Dacanay vs. Asistio, Jr.

Public streets are property for public use and are outside the commerce of man; they cannot be the subject of lease or any other contract that would deprive the public of its right to use them for their intended purpose. Any permit, license, or ordinance purporting to authorize private commercial use of such streets is null and void.

Pursuant to Metropolitan Manila Commission Ordinance No. 79-02, the Mayor of Caloocan City designated certain streets, including Heroes del '96 Street, as sites for flea markets and issued licenses to private stallholders. A resident of Heroes del '96 Street, Francisco U. Dacanay, sought the removal of the stalls. A prior action for prohibition (Civil Case No. C-12921) filed by stallholders against the city was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court, which upheld the city's authority to demolish the stalls, declaring the streets to be of public dominion and outside the commerce of man. Following a change in city administration, the new mayor did not enforce the demolition decision, prompting Dacanay to file the present petition for mandamus.

• Nature of the Action: Petitioner Francisco U. Dacanay, a resident and taxpayer of Caloocan City, filed a special civil action for mandamus to compel the city mayor and city engineer to remove market stalls from public streets and to enforce a prior RTC decision.
• The Ordinance and Designation: On January 5, 1979, MMC Ordinance No. 79-02 was enacted, authorizing the use of certain streets as flea market sites. Pursuant thereto, the Caloocan City mayor opened flea markets on seven streets, including "Heroes del '96," and issued licenses to private vendors.
• Prior RTC Ruling: In Civil Case No. C-12921, stallholders sought to stop the demolition of their stalls. The RTC dismissed the case, ruling that Heroes del '96, V. Gozon, and Gonzales Streets are of public dominion, outside the commerce of man, and that the city engineer, with the mayor's approval, had the authority to order their removal.
• Change in Administration and Inaction: After the RTC decision, a new city mayor, Macario Asistio, Jr., took office and did not pursue the demolition. Petitioner's written demands to the mayor and city engineer to enforce the RTC decision went unheened.
• Ombudsman Complaint: Petitioner filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, which found probable cause for violation of R.A. 3019 due to the officials' inaction.
• Respondents' Justification: The city officials argued the stalls were transferred to decongest a busier street, were established pursuant to a barangay resolution and the MMC ordinance, and served public interest by lessening unemployment and providing affordable goods.

• Duty to Enforce the Law: Petitioner argued that public respondents were legally duty-bound to enforce the final and executory RTC decision in Civil Case No. C-12921 and to clear the public streets of illegal structures.
• Public Streets Outside Commerce: Petitioner maintained that the streets, being for public use, are outside the commerce of man and cannot be leased or licensed to private individuals, rendering the city's permits and the MMC ordinance void.
• Dereliction of Duty: Petitioner contended that the officials' inaction constituted a violation of their ministerial duties under the Local Government Code and other laws, causing undue injury to the public.

• Social and Economic Justification: Respondents countered that the vending area was established to decongest a busier thoroughfare, pursuant to a barangay resolution and the MMC ordinance, and served a public purpose by reducing unemployment and providing affordable goods.
• Regulatory Authority: Respondents argued that the establishment of the flea market was a valid exercise of regulatory power under the MMC Ordinance, which was approved by the Metropolitan Manila Commission.

• Enforceability of Prior Judgment: Whether mandamus lies to compel public officials to enforce a final and executory judgment of a court declaring the occupation of public streets by market stalls illegal.
• Validity of Lease/License over Public Streets: Whether public streets may be leased or licensed to private individuals for commercial use by virtue of a city ordinance or MMC resolution.

• Enforceability of Prior Judgment: The petition for mandamus was proper and granted. A clear legal duty existed for the city officials to enforce the RTC decision and clear the streets, which they had failed to perform. The writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of a ministerial duty.
• Validity of Lease/License over Public Streets: Public streets are property for public use and are outside the commerce of man pursuant to Articles 420 and 424 of the Civil Code. Consequently, they cannot be alienated, leased, or otherwise made the subject of contracts. Any ordinance, resolution, or executive order authorizing such private use is null and void for being contrary to law. The right of the public to use the streets cannot be bargained away.

• Public Property Outside the Commerce of Man — Property for public use, such as streets, squares, and promenades, is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated or leased, acquired by prescription, subjected to attachment, or burdened by easements. The Court applied this doctrine to declare void any lease or license permitting private stallholders to occupy public streets.
• Mandamus to Compel Ministerial Duty — The writ of mandamus lies to compel a respondent to perform a ministerial duty—the law imposes a clear, legal duty on a public officer to act, and there is a corresponding right in the petitioner to demand its performance. Here, the duty to clear public streets of obstructions and enforce a final court judgment was held to be ministerial.

• "A public street is property for public use hence outside the commerce of man (Arts. 420, 424, Civil Code). Being outside the commerce of man, it may not be the subject of lease or other contract."
• "The right of the public to use the city streets may not be bargained away through contract. The interests of a few should not prevail over the good of the greater number in the community whose health, peace, safety, good order and general welfare, the respondent city officials are under legal obligation to protect."

• Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas, 30 Phil. 602 — Cited for the rule that properties for public use may not be leased to private individuals; such a lease is null and void.
• City of Manila vs. Gerardo Garcia, 19 SCRA 413 — Cited for the doctrine that permits granted by city mayors for squatters to occupy public property are null and void.
• Baguio Citizens Action Inc. vs. The City Council, 121 SCRA 368 — Cited for the principle that an ordinance legalizing the occupancy of public land by squatters is null and void.
• Villanueva et al. vs. Castañeda and Macalino, 15 SCRA 142 — Cited for the rule that public streets are outside the commerce of man and cannot be the subject of a lease.

• Articles 420 and 424, Civil Code of the Philippines — Define property for public use and provide that it is outside the commerce of man. Applied to classify the streets as public property that cannot be leased.
• Presidential Decree No. 772 — Cited as mandating the removal of illegal constructions on public property.
• Letter of Instruction No. 19 — Cited as ordering public officials, including mayors and city engineers, to remove illegal constructions on public property.
• Section 185, paragraph 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (Local Government Code) — Cited for the duty of the City Engineer to prevent encroachment on streets and public places and to order the removal of illegal structures.
• Republic Act No. 5502 (Caloocan City Charter), Art. VII, Sec. 27 — Cited for granting the City Engineer similar powers to prevent encroachments and order removals.

Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, Justices Irene R. M. Cortes, Isagani A. Cruz, Edgardo L. Paras, Florentino P. Feliciano, Teodoro R. Padilla, Abdulwahid A. Bidin, Santiago M. Kapunan, Josue N. Bellosillo (took no part), Carolina C. Griño-Aquino (ponente), Leo D. Medialde, Ricardo J. Francisco, and Flerida Ruth P. Romero.