Villanueva vs Castaneda 154 SCRA 142

Facts
There is in the vicinity of the public market of San Fernando, Pampanga, along Mercado Street, a
strip of land measuring 12 by 77 meters on which stands a conglomeration of vendors stalls
together forming what is commonly known as a talipapa.
Respondent Macalino, OIC of the Office of Mayor of San Fernando issued a resolution requiring
the demolition of stalls constructed on what the respondent claims to be a public land which is
now proliferated with the vendors stalls called talipapa. The petitioners contend that by virtue
of the contract of lease issued to them by the previous municipal council they have the right to
stay and do business at the place in issue. Thus, the petitioners filed a petition for prohibition
with the Court of First Instance contending that they are protected by the lease contract. Their
petition was denied hence this action to the Supreme Court was filed for certiorari.

Issue
Whether or not the respondents act to order the demolition of the stalls amount to grave abuse of
discretion and whimsical?
Held

It was held by the Supreme Court that the land in issue is a public land, it is settled therefore that
the land where the stalls were constructed remains a public land. The petitioners cannot claim the
right to occupy the disputed premises by invoking lease contracts. Being an object beyond the
commerce of men, the land in dispute cannot be an object of a lease contract.
The respondent has the duty to restore the public land to what it is intended in nature and no
whimsical action was taken in ordering the demolition of the stalls. It is an act within the scope
of exercising police power and such police power cannot be bargained away through a lease
contract. Thus, the court ruled in favor of the respondent.