G.R. No. 97477 May 8, 1992 RTC JUDGE CAMILO E. TAMIN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur and the MUNICIPALITY OF DUMINGAG, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR; represented by MAYOR DOMICIANO E. REAL, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, VICENTE MEDINA and FORTUNATA ROSELLON, respondents

A public plaza is outside the commerce of man and constructions thereon can be abated summarily by the municipality. We ruled in the case of Villanueva v. Castañeda, Jr. (154 SCRA 142 [1987]):

Exactly in point is Espiritu v. Municipal Council of Pozorrubio, (102 Phil. 869-870) where the Supreme Court declared:

There is absolutely no question that the town plaza cannot be used for the construction of market stalls, specially of residences, and that such structures constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law. Town plazas are properties of public dominion, to be devoted to public use and to be made available to the public in general. They are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or even leased by the municipality to private parties.

Applying this well-settled doctrine, we rule that petitioners had no right in the first place to occupy the disputed premises and cannot insist in remaining there now on the strength of their alleged lease contracts. They should have realized and accepted this earlier, considering that even before Civil Case No. 2040 was decided, the municipal council of San Fernando had already adopted Resolution No. 29, series of 1964, declaring this area as the parking place and public plaza of the municipality.

It is the decision in Civil Case No. 2040 and the said resolution of the municipal council of San Fernando that respondent Macalino was seeking to enforce when he ordered the demolition of the stalls constructed in the disputed area. As officer-in-charge of the office of the mayor, he had the duty to clear the area and restore it to its intended use as a parking place and public plaza of the municipality of San Fernando, conformably to the aforementioned orders from the court and the council. It is, therefore, not correct to say that he had acted without authority or taken the law into his hands in issuing his order.

xxx xxx xxx

The Court observes that even without such investigatiom and recommendation, the respondent mayor was justified in ordering the area cleared on the strength alone of its status as a public plaza as declared by the judicial and legislative authorities. . . .