Vico, Nizzane P.

Natural Resources & Environmental Law

 WON City of Manila may refuse to issue the plaintiff a license to construct terrace
on the ground that the strip of land owned by the plaintiff will be used for wharf or
public way.
1. Article 73 of the Law of Waters of 1866 – Easement over a zone for public
use (as defined in the following Articles):
a) Article 160-161 – Navigation
b) Article 162 – Flotation
c) Article 163 – Salvage
d) Article 164 – Fishing
*Owner of the property bordering on the stream has to bear easement upon
prior indemnity thereof.
2. Principles of Administrative Law in Establishment of New Easements –
Ayuntamientos had no authority to impose new easements upon private
property (Decisions of January 23 and July 28, 1866)
3. Article 349 of Civil Code – No one shall be deprived of his property, except
by competent authority and with sufficient reasons of public utility, always
after proper indemnity.
 Plaintiff owned a property situated on Escolta, district of Binondo,
Manila, the eastern boundary of which adjoins the canal of San Jacinto or
Sibacon.
 She applied to the City Engineer, Robert G. Dieck (defendant), a license to
construct a terrace over the “strip of land 3 meters in width between the
main wall of her house and the edge of the Sibacon or San Jacinto canal,
wherein the strip of land belongs exclusively to her.
 Defendant refused to grant the license or authorized the plaintiff to build
the terrace.
 The strip of land had not been expropriated in whole or in part by the
municipality of Manila and neither did the latter offered any
compensation to the owner.
PLAINTIFF
They and the former owners enjoyed the land
quietly and peacefully during more than 70
years.
That the strip in question was occupied by a two-
storey building constructed more than 70 years
ago.
They have title and registered it in the Registry
of Property.
The license being applied is in virtue of her right
of ownership.
License was denied and construction will not
be authorized because they intent to reserve
the strip for the establishment of public
easement for the purpose of wharf or public
way .
The space is subject to the easement of public
use for the general interest of navigation,
flotation, fishing and salvage (as per Law of
Waters and Civil Code)
DEFENDANTS
Thus, plaintiff shall only be able to use the
said strip in the same manner and for the
same purposes as the general public,
consequently, losing the enjoyment, use and
exclusive possession of the said strip.
 Definition of wharf (https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/wharf)
 1: a man-made structure built along or at an angle
from the shore of navigable waters so that ships
may lie alongside to receive and discharge cargo
and passengers
 WON City of Manila may refuse to issue the plaintiff a license
to construct terrace on the grounds that the strip of land
owned by the plaintiff will be used for wharf or public way.
 NO, the defendants refusal to issue license to construction is an act of
obstruction and is beyond the powers of the City of Manila because it is
an attempt to suppress, without due process of law, real rights which
are attached to the right of ownership.
 Sibacon Creek is a navigable canal and the construction of towpath is
not granted along navigable canal without the corresponding
indemnity (in accordance to Law of Waters and Civil Code)
 Ayuntamientos are not authorized to impose easement upon private
property, therefore any order thus given cannot be held to have been
issued in the exercise of their lawful powers.
 According to Art 349 of the Civil Code, no one shall be deprived of his
property, except by competent authority and with sufficient cause of
public utility always, after proper indemnity, if this requisite has not
been fulfilled the courts must protect, eventually restore possession to
the injured party.
 The refusal to grant license or the enactment of an ordinance whereby
a person maybe deprived or property or rights, or an attempt is made
without previously indemnifying is not due process of law.
 The Court herein commanded the defendants to issue license in favor
of the plaintiff to construct the terrace.