PUBLIC CORPORATION
NOBLE vs. CITY OF MANILA
G.R. NO. 44142 DECEMBER 24, 1938*
Case Title : VICENTE NOBLE, plaintiff and appellee, vs. CITY OF MANILA, defendant and appellant.
Case Nature : APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Horrilleno, J.
Syllabi Class : CONTRACT OF LEASE AND PURCHASE, EXPROPRIATION
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Syquia and the City of Manila entered into a contract where Syquia constructed on a land owned by the
city a school building. The contract states that:
 Syquia shall lease the building to the City for a period of not more than three (3) years at P600 per
month, payable within the first five (5) days of every month.
 The City shall buy the building from Mr. Syquia within three (3) years from the occupancy for
P46,600.
The contract was amended. It states:
 That the lease shall be for a period of not more than three (3) years and for a monthly rent of not
more than P30 per room, provided that the City shall lease to Syquia for the same period the land
for one peso a month;
 That the City shall buy the school building within the said period of three (3) years according to
the price stipulated in the contract, provided that, if at the end of three years, the City shall be
unable to pay the stipulated sales price, the contract of lease of the land and of the building shall
be deemed extended for the same period, and so on successively.
Syquia conveyed to Sandoval all his right, title and interest or participation in the building, and all his right,
title or participation in the contract in consideration of the amount of P40,000. Sandoval transferred the
same to Noble for P40,000.
The lease was again amended - that the lease be made renewable every year, instead of every three (3)
years and that it be renewable from year to year until the leased building is purchased in accordance with
the original contract.
The City failed to pay the rent for February 1934. Noble then filed a complaint and asked that the city be
ordered to purchase the building for P46,600, with legal interest, and pay the rentals from February 1934
until the purchase of the building is effected and the price paid.
The City, in its answer, prayed that the lease of the building by the city be rescinded and set aside and that
the same be expropriated.
The court ordered the deposit of P46,000 by the City and that the City shall take immediate possession of
the building for the purposes of expropriation. However, upon a motion for reconsideration by Noble, the
decision was resolved in favor of Noble.
The Court held the City of Manila has no right to expropriate the building and that it should comply with
Page 1 of 2
PUBLIC CORPORATION
the terms of the and pay to Noble P46,000 for the price of the building, plus the rentals from the month
of February 1934 until the final and absolute conveyance of the building is made, with legal interest.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the expropriation of the building by the City of Manila shall apply.
RULING:
NO, expropriation of the building by the City of Manila shall NOT apply.
Expropriation, as a manifestation of the right of eminent domain of the state and as a limitation upon
private ownership, is based upon the consideration that it should not be an obstacle to human progress
and to the development of the general welfare of the community. In the present case, however, the
expropriation would depart from its own purposes and turn out to be an instrument to repudiate
compliance with obligations legally and validly contracted.
The contract between the parties, the purchase of the building, is in force, as it was not revoked by the
parties or by judicial decision. The city being bound to buy the building at an agreed price, under a valid
and subsisting contract, and the owner being agreeable to its sale, the expropriation, as sought by the
City, is baseless.
Expropriation lies only when it is made necessary by the opposition of the owner to the sale or by the lack
of any agreement as to the price. There being in the present case a valid and subsisting contract, between
the owner of the building and the city, for the purchase at an agreed price, there is no reason for the
expropriation.
Prepared by:
BASCO, Alalaine Lubiano
Page 2 of 2