CITY OF MANILA HEALTH DEPARTMENT Tondo Health Center Programs I. THRUST PROGRAM A. Maternal and Child Health 1. Maternal care 2. Safe Motherhood and Women’s Health 3. Expanded Progra...
rety5ye5ryger
City of Manila vs IACFull description
CIVIL PROCEDUREFull description
GSIS vs. City Treasurer of Manila DIGEST
Property Case
Digest in Torts
Case digestFull description
taxation law; legal forms; manila international airport authority; case digest; highlights;
case digest for tax law.
digestFull description
MMDA v Concerned Residents of Manila Bay
Local Government; Property; Corporate Powers; Digest
Blossom v. Manila Gas DigestFull description
Labor Law Review caseFull description
RAYOS DEL SOL, BETTINA JEAN E. III – C LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2013 – 2014 ATTY. GISELLA DIZON-REYES
Vilas v. City of Manila VERISIMO VASQUEZ VILAS ( , APPELLANT ) VS CITY OF MANILA (APPELLEE ) PLAINTIFF IN ERROR PLAINTIFF APRIL 3, 1911 J. LURTON
dual nature & functions of municipal corporations SHORT VERSION : sdf NATURE : Appeal FACTS:
Vilas was a creditor of the Ayuntamiento of Manila as it existed before the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States by the Treaty of Paris. The action was brought upon the theory that the city, under its present charter from the Government of the Philippine Islands, was the same juristic person, and liable upon the obligations of the old city. The City of Manila argued that its charter has no reference to obligations or contracts of the old city; that their case is analogous to a principal and agent, where the sovereign gets changed, the city, as agent of the State, could no longer be held accountable for debts of the previous sovereign; that the city of Manila has been reincorporated under Act 183 of the Philippine Commission and thus not liable for the said obligations. The Philippine Supreme Court held that the present municipality is a totally different corporate entity and in no way liable for the debts of the Spanish municipality. The case was appealed to the US Supreme Court.
ISSUE : Is the city of Manila still liable for the obligations of the city incurred prior to the cession to the United States? YES.
Municipal corporations exercise powers which are governmental and powers which are of a private or business character. In the one character a municipal corporation is a governmental subdivision, and for that purpose exercises by delegation a part of the sovereignty of the state. In the other character it is a mere legal entity or juristic person. In the latter character it stands for the community in the administration of local affairs wholly beyond the sphere of the public purpose for which its governmental powers are conferred. Municipal laws that regulate private and domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or changed by the new ruler. Only laws of a political character are totally abrogated or changed by the new ruler. The property rights relinquished by Spain are limited to those which belong to the public domain. The juristic identity of the corporation has been in no wise affected, and, in law, the present city is, in every legal sense, the successor of the old. As such it is entitled to the property and property rights of the predecessor corporation, and is, in law, subject to all of its liabilities. Absent any express legislative declaration, there is no reason to suppose that reincorporation intended to permit an escape from the obligations of the old city.
