Manila lodge vs ca

It should be noted, however, that properties of provinces and towns for public use are governed by the same principles as properties of the same character belonging to the public domain. Said Original Certificate of Title cannot be considered as an incontrovertible declaration that the Elks Club was in truth and in fact the owner of such boundary lot.

It is sufficient that it be intended to be such. We hold that it is of public dominion, intended for public use. The failure of the Proclamations to include the subject property in the reservation for park site could not change the character of the subject property as originally for public use and to form part of the Luneta Park.

The total area reclaimed was a little over 25 hectares. To sustain such contention is to beg the question. The City of Manila applied for the registration of the reclaimed area, and on January 20,O. To so construe the statute as to render the term "authorize," which is repeatedly used by the statute, superfluous would violate the elementary rule of legal hermeneutics that effect must be given to every word, clause, and sentence of the statute and that a statute should be so interpreted that no part thereof becomes inoperative or superfluous.

Is it of public ownership dominion or of private ownership? These are also property of public ownership devoted to public use, according to Article of the Civil Code of Spain.

Property, however, is either of public ownership or of private ownership. The grant made by Act No. Fourthly, Actas amended, authorized the lease or sale of the northern portion of the reclaimed area as a hotel site. Burnham as "a general outline for the extension and improvement of the Luneta in the City of Manila" be adopted; that "the reclamation from the Bay of Manila of the land included in said projected Luneta extension This contention cannot be seriously defended in the light of the doctrine repeatedly enunciated by this Court that the Government is never estopped by mistakes or errors on the part of its agents, and estoppel does not apply to a municipal corporation to validate a contract that is prohibited by law or is against public policy, and the sale of July 13, executed by the City of Manila to Manila Lodge was certainly a contract prohibited by law.

The reclaimed area was to form part of the Luneta extension. In the case at bar, there has been no such explicit or unequivocal declaration It should be noted, furthermore, anent this matter, that courts are undoubted v not.

If the reclaimed area were patrimonial property of the City, the latter could dispose of it without need of the authorization provided by the statute, and the authorization to set aside The City of Manila applied for the registration of the reclaimed area, and on January 20,O.

The inexistence of said sale can be set up against anyone who asserts a right arising from it, not only against the first vendee, the Manila Lodge No.

Such mention as boundary owner is not a means of acquiring title nor can it validate a title that is null and void. It remained in such a state until when the Government undertook the dredging of the Vitas estuary and dumped the sand and silt from estuary on the low lands completely submerged in water, thereby gradually forming the lots in question.

In its appeal docketed as CA-G. Neither has petitioner TDC pointed to any other law that authorized the City to do so, nor have we come across any. The court consequently declared that the sale of the subject land by the City of Manila to Manila Lodge No.

We have demonstrated ad satietatem that the Luneta extension was intended to be property of the City of Manila for public use.View Notes - 14 Manila Lodge No vs CA from ENTREP at Cavite State University - Bacoor Campus. FIRST DIVISION G.

R. No. L September 30, MANILA LODGE NO.BENEVOLENT AND. The Philippine Commission enacted Act No.

which authorized the City of Manila to reclaim a portion of Manila Bay. Manosca vs. CA G.R. NO.January 29, Manila Lodge No. v. Court of Appeals; Butuan Sawmill, Inc. v. City of Butuan; Tenorio v. Manila Railroad Co. SUPREME COURT Manila. FIRST DIVISION. G.

R. No. L September 30, MANILA LODGE NO.BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF THE ELKS, INC., petitioner, vs. Essays - largest database of quality sample essays and research papers on Manila Lodge Vs Ca.

BENEVELONT & PROTECTIVE ORDER OF THE ELKS V CA CASTRO; September 30, NATURE Petitions for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals FACTS - On June 26, the Philippine Commission enacted Act No. which authorized the City of Manila to reclaim a portion of Manila 1/5(1).

manila lodge no. vs ca article manila lodge no.benevolent and protective order of the elks, inc., petitioner, vs. the honorable court of appeals, city of manila, and tarlac development corporation, respondents.

Manila lodge vs ca
Rated 4/5 based on 5 review