Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CITY OF MANILA
[No. 3144. November 19, 1907.]
Carmen Ayala de Roxas and Pedro P. Roxas, plaintiffs, vs. The City of Manila and
Robert G. Dieck, as city engineer, defendants.
1.Easement over a Zone for Public Use.The easement over a zone for public use
authorized by article 73 of the Law of Waters of 1866 is defined in articles 160 to
164, inclusive, of said law; the general interest on behalf of which the easement is
borne is prescribed, for navigation, by articles 160 arid 161; for flotation, by article
162; for salvage, by article 163; and for fishing, by article 164. Under every one of
said articles the owner of the property bordering on the stream has to bear the
easement upon prior indemnity therefor.
2.Id.; Right of Owner of the Servient Property.-Said zone for public use, the same
as a towpath, is solely available for the purposes of navigation, flotation, fishing,
and salvage, being closed to access for any other use. Therefore, it is erroneous to
pretend that the right of the owner of a property bordering on the stream is reduced
to the level of a public right, on the contrary, he should only be called upon to bear
those burdens which are in the general interest, but not without prior indemnity.
3.Id.; Canals.If the stream in question is a canal, though a navigable one, and held
so to be by competent authority, and if under the name of a public wharf, which is
the largest in area, it is desired to establish a towpath, which is the smallest, it must
be remembered that the law does not grant it along navigable canals (art. 157), and
at all events the establishment thereof must be preceded by the corresponding
indemnity (arts. 154 and 157).
216
216
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
AYALA DE ROXAS vs. CITY OF MANILA.
218
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
AYALA DE ROXAS vs. CITY OF MANILA.
220
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
AYALA DE ROXAS vs. CITY OF MANILA.
burdens which are in the general interest, but not without prior or subsequent
indemnity." (Folio 43.)
If as affirmed in statement No. 4, and accepted by the defendants, the Sibacon
Creek is a canallet us grant that it is navigable, because it has so been held by
competent authorityand that under the name of a public wharf, which is the
This doctrine will be found far more vigorous at present upon reference to the
principles of the law now in force.
221
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. Ayala De Roxas vs.
City of Manila, 9 Phil., 215, No. 3144 November 19, 1907