Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo (1926)

    Uploaded by

    Jude Fanila
    The petitioner sued the municipal council for non-payment stemming from an eminent domain case where the municipality appropriated two strips of land owned by the petitioner to widen a street. When the municipality was unable to pay the judgment amount, the sheriff levied some municipal property to satisfy the judgment. However, the fiscal challenged this as void, arguing the property was exempt as it was for public use. The court affirmed this, finding that property owned by municipalities for public use, like roads and streets, is considered part of the public domain and therefore inalienable and not subject to attachment or execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo (1926)

    Uploaded by

    Jude Fanila
    64 views2 pages
    The petitioner sued the municipal council for non-payment stemming from an eminent domain case where the municipality appropriated two strips of land owned by the petitioner to widen a street. When the municipality was unable to pay the judgment amount, the sheriff levied some municipal property to satisfy the judgment. However, the fiscal challenged this as void, arguing the property was exempt as it was for public use. The court affirmed this, finding that property owned by municipalities for public use, like roads and streets, is considered part of the public domain and therefore inalienable and not subject to attachment or execution.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner sued the municipal council for non-payment stemming from an eminent domain case where the municipality appropriated two strips of land owned by the petitioner to widen a street. When the municipality was unable to pay the judgment amount, the sheriff levied some municipal property to satisfy the judgment. However, the fiscal challenged this as void, arguing the property was exempt as it was for public use. The court affirmed this, finding that property owned by municipalities for public use, like roads and streets, is considered part of the public domain and therefore inalienable and not subject to attachment or execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    64 views2 pages

    Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo (1926)

    Uploaded by

    Jude Fanila
    The petitioner sued the municipal council for non-payment stemming from an eminent domain case where the municipality appropriated two strips of land owned by the petitioner to widen a street. When the municipality was unable to pay the judgment amount, the sheriff levied some municipal property to satisfy the judgment. However, the fiscal challenged this as void, arguing the property was exempt as it was for public use. The court affirmed this, finding that property owned by municipalities for public use, like roads and streets, is considered part of the public domain and therefore inalienable and not subject to attachment or execution.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VIUDA DE TAN Toco, plaintiff and appellant,

    vs.
    THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO, defendant, and appellee.

    Digest Author: Jude Fanila


    Topic: Classifications of Property – Based on Ownership – State Property
    Case Summary: Petitioner, Viuda de Tan was the owner of two strips of land in Iloilo that was
    expropriated by respondent, Municipal Council of Iloilo for street widening. Viuda won in the CFI,
    subsequent writ of execution led to the sheriff levying municipal property.
    CFI overturned the sale of the municipal property, declaring that it was for public use and therefore
    couldn’t be the subject of attachment and execution.
    SC affirmed the CFI decision, property for public use of the State is inalienable.
    Petitioners: VIUDA DE TAN Toco
    Respondents: THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF ILOILO
    Doctrines Involved: Property for public use of the State is not within the commerce of man and,
    consequently, is inalienable and not subject to prescription.

    Facts
    1. Petitioner, Viuda is the widow of Tan toco sued municipal council of Iloilo for non-payment of
    eminent domain case covering two strips of land which was appropriated to widen a street.
    Aggregate amount of P42, 966.0.
    a. Due to lack of available funds, the municipality was unable to pay the judgment. - led to
    sheriff levying some municipal property, auto trucks for street sprinkling + police patrol
    mobile + police stations along Mabini + Molo and Mandurriao streets and lots which
    were used as markets.
    2. Fiscal of Iloilo challenged attachment, argued it was void – CFI ruled that it was void,
    subsequently dissolved the attachment.
    3. Led to current appeal.
    Issues
    1. W/N property is exempt from execution? – YES
    a. Under Sec. 2165 of the Administrative codes, Municipalities are corporations, thus
    juridical entities. Under Art. 343 of CC properties of municipalities that are for public use
    are considered as part of the public domain.
    i. Covers roads, foot-paths, squares, streets, fountains and public waters, drives and
    public improvements of general benefit.
    b. Public use determined by the usage and purposes by which property is held. If property is
    held for public uses which means generally governmental purposes, then public domain.
    However, even if such property is temporarily used for private purposes if public use is
    not abandoned it still cannot be subject to execution.
    i. Public domain includes taxes and public revenues because the same are essential
    for governmental work.

    RULING

    By virtue of all the foregoing, the judgment appealed from should be and is hereby
    affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
    CFI AFFIRMED.
    Notes

    You might also like