You are on page 1of 8

Law on Environment and

Natural Resources

AYALA DE ROXAS - Plaintiff VS CITY


OF MANILA - Defendant
G.R. No. L-3144 November 19, 1907

CHRISTIAN PATRICK C. LABAJOY


JD 101
Issue :
Whether or not there is a sufficient
justification on the refusal of the City of Manila
and the City Engineer to issue a license for the
construction of a terrace over the strip of land
privately owned by herein plaintiff Ayala De
Roxas along the canal of San Jacinto or
Sibacon.
Rules and Regulations
O Law of Waters of 1866
Article 160- 164 : The general interest on behalf
of which the easement is supported is intended for
navigation ; for flotation; for salvage and for fishing ; in
all of them the owner of the riverside property supports
the easement upon being previously indemnified for
loss and damage.
Article 154 and 157 : It must be remembered
that the law does not grant it along navigable canals
and, at all events, the establishment thereof must be
preceded by the corresponding indemnity.
O July 28, 1866 Supreme Court Decision:
Ayuntamientos are not authorized to impose
an easement upon private property; therefore, any
order thus given cannot be held to have been issued
in the exercise of their lawful powers.

O Civil Code Article 349


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, and ecentually restore
possession to the injured party.
ARGUMENTS
CITY OF MANILA & CITY ENGINEER
(ROBERT G. DIECK) – DEFENDANT

The defendants alleges that the


strips of land is used for
discharging and landing goods and
as a place of shelter for
shipwrecked persons; and for
fisherman, therefore there is a
need for easement in order for the
public to utilize the said property
for general welfare.
ANALYSIS
The easement of a zone for public use
authorized by the Law of Waters is solely for
navigation, flotation, fishing, and salvage,
however, the does not grant it along navigable
canals. In a statement by the City of Manila,
they have accepted that the property
concerned is located on a canal which was held
by competent authority to be navigable. Hence
there is a valid cause for Ayala De Roxas to ask
the court to protect her rights on her property.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the easement on the strip of land
is not authorized because the law expressly stated
that it does not grant easement of a zone on
navigable canals.

Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that the City


Engineer and City of Manila should issue the license
for the construction of the terrace over the strip of
land privately owned by Ayala De Roxas.
THE END