Sanchez, et al.

vs Municipality of Asingan

Facts:

Respondent owns a triangular strip of land between the the municipal school
building and the provincial road. Between 1952 and 1959, petitioners rented said
land and built in the area some temporary stores and buildings made of light
materials. When a new administration took over after 1959, however, the municipal
council passed a resolution converting the land rented by petitioners as public
property. They were sent notice to vacate on or before 15 May 1960.

To prevent respondent municipality from ejecting them in the subject land,

petitioners filed a case of prohibition with the court a quo. Also, petitioner filed an
alternative prayer that should they be ejected, respondent must reimburse them the
rent of the land from 1952 to 1959 amounting to P1,178.20 and pay damages and
attorney’s fees.

Petitioners argued that respondent do not own the subject parcel of land and that
the same is owned by the provincial government. They also invoked the ruling in
Rajos vs. Municipality of Cavite, 30 Phil. 607 as basis of their right to
reimbursement. In the case, the Court ruled that respondent municipality
reimburses the rents paid by petitioner for the use of the public plaza.

The court a quo ruled in favor of respondent municipality.

Issue: Whether or not the parcel of land

1. owned by the Municipality of Asingan
2. is a public property during the time it was rented by petitioners
3. they have a right to reimbursement

Ruling:

The Court affirmed the decision of the court a quo and favored respondent
municipality. It also ordered costs against petitioners.

According to the court, respondent owns the subject parcel of land. Also, the
descriptions in the parcellary map (i.e. it is adjacent to the provincial road) did not
entail or award ownership to the provincial government. Rather, it was simply
stated to locate the parcel of land.

Likewise, petitioners could not claim the rent they had paid and had not right to
reimbursements. Unlike in Rajos vs. Municipality of Cavite where the payment of the
rents were improper as the property involved is public property that is outside the
commerce of man, the rental payment of petitioners were proper. The parcel of land
was a patrimonial property when petitioners were renting it. The property is within
the commerce of man at the time petitioners rented it.