VICENTA FELIX VDA. DE SALGADO ET AL., PETITIONERS; THE ARANQUE MARKET EXTENSION CHINESE VENDORS ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, MAYOR OF MANILA, …

This is a petition for prohibition, challenging the
constitutionality and validity of Republic Act No. 37 and Municipal
Ordinance No. 3051, and seeking to permanently enjoin respondents from
enforcing said Republic Act and city ordinance.

It appears that the petitioner is an association composed of market
stallholders, most of whom are Chinese, engaged in the business of
selling fresh foodstuff at the Aranque Market Extension. By virtue of a
contract of lease, petitioner erected a market building on the private
property of deceased Julian Salgado, which is immediately adjoining the
Aranque Market owned by the City of Manila. This market has been known
as the Aranque (Dulongbayan) Market Extension. The operation of said
market was licensed by the city in May, 1946, and was operated under
Its supervision and control, in accordance with the ordinances, rules
and regulations governing public markets. Sometime in January, 1948,
petitioner’s Chinese members were served by the City Treasurer with
notices to vacate the market stalls held by them, pursuant to Ordinance
No. 3051 of the City of Manila passed in furtherance of the government
policy enunciated In Republic Act No. 37. The herein petitioner filed a
petition for Prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Manila to
enjoin the herein respondents from enforcing said ordinance. After
hearing, the lower court denied the petition. A motion for
reconsideration which was filed, was also subsequently denied. Hence,
the petition now before this Court.

Republic Act No. 37, passed by Congress on October 1, 1946, provides:

“Sec. 1. All citizens of the Philippines, shall have preference In the lease of public market stall.

“Sec. 2. The Secretary of Finance is hereby empowered to promulgate the
necessary rules to carry Into effect the purposes of this Act.

“Sec. 3. All existing laws or parts thereof contrary to the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.

“Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty seven.”

Ordinance No. 3051 passed by the Municipal Board of Manila on June
13, 1947, declared that “any existing privilege or permission
heretofore granted for the occupancy of a public market stall shall
terminate on June 30, 1947” and that “citizens of the Philippines shall
have preference in the granting of licenses for the occupancy of public
market stalls In accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 37”.

The questions before this Court In the Instant case are: first,
whether or not the Aranque Market Extension in which petitioners are
stallholders, is a public market to the extent of coming within the
purview of Republic Act No. 37 and other legislation pursuant thereto;
and second, whether or not Ordinance No. 3051 is valid and
constitutional in its enforcement of the policy of the government
enunciated in Republic Act No. 37.

Petitioners allege that the Aranque Market Extension is not a
public market within the meaning of all laws, ordinances, orders and
regulations governing public markets because said, market stands on
private property and its building was erected with private funds. This
contention is not well taken. A market is a ‘public market’ when it is
dedicated to the service of the general public and is operated under
government control and supervision as a public utility, whether it be
owned by the government or any instrumentality thereof or by any
private individual. It is settled doctrine that a “public market may be
the object of individual ownership or lease, subject to municipal
supervision and control.” (43 C.J. p. 394.) Thus, If a market has been
permitted to operate under government license for service to the
general public, it is a “public market” whether the building that
houses it or the:land upon which It 1b built be of private or public
ownership. This Is not different from public vehicles or vehicles of
public utility which are so classified whether they be owned by private
individuals or by government instrumentalities. The factors determining
a “public market” therefore, are the purpose or use to which such a
market is dedicated and the authority under which it operates, and not
the fact or status of ownership. It is evident that this is the concept
of “public market” as meant by Republic Act No. 37, otherwise the law
would have specifically narrowed its denomination of “public market” to
those strictly of public ownership. In the Instant case, it has been
proven and admitted that the Aranque Market Extension is dedicated to
the service of the general public and is operating under license of the
City of Manila In accordance with all laws; rules and regulations
governing public markets. Consequently, there is no doubt whatsoever
that the Aranque Market Extension is a public market within the purview
of Republic Act No. 37 and all laws, regulations and ordinances
promulgated in pursuance thereof.

As regards the validity and constitutionality of City Ordinance No.
3051, promulgated in pursuance of Republic Act No. 37, we held in Co
Chiong et al., vs. Hon. Miguel Cuaderno, et al., (46 Off.
Gaz., 4833[1]), that Republic Act No. 37 is valid and constitutional;
hence, City Ordinance No. 3051 is also valid and constitutional it
being a reasonable and valid enforcement of Republic Act No. 37. There
Is nothing in said ordinance that contravenes or exceeds the scope and
purpose of Republic Act No. 37. It simply sets a date on which all
licenses or privileges for the occupancy of market stalls would
terminate, and which is applied to all market stallholders without
discrimination whatsoever. The preference given therein to citizens of
the Philippines in the issuance of new licenses or privileges, is but
the express mandate of Republic Act No. 37.

Petitioner further alleges that the ejectment of its members from
the Aranque Market Extension and the use by Filipino Stallholders
of petitioner’s privately-owned improvements amount to unlawful
confiscation of their property.

It appears, however, of record, in the exhibits Submitted by
petitioner, that on May 14, 1946, petitioner urgently requested from
the Mayor of the City of Manila, permission for its members, “even
temporary” to sell fresh foodstuff at the Aranque Market extension
“pending negotiation by the government with Mr. Julian Salgado as
landowner, in the matter »f lease of the same, as well as outright
purchase of the edifices If necessary, or whatever arrangement that may
be agreed by all parties concerned. * * *” Acting upon this urgent
equest, the acting administrator of city market, issued a memorandum to
the market-master in the Aranque Market to allow he sale of foods in
the Aranque Market Extension “while final arrangement is being
transacted.”

It is clear, therefore, that petitioner was fully cognizant that
the status of its members as stallholders in he Aranque Market
Extension was temporary and conditional. Fully cognizant of this
situation, they cannot now allege that their ejectment would be
confiscatory under the circumstances. Moreover, it is admitted by
petitioner that the City of Manila has allowed them to remove all the
Improvements built by them. If petitioners had failed to provide for
the contingency that now faces them due to the loss of their stalls,
they must suffer the consequences of their unwarranted assumption of
permanency as stallholders in the Aranque Market Extension.

Considering, therefore, that the Aranque Market Extension is a
public market within the purview of Republic Act No. 37 and Ordinance
No. 3051 of the City of Manila which are valid and constitutional
legislation, and considering further that no substantial nor
constitutional rights of petitioners have been unlawfully violated,
this Court hereby dismisses the petition, with costs. It is so ordered.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.