HONORATA B. MANGUBAT, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, CITY MAYOR OF MANILA; M. CUDIAMAT, CITY TREASURER OF MANILA; GAUDENCIO STA. ANA, MARKET ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF MA…

Mangubat versus Villegas

The Case

This is a petition brought by Honorata Mangubat against the City Mayor of Manila, the City Treasurer of Manila, the Market Administrator of the City of Manila, and her nephew Dominador Barredo, contesting who may lawfully occupy a market stall in the Manila Central Market after the death of the original registered holder. The action asks the Court to settle the order of succession to a market stall under the Manila Market Code, and it matters because it fixes, in plain terms, who may succeed a deceased stallholder and who is disqualified from holding a stall at all.

Procedural History

The dispute began before the city authorities. The City Treasurer appears to have ruled in favor of Honorata Mangubat in a separate action, but upon the intervention of the Mayor's Office and a proper investigation, the City Mayor decided that she could not qualify to occupy the stall. Honorata Mangubat then went to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which dismissed her petition and held for the private respondent, Dominador Barredo. She appealed to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law. While the appeal was pending, the Court issued resolutions requiring the parties and the City Officials of Manila to show cause why the appeal should not be declared moot and academic, and later to manifest whether they were still interested in prosecuting the case. The City Legal Officer of Manila manifested that the stall had been registered and occupied since 1975 by one Aurelia Andres, who remained the present holder. The Court required Aurelia Andres to comment, but she filed none, and the parties prayed that the appeal be resolved.

Facts

Market stall PS-16-B of the Manila Central Market was originally registered in the name of Benito Barredo, the husband of Valentina de la Paz and the father of the petitioner, Honorata Mangubat, and of a brother, Pablo Barredo, who died before his father. The respondent, Dominador Barredo, is the son of Pablo Barredo.

Under Section 20 of the Market Code, upon the death of Benito Barredo the right to occupy the stall passed to his surviving spouse, Valentina de la Paz. She continued in occupation until she died at the age of eighty-two. During her lifetime she authorized Dominador Barredo to occupy the stall for her and executed an affidavit passing her right over the stall to her grandson. The petitioner sought to eject Dominador, claiming her mother was too old to engage in business, but an investigation found Valentina still actively in management of the premises and of sound mind.

When the Mayor's Office intervened and investigated, the City Mayor decided that the petitioner could not qualify to occupy the stall because her unmarried daughter, living with her, was already the registered holder of several market stalls in the same market, disqualifying the petitioner under Section 20 of the Market Code from applying for another stall. The trial court dismissed the petition and upheld Dominador Barredo, reasoning that his successional right was better than that of his aunt because the grandmother had lived with him and he had been the supporting member of the family. The petitioner appealed on pure questions of law.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner, Honorata Mangubat, may succeed her mother as stallholder of the market stall.
• Whether or not the private respondent, Dominador Barredo, may succeed the deceased stallholder in the occupation of the stall.
• Whether or not the stall should be declared vacant and opened for new bids.

Applicable Provisions

Section 20 of the Manila Market Code, as amended, provides:

PROVIDED, That if an adjudicated regular stallholder dies, or, becomes physically incapacitated permanently for work, the surviving spouse, if living together, may succeed said adjudicated stallholder to the occupancy of the stalls thereof; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That if the stallholder leaves no spouse, or, is physically incapacitated, the eldest legitimate son or daughter, as the case may be, upon whom devolves the support of the family of the deceased or incapacitated stallholder, shall be the one next in line to succeed said stallholder; AND PROVIDED, FURTHER, That no drawing of lots shall be required in this case, and that this succession in the occupation of market stalls shall be limited to cases where the surviving spouse, son, or daughter, as the case may be, is a citizen of the Philippines.

This provision supplies the order of succession to a market stall and limits it to the surviving spouse and the eldest legitimate son or daughter, which determines whether either claimant here may succeed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the trial court in denying the petitioner the right to succeed her mother as stallholder. At the time of the controversy she was already a stallholder in the same market, and she is therefore disqualified from holding another stall, whether by right of succession or pursuant to a bid, under Section 13 of the Market Code.

On the second issue, the Court reversed the trial court insofar as it sustained the private respondent's claim. For clearly, the private respondent is not one of those granted the right to succeed a deceased stallholder. The provision allows succession only to the surviving spouse, or, in default, the eldest legitimate son or daughter upon whom devolves the support of the family. Dominador Barredo, a grandson, falls outside that enumeration.

On the third issue, the Court noted that the resolution of the City Mayor had declared the stall vacant pursuant to Section 20 of the Code. It accordingly sustained the City Mayor and dismissed the appeal.

Doctrine

The right to succeed a deceased adjudicated stallholder under the Manila Market Code is limited to the persons expressly named: the surviving spouse, if living together, and in default thereof, the eldest legitimate son or daughter upon whom devolves the support of the family. A grandson is not among those granted that right, and no equitable consideration such as cohabitation or support of the family can supply the omission. A person who is already a stallholder in the same market is disqualified from holding another stall, whether by right of succession or pursuant to a bid. When the named successors cannot qualify, the stall is declared vacant and opened for new bids.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed; the private respondent's claim was rejected, the petitioner was denied succession, and Stall Number PS-16-B of the Central Market was declared vacant and open for new bids, with the qualification that the occupancy of Aurelia Andres be respected should she have been holding it pursuant to a valid bid.

Remember This

Memorize the line that succession to a market stall is confined to the surviving spouse and the eldest legitimate son or daughter, and that a grandson is not among them. Examiners use this case to test strict statutory enumeration in market stall succession and the disqualification of an existing stallholder from holding another stall.