Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    49 Phil 52 TanToco V Muni

    Uploaded by

    Marisse Castaño
    Tan Toco was not compensated for land taken by the municipality of Iloilo for road work. Tan Toco sued and was awarded compensation plus interest, but the municipality did not pay due to lack of funds. Tan Toco then attached municipal properties through a writ of execution. However, the court ruled the municipal properties could not be executed to satisfy the obligation because properties for public use, like those attached, are considered inalienable under the principle that the state is not within commerce. The court affirmed the dissolution of the attachment on the municipal properties.

    Copyright:

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

    49 Phil 52 TanToco V Muni

    Uploaded by

    Marisse Castaño
    35 views2 pages
    Tan Toco was not compensated for land taken by the municipality of Iloilo for road work. Tan Toco sued and was awarded compensation plus interest, but the municipality did not pay due to lack of funds. Tan Toco then attached municipal properties through a writ of execution. However, the court ruled the municipal properties could not be executed to satisfy the obligation because properties for public use, like those attached, are considered inalienable under the principle that the state is not within commerce. The court affirmed the dissolution of the attachment on the municipal properties.

    Original Title

    49 Phil 52 TanToco v Muni

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tan Toco was not compensated for land taken by the municipality of Iloilo for road work. Tan Toco sued and was awarded compensation plus interest, but the municipality did not pay due to lack of funds. Tan Toco then attached municipal properties through a writ of execution. However, the court ruled the municipal properties could not be executed to satisfy the obligation because properties for public use, like those attached, are considered inalienable under the principle that the state is not within commerce. The court affirmed the dissolution of the attachment on the municipal properties.

    Copyright:

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

    49 Phil 52 TanToco V Muni

    Uploaded by

    Marisse Castaño
    Tan Toco was not compensated for land taken by the municipality of Iloilo for road work. Tan Toco sued and was awarded compensation plus interest, but the municipality did not pay due to lack of funds. Tan Toco then attached municipal properties through a writ of execution. However, the court ruled the municipal properties could not be executed to satisfy the obligation because properties for public use, like those attached, are considered inalienable under the principle that the state is not within commerce. The court affirmed the dissolution of the attachment on the municipal properties.

    Copyright:

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

    Tan Toco v.

    Municipality of Iloilo

    49 Phil 52

    FACTS:

    The municipal council of Iloilo, the defendant, is reconstructing or widening the

    road in their town. The plaintiff, Tan Toco was not able to receive a compensation for the

    two strips of land, consisting 592 sq.m and 59 sq.m with the amount of P42,966.40. Hence,

    Tan Toco filed a complaint in Court of First Instance in Iloilo which ordered the said

    municipality to pay the said amount with its interest. The said judgement was appealed and

    affirmed by the Supreme Court.

    However, the municipality is unable to pay to Tan Toco considering on the account

    of lack of funds. As a result, Tan Toco issued a writ of execution against the property of the

    said municipality, by virtue of which the sheriff attached two auto trucks. one police patrol

    automobile, the police stations on Mabini street, and in Molo and Mandurriao and the

    concrete structures with the corresponding lots.

    The provincial fiscal of Iloilo filed a motion upon the notice of the sale of said

    property had been made, in which the Court of First Instance praying that the attachment

    on the said property be dissolved and the said attachment be declared null and void as

    being illegal and violative of the rights of the defendant municipality. It was affirmed; thus,

    the abovementioned properties are null and void, thereby dissolving the said attachment.

    Tan Toco appealed the decision ofCFI Iloilo.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Municipal properties can be executed in lieu ofthe unsatisfied

    obligation.
    RULING:

    The principle governing the property of the public domain of the State is applicable

    to property for public use of the municipalities as said municipal property is similar in

    character, hence, the Supreme Court denied appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court

    of Instance in Iloilo. It is stated on the said principle that State is not within the commerce

    of man and consequently, is unalienable and not subject to prescription. Likewise, the

    property for public use of the municipality is not within the commerce of man so long as it

    is used by the public and consequently, said property is also inalienable. The rule is that

    property held for public uses, such as public buildings, streets, squares. parks. promenades,

    wharves landing places, fire engines, hose and hose carriages, engine houses, public

    markets, hospitals, cemeteries, and generally everything held for governmental purposes,

    is not subject to levy and sale under execution against such corporation.

    You might also like