Espiritu vs. Municipal Council of Pozorrubio

Town plazas are properties of public dominion devoted to public use, outside the commerce of man, and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties; structures erected thereon, especially market stalls and residences, constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law.

The Municipality of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, had a public market building that was destroyed during the last world war. After Liberation, market vendors constructed temporary stalls and even small residences on a portion of the town plaza, a use merely tolerated by the municipality due to the emergency. The Municipal Treasurer collected fees from these stall owners at the rate of ₱0.25 per square meter per month. In time, the municipal market was fully rehabilitated, but the stall owners on the plaza refused to transfer to the market place. Civic organizations petitioned the Municipal Council for the removal of the stalls, desiring to convert the plaza portion into a children's park, and the Provincial Board and the Secretary of the Interior likewise called attention to the illegality of the structures on the public plaza.

During the last world war, the market building of the town of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, was destroyed. After Liberation, market vendors began constructing temporary and make-shift stalls, even small residences, on a portion of the town plaza. The Municipal Treasurer collected from these stall owners fees at the rate of ₱0.25 per square meter per month. In time, the whole municipal market was rehabilitated, but the owners of the structures on the plaza failed and refused to transfer to the market place.

The Municipal Council of Pozorrubio received petitions from civic organizations such as the Women's Club and the Puericulture Center for the removal of the market stalls on the plaza, which were being used not only as stalls but also for residence purposes, the organizations desiring to convert the portion of the plaza into a children's park. The Provincial Board of Pangasinan likewise presented to the Council a petition from another civic organization of Pozorrubio asking for the removal of the stalls, and the attention of the Council was called to a circular of the Secretary of the Interior regarding the existence of the stalls on the public plaza, said to be illegal.

As a result, the Municipal Council of Pozorrubio enacted Resolution No. 20, Series of 1951, stating that the public market had already been rehabilitated and ordering the occupants and owners of the structures on the plaza to remove their buildings within sixty days from receipt of the resolution. In response, eight of the market stall building owners filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan against the Municipal Council, the Municipal Mayor, and the Chief of Police of Pozorrubio. Pending hearing, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

The case was decided on the pleadings, no evidence having been submitted at the hearing. The trial court found that the fee of ₱0.25 per square meter collected by the Municipal Treasurer was not rent for the portion of the public plaza occupied by the market stalls, as appellants claimed, but rather the market stall fees charged on all vendors in a public market; and that there was absolutely no contract or agreement between appellants and the municipality regarding the renting of the plaza. After the filing of the prohibition petition, two of the eight petitioners informed the trial court that they had been included as petitioners without their consent and asked to be excluded. Pending appeal, appellants voluntarily vacated the public plaza by transferring and removing their buildings to private lots fronting the plaza, and the municipality began constructing concrete fences on the premises formerly occupied by them.

• Existence of a Lease Agreement: Petitioners-appellants claimed that the fee of ₱0.25 per square meter collected by the Municipal Treasurer constituted rent for the portion of the public plaza they occupied, implying a contractual relationship with the municipality that could not be unilaterally terminated.
• Prohibition Against Removal: Petitioners-appellants sought to enjoin the Municipal Council, Municipal Mayor, and Chief of Police from enforcing Resolution No. 20, Series of 1951, which ordered the removal of their structures from the plaza within sixty days.

• Nature of the Public Plaza: Whether the town plaza of Pozorrubio may be occupied by private individuals for the construction of market stalls and residences.
• Existence of a Lease Contract: Whether the collection of fees by the Municipal Treasurer from the stall owners constituted a lease or rental agreement between the appellants and the municipality over the public plaza.
• Mootness: Whether the case had become moot and academic due to the appellants' voluntary removal of their structures from the plaza pending appeal.

• Nature of the Public Plaza: No. Town plazas are properties of public dominion devoted to public use, outside the commerce of man, and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties; structures erected thereon constitute a nuisance subject to abatement.
• Existence of a Lease Contract: No. The fee of ₱0.25 per square meter collected by the Municipal Treasurer was not rent for the plaza but the market stall fees charged on all vendors in a public market, and there was absolutely no contract or agreement between appellants and the municipality regarding the renting of the plaza.
• Mootness: The case had become moot and academic, as appellants voluntarily vacated the plaza and the municipality had begun constructing concrete fences on the premises; however, the Court rendered a formal decision for the satisfaction of the parties and for possible guidance of town officials and residents.

• Nature of the Public Plaza: Town plazas are properties of public dominion, devoted to public use, and must be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties. While temporary occupation of town plazas by private individuals may be tolerated in case of war or during an emergency — as was done in Pozorrubio when the public market was destroyed — once the emergency has ceased, the temporary occupation or use must also cease. Town officials are duty-bound to ensure that town plazas are kept open to the public and free from encumbrances or illegal private constructions. The structures built by appellants on the plaza, especially those used for residence purposes, constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law. The occupation was merely tolerated by the municipality due to the wartime destruction of the market, not granted as a right; appellants' refusal to transfer to the rehabilitated market was without legal basis.

• Existence of a Lease Contract: The trial court found, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the ₱0.25 per square meter fee collected by the Municipal Treasurer was not rent for the plaza portion but the standard market stall fee charged on all vendors in a public market. There was absolutely no contract or agreement between appellants and the municipality regarding the renting of the plaza. The occupation and construction of temporary buildings on the plaza was merely tolerated because of the destruction of the public market during the war. Appellants' continued refusal to transfer to the rehabilitated market — whether to save the trouble and expense of transferring or to continue enjoying the strategic position of their stalls — had no legal foundation.

• Mootness: Appellants voluntarily removed their buildings from the plaza and transferred them to private lots fronting the plaza, and the municipality had already begun constructing concrete fences on the premises formerly occupied by appellants, without any complaint from them or their counsel. The case had thus become moot and academic. The Court could have summarily dismissed the appeal by resolution, especially since appellants failed to file the required comment on appellees' Manifestation. However, the Court deemed it convenient and necessary to decide the case by formal decision for the satisfaction of the parties and for possible guidance of town officials and residents.

• Properties of Public Dominion — Town plazas are properties of public dominion, devoted to public use, and made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the appellants' occupation of the Pozorrubio town plaza was merely tolerated due to the wartime emergency and had to cease once the emergency ended and the market was rehabilitated.

• Nuisance Subject to Abatement — Private structures, especially market stalls and residences, erected on a public plaza constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law. The Court applied this principle to sustain the Municipal Council's order for the removal of appellants' buildings from the plaza.

• Temporary Tolerance During Emergency — While town plazas may be occupied temporarily by private individuals in case of war or during an emergency, such occupation is merely tolerated and must cease when the emergency has ended. The Court found that the municipality's tolerance of appellants' structures was rooted in the destruction of the public market during the war and did not confer any right to continued occupation after the market's rehabilitation.

• "Town Plazas are properties of public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties." — This passage states the ratio decidendi of the case, articulating the canonical formulation of the doctrine that public plazas are outside the commerce of man and cannot be leased to private parties.

• "While in case of war or during an emergency, town plazas may be occupied temporarily by private individuals, as was done and as was tolerated by the Municipality of Pozorrubio, when the emergency has ceased, said temporary occupation or use must also cease, and the town officials should see to it that the town plazas should ever be kept open to the public and free from encumbrances or illegal private constructions." — This passage defines the scope and limits of temporary tolerated occupation of public plazas during emergencies, establishing that such tolerance confers no permanent right.

• Municipality of Cavite vs. Hilaria Rojas, et al., 30 Phil. 602 — Cited as authority for the proposition that town plazas are properties of public dominion, outside the commerce of man, and cannot be disposed of or leased by the municipality to private parties. The Court relied on this as the controlling precedent for the doctrine applied.

Bengzon, Paras, C.J., Padilla, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concurred.