Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > December 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2890 December 7, 1906 - VALENTINA PALMA v. JORGE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

007 Phil 154:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2890. December 7, 1906. ]

VALENTINA PALMA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JORGE FERNANDEZ AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF BINMALEY, Defendant-Appellant.

James Ostrand, for Appellant.

Kitchens & Moran, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ESTEROS; PUBLIC LANDS; TIDE WATER. — A small estero in which there is no current of water, and which at times is completely dry, is not public property, though it is affected by the action of the tide.

2. MUNICIPAL LICENSE; DAMAGES; LIABILITY. — A municipality granted the defendant a license to fish in the waters of the plaintiff. Held, That this fact alone did not make the municipality liable to the plaintiff for damages caused by the defendant acting under the license.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


The plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she was the owner of a piece of land, a part of which, by an inundation in 1872, had become covered with water, and that the defendant, Fernandez, under a license from the other defendant, the municipality of Binmalay, had constructed a fishing apparatus upon this property and had caught fish there to her damage in the amount of 500 pesos. Judgment was rendered against both of the defendants in the court below to the effect that the property in question belonged to the plaintiff and that they pay her 170 pesos for damages. The defendants have brought the case here by bill of exceptions.

Act No. 303, section 1, paragraph (j), in enumerating the powers of the municipalities, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The granting of the privilege of fisheries in freshwater streams, lakes, and tidal streams included within the municipality and not the property of any private individual. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The court below found, among other things, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That in the year 1872, as a result of the flood, part of the land was washed away, the said portion having ever since been covered with water, forming an estuary, the plaintiff having used the same by herself and through her tenants as a fishery from the time of the flood until the month of March, 1904.

x       x       x


"The defendants claim that the partition of water covering the land of the plaintiff is part of a river which is public property and that, therefore, the municipality has the right either lease it or authorize the placing therein of fishing apparatus to those who pay the tax fixed by the municipality. They also alleged that the estuary is navigable and that as a result of the flood the plaintiff has lost her rights to the said portion thus covered by the water.

"The court is of the opinion that the weight of evidence justifies a finding that the water covering that portion of the land of the plaintiff is not a part of the river but an insignificant estuary which takes its water from the river Agno and is affected by the tide; but that in normal times no part of the water comes from any spring or stream, there being therein several fisheries operated by their own owners without any authority, license, or intervention on the part of the defendant municipality of Binmaley."cralaw virtua1aw library

These findings are sustained by the preponderance of the evidence. In any event they are not plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence and they are, we think, decisive of the case. Neither under Act No. 303, above quoted, nor the Law of Waters of 1866, nor the provisions of article 407 of the Civil Code, is the estero in question public property. It is not a stream of water. There is no current in it and at times it is completely dry. The fact that it is affected by the tide can make it public property. If this fact were determinative of the question of public or private property, it would, as suggested by the appellee in her brief, make public property many of the nipa lands in the Islands.

What has been said disposes of all the assignments of error except one. Judgment in the court below was rendered not only against the defendant, Fernandez, but also against the municipality. The only action taken by the municipality according to the evidence was the granting of a license to Fernandez to fish in this place. That license was not introduced in evidence and its terms do not appear. The mere granting of a license in such a case, without any other affirmative act on the part of the municipality, can not, we think, make the municipality liable for damages caused to a third person by wrongful acts committed by the licensee. The effect of this license is simply to say that so far as the licensor is concerned it will not interfere with the acts of the licensee.

The judgment of the court below as to the defendant Fernandez is affirmed. The judgment as to the municipality of Binmaley is reversed and it is absolved from the complaint with the costs of the first instance. No costs will be allowed to either party in this court.

After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the court below for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., did not sit in this case.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-2242 December 1, 1906 - HOUSTON B. PAROT v. CARLOS GEMORA

    007 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-2530 December 3, 1906 - ORDER OF DOMINICANS v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-2718 December 4, 1906 - JOSE EMETERIO GUEVARA v. HIPOLITO DE OCAMPO

    007 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 2800 December 4, 1906 - FRANK S. BOURNS v. D.M. CARMAN ET AL.

    007 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. L-2923 December 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO PALMADRES

    007 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-3009 December 4, 1906 - FELICIDAD BUSTAMANTE v. CRISTOBAL BUSTAMANTE

    007 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3534 December 4, 1906 - TO GUIOC-CO v. LORENZO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-2671 December 5, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIANO POBLETE

    007 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. L-2704 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FEDERICO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    008 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-1952 December 6, 1906 - CARLOS GSELL v. VALERIANO VELOSO YAP-JUE

    007 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-2746 December 6, 1906 - MATEO CARIÑO v. TINSULAR GOVERNMENT

    007 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-2921 December 6, 1906 - LUCAS GONZALEZ v. ROSENDO DEL ROSARIO

    007 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-3022 December 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SEBASTIAN LOZANO

    007 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-3429 December 6, 1906 - CASTLE BROS. v. GO-JUNO

    007 Phil 144

  • G.R. Nos. L-2472 & 2473 December 7, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CORTES

    007 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-2803 December 7, 1906 - DAMASA ALCALA v. FRANCISCO SALGADO

    007 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. L-2890 December 7, 1906 - VALENTINA PALMA v. JORGE FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    007 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. L-2929 December 7, 1906 - FAUSTA BATARRA v. FRANCISCO MARCOS

    007 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. L-3006 December 7, 1906 - JOSE GONZALEZ v. AGUSTIN BAÑES

    007 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. L-3062 December 7, 1906 - MARIA MAGALLANES v. TEODORA CAÑETA

    007 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. L-3078 December 7, 1906 - FERNANDO PEREZ v. JUAN GARCIA BOSQUE

    007 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. L-3495 December 7, 1906 - JAMES J. RAFFERTY v. JUDGE OF THE CFI FOR THE PROV. OF CEBU, ET AL.

    007 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-2777 December 10, 1906 - MARIA CASAL v. EMILIO MORETA

    007 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. L-2532 December 11, 1906 - IN RE MACARIO ADRIOATICO

    007 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. L-2787 December 11, 1906 - CELSO DAYRIT v. GIL GONZALEZ

    007 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. L-3010 December 11, 1906 - JULIAN TUBUCON v. PETRONA DALISAY

    007 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-3050 December 11, 1906 - LUIS SANTOS v. SILVESTRE DILAG

    007 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-3117 December 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO ADRIATICO

    007 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. L-2766 December 12, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAULO CABAMNGAN

    007 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-3094 December 12, 1906 - FRED SPARREVOHN v. EMIL M. BACHRACH

    007 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. L-2828 December 14, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN SOLIS

    007 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-3204 December 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FLAVIANO SALANATIN

    007 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2855 December 19, 1906 - FLEMING, ET AL. v. LORCHA "NUESTRA SRA. DEL CARMEN

    007 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-2757 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN LIM ALAN

    007 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. L-2908 December 20, 1906 - ANTONIO TORRES Y ROXAS, ET AL. v. RAMON B. GENATO (Intervenor)

    007 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. L-3119 December 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO CAGAOAAN

    007 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-3093 December 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO MANABAT

    007 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-2541 December 26, 1906 - IGNACIO ICAZA v. RICARDO FLORES

    007 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. L-1999 December 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MANUEL

    007 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. L-2765 December 27, 1906 - JOSE DOLIENDO v. DOMINGO BIARNESA

    007 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. L-3249 December 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE FLOR MATA

    007 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. L-2395 December 29, 1906 - DOROTEO CORTES v. DY-JIA AND DY-CHUANDING

    007 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. L-2825 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. PAUL A. WEEMS

    007 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-2916 December 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE OROSA

    007 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-2966 December 29, 1906 - NICOLAS CONCEPCION TAN TACO v. VICENTE GAY

    007 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. L-3120 December 29, 1906 - BRYAN v. AMERICAN BANK

    007 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-3466 December 29, 1906 - MEYER HERMAN v. A. S. CROSSFIELD

    007 Phil 259