and landing goods and as a place of shelter for shipwrecked persons; and for fisherman, therefore there is a need for easement in order for the public to utilize the said property for general welfare. ANALYSIS The easement of a zone for public use authorized by the Law of Waters is solely for navigation, flotation, fishing, and salvage, however, the does not grant it along navigable canals. In a statement by the City of Manila, they have accepted that the property concerned is located on a canal which was held by competent authority to be navigable. Hence there is a valid cause for Ayala De Roxas to ask the court to protect her rights on her property. CONCLUSION Therefore, the easement on the strip of land is not authorized because the law expressly stated that it does not grant easement of a zone on navigable canals.
Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that the City
Engineer and City of Manila should issue the license for the construction of the terrace over the strip of land privately owned by Ayala De Roxas. THE END