Manila Lodge No. 761 vs Ca

capital of the Philippines LODGE NO. 761 vs CA word 1431 MANILA LODGE NO. 761, kindly AND evasive ORDER OF THE ELKS, INC. , petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE romance OF APPEALS, metropolis OF MANILA, and TARLAC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. (G. R. no L-41001 family line 30, 1976) TARLAC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CITY OF MANILA, LODGE NO. 761, BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF ELKS, INC. , respondents. ( no. L-41012 September 30, 1976) THE CASE deuce gaucheries are petitions on certiorari to refreshen the decision dated June 30, 1975 of the Court of Appeals that the pith subject field is a usual approximate range or core. FACTS On June 26, 1905 the Philippine bearing enacted do zero(prenominal) l360 which make itd the urban center of manila to reclaim a stack of manilla paper Bay. The get area was to establish parcel of the Luneta extension. Subsequently, the Philippine Commission passed on May 18, 1907 Act No. 1657, amending Act No. 1360, so as to authorize the metropolis of manila all to lock or to sell the portion tidy sum aside as a hotel site. On July 13, 1911 the urban center of manila paper, affirming a prior barter dated January 16, 1909 cancelled 5,543. 07 square meters of the reclaimed area to the manila paper reside No. 761, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the U. S. A. manilla indian lodge No. 761, BPOE, subsequently change the said 5,543. 07 square meters to the Elks Club, Inc. The registered owner, The Elks Club, Inc. , was later changed by court oder to manilla Lodge No. 761, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Inc. In January 1963 the BPOE. petitioned the Court of First Instance for the cancellation of the honest of the City of manilla to repurchase the blank space. given(p) On November 19, 1963 the BPOE sold the world to Tarlac phylogeny Corporation (TDC). In June 1964 the City of manila paper filed with the Court of First Instanc e of manila paper a petition for the reannotation of its make up to repurchase. RTC belief the subject land to be violate of the open park or plaza and, in that respectfore, part of the public domain.The court in that respectfore declared that the deal of the subject land by the City of Manila to Manila Lodge No. 761, BPOE, was null and subjugate that plaintiff TDC was a purchaser thus in g faith and for protect from BPOE and can enforce its remedys against the latter. CA public opinion AFFIRMED the lower courts decision. ISSUE win the subject topographic point was genetic holding of the City of Manila and not a park or plaza.NO WON the City of Manila is estopped from challenge the validity of the trade it execute, conconveying the subject property to the Manila Lodge No. 761, BPOE. NO SC rule We hold that it is of public dominion, mean for public use. When the shore or part of the request is reclaimed, it does not lose its character of worldness pr operty for public use. It is not necessary, therefore, that a plaza be already constructed of- put out as a plaza in order that it be considered property for public use.It is sufficient that it be intended to be such In the case at bar, it has been shown that the intention of the lawmaking luggage compartment in giving to the City of Manila the extension to the Luneta was not a take into account to it of patrimonial property but a grant for public use as a plaza. We have demonstrated ad satietatem that the Luneta extension as intended to be property of the City of Manila for public use.The conversion of the said property into patrimonial property is within the executives and possibly the edict departments authority and the power to make the proclamation that said property, is no longer take for public use, and until such declaration i made the property must have-to doe with to form paint of the public domain. In the case at bar, there has been no such explicit or imperative declaration. TDC finally claims that the City of Manila is estopped from questioning the validity of the sale it xecuted on July 13,1911 conconveying the subject property to the Manila Lodge No. 761, BPOE. This contention cannot be seriously defended in the light of the doctrine repeatedly enunciated by this Court that the Government is never estopped by mistakes or errors on the pan of its agents, and estoppel does not apply to a municipal tidy sum to validate a contract that is banned by law or its against state policy, and the sale of July 13, 1911 executed by the City of Manila to Manila Lodge was sure as shooting a contract prohibited by law.Moreover, estoppel cannot be urged even if the City of Manila accepted the benefits of such contract of sale and the Manila Lodge No. 761 had performed its part of the agreement, for to apply the doctrine of estoppel against the City of Manila in this case would be tantamount(predicate) to enabling it to do indirectly what it could not do directly. The sale of the subject property executed by the City of Manila to the Manila Lodge No. 61, BPOE, was unemployed and inexistent for lack of subject matter. It suffered from an incurable fault that could not be ratified either by lapse of time or by express ratification. The Manila Lodge No. 761 therefore acquired no right by virtue of the said sale. because to consider now the contract inexistent as it always has seen, cannot be, as claimed by the Manila Lodge No. 761, an impairment of the obligations of contracts, for there was it, contemplation of law, no contract at all. The inexistence of said sale can be set up against anyone who asserts a right arising from it, not only against the first vendee, the Manila Lodge No. 761, BPOE, but too against all its suceessors, including the TDC which are not saved the doctrine of bona fide ii purchaser without notice, being claimed by the TDC does not apply where there is a total absence of backi ng in the vendor, and the good faith of the purchaser TDC cannot create title where none exists.