Digested Cases

Vda. De Tantoco v. Muncipal Council of Iloilo [G.R. No. 24950. Marc 25! "92#.$ %&CT' The widow of Tan Toco sued the municipal council of Iloilo for the two strips of land, consisting of 592 sq.m and 59 sq.m with the amount of P42,966.40, which the municipalit of Iloilo had appropriated for widening said street. !"I Ilo# ilo ordered the said municipalit to pa $rs. Tantoco the said amount, plus its interest. %aid &udgment was appealed, appealed, and was affirmed affirmed ' the %upreme !ourt. (n account of lac) of funds the municipalit of Iloilo was una'le to pa the said  &udgment, wherefore wherefore plaintiff had a writ of e*ecution issue against against the propert of the said municipalit, ' +irtue of which the sheriff attached two auto truc)s, one police patrol automo'ile, the police stations on $a'ini street, and in $olo and $andurriao and the concrete structures, with the corresponding lots.   fter notice of the sale of said propert had 'een made the pro+incial fiscal of Iloilo filed a motion with the !"I praing that the attachment on the said propert 'e dissol+ed, that the said attachment 'e declared null and +oid as 'eing illegal illegal and +iolate +iolate the rights rights of the municipa municipalit lit.. To which the !ourt !ourt agree, agree, decla declarin ring g the attac attachm hment ent le+ied le+ied upon upon the afore aforeme menti ntion oned ed prope propert rt of the municipalit null and +oid. $rs. Tantoco appealed the decision of !"I Ilo#ilo. ISSUE

-hether the $unicipal properties can 'e e*ecuted in lieu of the unsatisfied o'ligation HELD

The %upreme !ourt denied appeal and affirmed the decision of !"I Ilo#ilo on the ground that the principle go+erning propert of the pu'lic domain of the %tate is applica'le to propert for pu'lic use of the municipalities as said municipal propert is similar in character. character. The principle is that the propert for pu'lic use of the %tate is not within the commerce of man and, consequentl consequentl,, is unaliena'le unaliena'le and not su'&ect to prescription. /i)ewise, propert for pu'lic use of the municipalit municipalit is not within within the commerc commercee of man so long as it is used used ' the pu'lic pu'lic and, and, consequentl, said propert is also inaliena'le. The rule is that propert held for pu'lic uses, such as pu'lic 'uildings, 'uildings, streets, squares, par)s, promenades, whar+es landing landing places, places, fire engines, engines, hose and hose carriages, carriages, engine engine houses, houses, pu'lic pu'lic mar)ets, hospitals, cemeteries, and generall generall e+erthing held for go+ernmental purposes, is not su'&ect to le+ and sale under e*ecution against such corporation.

 (o)e *. Cua v. v. C& [G.R. No. No. "09+40. (anuar, 2"! "999.$ "999.$ %econd i+ision, $endo1a 3

%&CT' 3ose /. !hua and !o %io ng were lessees of a commercial unit at in 7aclaran, Para8aque for 5 ears. Prior to the e*piration of the lease, the parties discu discusse ssed d the the possi' possi'ili ilit t of renew renewing ing it. it. The The e*cha e*change nged d propos proposal al and counterproposal, 'ut the failed to reach agreement. (n 24 3ul 990, :amon I'arra I'arra filed filed a complain complaintt for unlawful unlawful detainer detainer against against petitio petitioners ners in the $T! Para8aque, $etro $anila, which rendered a decision, gi+ing a period of 2 ears e*tension of occupanc to the petitioner and %io ordering them to pa I'arra 'ac) rentals rentals and a monthl monthl rental rental of P0,000. P0,000.00 00 thereaf thereafter ter until until the e*piration e*piration of e*tension of their occupanc or until the su'&ect premises is actuall +acated. (n appeal ' 'oth parties, the :T! $a)ati ruled that the lease was for a fi*ed period of 5 ears and that, upon its !hua;s and !o %io continued sta in the premises 'ecame illegal. The court ordered !hua and !o %io ng to +acate the premises and to turn o+er possession thereof. !hua and !o %io ng appealed to the !ourt of ppeals, which affirmed the decision of the lower court.