139. City of Manila v. Facts:
Garcia
-squatting is unlawful
and no amount of
acquiescence on the
part of the city
officials will elevate in
into a lawful act.
ISSUE: WON defendants have a right to occupy the property?
 City of Manila is the owner of parcels of land in Malate
Manila. Shortly after the liberation, Defendants Garcia
entered into the property without knowledge of City of
Manila and built houses of second-class materials
thereon. Such constructions were without building
permits.
 Upon discovery of the presence of the defendants on
the land, Mayor Fugoso sent them written permits
labeled “lease contract” to occupy specified areas on
the property. All 23 Defendants were then charged rent
for their occupancy of the property.
 Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School however,
needed the property for its expansion thus the City
Engineer gave a directive ordering the squatters to
vacate and remove the construcitons on said land and
pay the rent.
 The defendants refused to leave which prompted City
of Manila to file a case for recovery of possession.
 The lower court ruled in favor of City of Manila which
ordered the defendants to vacate the land and pay
rent.
 The defendants appealed and claimed that they had
acquired legal status as tenants of the land.
 City of Manila present the certification of the Municipal
Board which states that 100K had been allotted from
the city budget for the expansion of the school.
RULING: No.
- The court said that the defendants entered the land, built hosues
thereon without the knowledge and consent of the city. Therefore it
is clear that the defendants entry into the land was illegal and the
constructions made therein were made without permits.
- The court added that the fact that the Mayor issued “permits” did
not cure the illegal entry and occupation of the land. The court said
that the Mayor cannot legalize the forcible entry into public property
by the simple expedient of giving permits or executing leases.
- Squatting is unlawful and no amount of acquiescence on the part of
the city officials will elevate in into a lawful act.
Public Nuisance
- The court said that the houses and constructions made on the
property were public nuisance as it hinders and impairs the use of
the property which is badly needed for school building. Such
constructions were to the prejudice of the education of the youth of
the land. The selfish interests of the defendants must yiled to the
general good thus the building of the expansion of the school is
paramount.
- The public nuisance could well have been summarily abated by the
city authorities even without the aid of courts as no further delay
could be allowed in this instance.
-