**The Municipality of Cavite vs. Hilaria Rojas and Tiung Siuko (1915)**
### Facts
The Municipality of Cavite, represented by the Attorney-General, filed a complaint against Hilaria Rojas and her husband, Tiung Siuko, to reclaim a parcel of land leased to Rojas, which was part of Plaza Soledad, a public plaza. The complaint, initiated on December 5, 1911, and amended on March 14, 1912, argued that the lease was ultra vires and void, as the land was intended for public use and outside the commerce of man, thus ineligible for leasing. Despite the defendants’ occupation under a municipal lease agreement requiring quarterly rent and a 60-day vacate notice, the Municipality demanded the land’s restitution, claiming its public use designation left no authority to lease it for private purposes. The defendants countered, asserting their lease-given right to the property and demanding indemnification for the potential dismantling of their constructed house, valued at P3,000.
This case journeyed through the legal system, culminating in the Supreme Court after a trial court’s dismissal of the Municipality’s complaint, which led to an appeal through a bill of exceptions filed by the Attorney-General on behalf of the plaintiff Municipality.
### Issues
1. Whether the Municipality of Cavite had the authority to lease part of Plaza Soledad for private use.
2. Whether the lease agreement between the Municipality of Cavite and Hilaria Rojas was valid.
3. If found invalid, whether Rojas is entitled to compensation for the ordered removal of her house built on the leased land.
### Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court decisively reversed the trial court’s judgment, ruling that:
1. The Municipality of Cavite had no authority to lease part of the public Plaza Soledad for private use, as it was designated for public use and thereby outside the sphere of commercial transactions.
2. The lease agreement between the Municipality of Cavite and Hilaria Rojas was null and void from its inception, as public plazas cannot be the object of contracts for private use.
3. Given the invalidity of the contract, Rojas was not entitled to indemnity for damages potentially suffered from the disassembly of the house she erected on the leased land. However, the Municipality of Cavite was ordered to refund the rentals paid by Rojas.
### Doctrine
**Inalienability of Public Plazas**: Public plazas, being designated for public use, are outside the commerce of man and cannot be leased or otherwise subjected to contracts for private use. A municipality lacks the authority to withdraw such properties from public use for private leasing, making any such agreements null and void.
### Class Notes
– **Ultra Vires Acts** of a Municipality: A municipal act is ultra vires and void if it exceeds the powers conferred by law, particularly if it attempts to dispose of properties designated for public use.
– **Public Use and Inalienability**: Properties designated for public use, such as public plazas, cannot be leased or sold as they are considered outside the commerce of men, based on Articles 344 and 1271 of the Civil Code and the Supreme Court of Spain’s decision on February 12, 1895.
– **Doctrine of Restitution in Null Contracts**: In cases of nullity, parties are required to restore to each other what they have received, as per Article 1303 of the Civil Code. However, indemnification for damages arising from null contracts is not warranted unless expressly covered by law.
### Historical Background
This case highlights the legal nuances involved in the management of public spaces in the Philippines during the early 20th century. It underscores the impermissibility of converting public-use properties into private holdings through leasing or other arrangements, reinforcing the principle of inalienability of communal resources meant for the common good.
Leave a Reply