GR L 3297; (December, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3297 December 29, 1950
LEE TAY & LEE CHAY, INC., plaintiff-appellee, vs. FLORENCIO CHOCO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Plaintiff Lee Tay & Lee Chay, Inc. owns a parcel of land in Manila. Defendant Florencio Choco owns a house occupying about 100 square meters of this land and has not paid rent since 1941. Plaintiff filed an ejectment case to recover possession of the portion needed for its lumber yard. The municipal court suspended proceedings upon receiving a letter from the Mayor of Manila stating the city’s intention to acquire the land under Commonwealth Act No. 538 and Republic Act No. 267 to resell it to the occupants. The court fixed a monthly rental for the defendant during the suspension. Plaintiff appealed the suspension order to the Court of First Instance, which ruled the defendant was a mere squatter, not a tenant under the Act, and remanded the case for trial. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the City of Manila may expropriate a small parcel of land under Commonwealth Act No. 538 to resell it to occupants, thereby justifying the suspension of the ejectment proceedings.
RULING
No. Following the doctrine in Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration and City of Manila vs. Arellano Law Colleges, Inc., Commonwealth Act No. 539 (and by extension, Commonwealth Act No. 538) authorizes the expropriation of large landed estates, not small parcels of land within cities for resale to a few occupants. The National Government cannot confer upon its instrumentalities, like the City of Manila, authority it itself may not exercise. Therefore, the City of Manila may not expropriate the subject land, and the ejectment proceedings should not have been suspended. The decision of the Court of First Instance is affirmed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.