Dacanay v. Asistio, 208 SCRA 404 (Digested Case)

Re: Closure and opening of roads thru an ordinance (Sec. 21)

FACTS: Metropolitan Manila Commission, enacted an ordinance designating certain city and municipal streets, roads and open spaces as sites for flea markets. Pursuant, thereto, the Caloocan City mayor opened up seven (7) flea markets in that city. Upon application of vendors,  the respondents city mayor and city engineer, issued them licenses to conduct vending activities on said street. In 1987, Antonio Martinez, as OIC city mayor of Caloocan City, caused the demolition of the market stalls on affected areas. To stop Martinez from clearing the sreets, stallowners filed an action for prohibition. However, shortly after the decision came out in favor of the OIC mayor, the city administration in Caloocan City changed hands. City Mayor Macario Asistio, Jr., as successor of Mayor Martinez, did not pursue the latter's policy of clearing and cleaning up the city streets. Dacanay filed the present petition for mandamus, praying that the public respondents be ordered to enforce the final decision which upheld the city mayor's authority to order the demolition of market stalls on affected streets and to enforce P.D. No. 772 and other pertinent laws.

ISSUES: WON public dominions may be leased or be subjects to contracts.

HELD: No. There is no doubt that the disputed areas from which the private respondents' market stalls are sought to be evicted are public streets, as found by the trial court in Civil Case No. C-12921. A public street is property for public use hence outside the commerce of man (Arts. 420, 424, Civil Code). Being outside the commerce of man, it may not be the subject of lease or other contract (Villanueva et al. vs. Castañeda and Macalino, 15 SCRA 142, citing the Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas, 30 SCRA 602; Espiritu vs. Municipal Council of Pozorrubio, 102 Phil. 869; and Muyot vs. De la Fuente, 48 O.G. 4860). As the stallholders pay fees to the City Government for the right to occupy portions of the public street, the City Government, contrary to law, has been leasing portions of the streets to them. Such leases or licenses are null and void for being contrary to law. The right of the public to use the city streets may not be bargained away through contract. The interests of a few should not prevail over the good of the greater number in the community whose health, peace, safety, good order and general welfare, the respondent city officials are under legal obligation to protect.