cases1

7/18/2019 cases1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases1-569670388e03b 1/27

G.R. No. L-34915 June 24, 1983

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEON CITY !n" CITY COUNCIL OF QUEON CITY, petitioners,

vs.

#ON. JU$GE VICENTE G. ERICT% !& Ju"'e o( )*e Cou+) o( F+&) In&)!ne o( R!/, Queon C)0, +!n*VIII #IML%Y%NG ILIINO, INC., respondents.

City Fiscal for petitioners.

Manuel Villaruel, Jr. and Feliciano Tumale for respondents.

GUTIERRE, JR., J.:

This is a petition for review which seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIII

declaring ection ! of "rdinance #o. $%%&, '$(, of the )uezon Cit* Council null and void.

ection ! of "rdinance #o. $%%&, '$(, entitled +"RI#-#C R/01-TI#/ T2 T-B1I23#T,

3-I#T#-#C -# "4R-TI"# "F 4RIV-T 33"RI-1 T54 C3TR5 "R B0RI-1 /R"0#6IT2I# T2 70RIICTI"# "F )08"# CIT5 -# 4R"VII#/ 4#-1TI F"R T2 VI"1-TI"#

T2R"F+ provides9

ec. !. -t least si: ;$< percent of the total area of the =e=orial park ce=eter* shall >e set aside for

charit* >urial of deceased persons who are paupers and have >een residents of )uezon Cit* for at least ?

*ears prior to their death, to >e deter=ined >* co=petent Cit* -uthorities. The area so designated shall

i==ediatel* >e developed and should >e open for operation not later than si: =onths fro= the date of

approval of the application.

For several *ears, the afore@uoted section of the "rdinance was not enforced >* cit* authorities >ut seven *ears after the

enact=ent of the ordinance, the )uezon Cit* Council passed the following resolution9

RESOLVED y t!e council of "ue#on assemled , to re@uest, as it does here>* re@uest the Cit* ngineer,

)uezon Cit*, to stop an* further selling andAor transaction of =e=orial park lots in )uezon Cit* where

the owners thereof have failed to donate the re@uired $ space intended for paupers >urial.

4ursuant to this petition, the )uezon Cit* ngineer notified respondent 2i=la*ang 4ilipino, Inc. in writing that ection !

of "rdinance #o. $%%&, '$( would >e enforced

Respondent 2i=la*ang 4ilipino reacted >* filing with the Court of First Instance of Rizal Branch XVIII at )uezon Cit*, a

petition for declarator* relief, prohi>ition and =anda=us with preli=inar* inunction ;p. 4roc. #o. )'%$DDE< seeking to

annul ection ! of the "rdinance in @uestion The respondent alleged that the sa=e is contrar* to the Constitution, the

)uezon Cit* Charter, the 1ocal -utono=* -ct, and the Revised -d=inistrative Code.

There >eing no issue of fact and the @uestions raised >eing purel* legal >oth petitioners and respondent agreed to the

rendition of a udg=ent on the pleadings. The respondent court, therefore, rendered the decision declaring ection ! of

"rdinance #o. $%%&, '$( null and void.

- =otion for reconsideration having >een denied, the Cit* /overn=ent and Cit* Council filed the instant petition.

4etitioners argue that the taking of the respondents propert* is a valid and reasona>le e:ercise of police power and that

the land is taken for a pu>lic use as it is intended for the >urial ground of paupers. The* further argue that the )uezon Cit*

7/18/2019 cases1


Council is authorized under its charter, in the e:ercise of local police power, + to =ake such further ordinances and

resolutions not repugnant to law as =a* >e necessar* to carr* into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred >*

this -ct and such as it shall dee= necessar* and proper to provide for the health and safet*, pro=ote the prosperit*,

i=prove the =orals, peace, good order, co=fort and convenience of the cit* and the inha>itants thereof, and for the

protection of propert* therein.+

"n the other hand, respondent 2i=la*ang 4ilipino, Inc. contends that the taking or confiscation of propert* is o>vious

>ecause the @uestioned ordinance per=anentl* restricts the use of the propert* such that it cannot >e used for an*

reasona>le purpose and deprives the owner of all >eneficial use of his propert*.

The respondent also stresses that the general welfare clause is not availa>le as a source of power for the taking of the

propert* in this case >ecause it refers to +the power of pro=oting the pu>lic welfare >* restraining and regulating the use

of li>ert* and propert*.+ The respondent points out that if an owner is deprived of his propert* outright under the tates

police power, the propert* is generall* not taken for pu>lic use >ut is urgentl* and su==aril* destro*ed in order to

pro=ote the general welfare. The respondent cites the case of a nuisance per se or the destruction of a house to prevent the

spread of a conflagration.

6e find the stand of the private respondent as well as the decision of the respondent 7udge to >e well'founded. 6e @uote

with approval the lower courts ruling which declared null and void ection ! of the @uestioned cit* ordinance9

The issue is9 Is ection ! of the ordinance in @uestion a valid e:ercise of the police powerG

-n e:a=ination of the Charter of )uezon Cit* ;Rep. -ct #o. ?H<, does not reveal an* provision that

would ustif* the ordinance in @uestion e:cept the provision granting police power to the Cit*. ection !

cannot >e ustified under the power granted to )uezon Cit* to ta:, fi: the license fee, and re$ulate such

other >usiness, trades, and occupation as =a* >e esta>lished or practised in the Cit*. ;u>sections C,

ec. %E, R.-. ?H<.

The power to regulate does not include the power to prohi>it ;4eople vs. sguerra, &% 4hi1 HH, Vega vs.

3unicipal Board of Iloilo, 1'$$?, 3a* %E, %!?(J H! #.7. 1aw, D, 3ich. H!$<. - fortiori, the power to

regulate does not include the power to confiscate. The ordinance in @uestion not onl* confiscates >ut also

prohi>its the operation of a =e=orial park ce=eter*, >ecause under ection %H of said ordinance,

Violation of the provision thereof is punisha>le with a fine andAor i=prison=ent and that upon conviction

thereof the per=it to operate and =aintain a private ce=eter* shall >e revoked or cancelled. The

confiscator* clause and the penal provision in effect deter one fro= operating a =e=orial park ce=eter*.

#either can the ordinance in @uestion >e ustified under su>' section +t+, ection %E of Repu>lic -ct ?H

which authorizes the Cit* Council to'

prohi>it the >urial of the dead within the center of population of the cit* and provide for

their >urial in such proper place and in such =anner as the council =a* deter=ine,

su>ect to the provisions of the general law regulating >urial grounds and ce=eteries and

governing funerals and disposal of the dead. ;u>'sec. ;t<, ec. %E, Rep. -ct #o. ?H<.

There is nothing in the a>ove provision which authorizes confiscation or as euphe=isticall* ter=ed >* the

respondents, donation

6e now co=e to the @uestion whether or not ection ! of the ordinance in @uestion is a valid e:ercise of

police power. The police power of )uezon Cit* is defined in su>'section DD, ec. %E, Rep. -ct ?H which

reads as follows9

;DD< To =ake such further ordinance and regulations not repugnant to law as =a* >e

necessar* to carr* into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred >* this act

and such as it shall dee= necessar* and proper to provide for the health and safet*,

7/18/2019 cases1


pro=ote, the prosperit*, i=prove the =orals, peace, good order, co=fort and convenience

of the cit* and the inha>itants thereof, and for the protection of propert* thereinJ and

enforce o>edience thereto with such lawful fines or penalties as the Cit* Council =a*

prescri>e under the provisions of su>section ;< of this section.

6e start the discussion with a restate=ent of certain >asic principles. "ccup*ing the forefront in the >ill

of rights is the provision which states that no person shall >e deprived of life, li>ert* or propert* without

due process of law ;-rt. Ill, ection % su>paragraph %, Constitution<.

"n the other hand, there are three inherent powers of govern=ent >* which the state interferes with the

propert* rights, na=el*'. ;%< police power, ;E< e=inent do=ain, ;H< ta:ation. These are said to e:ist

independentl* of the Constitution as necessar* attri>utes of sovereignt*.

4olice power is defined >* Freund as the power of pro=oting the pu>lic welfare >* restraining and

regulating the use of li>ert* and propert* ;)uoted in 4olitical 1aw >* Tanada and Carreon, V'%%, p. ?D<.

It is usuall* e:erted in order to =erel* regulate the use and eno*=ent of propert* of the owner. If he is

deprived of his propert* outright, it is not taken for pu>lic use >ut rather to destro* in order to pro=ote the

general welfare. In police power, the owner does not recover fro= the govern=ent for inur* sustained in

conse@uence thereof ;%E C.7. $EH<. It has >een said that police power is the =ost essential of govern=ent

powers, at ti=es the =ost insistent, and alwa*s one of the least li=ita>le of the powers of govern=ent;Ru>* vs. 4rovincial Board, H! 4hi1 $$DJ Ichong vs. 2ernandez, %,!!?, 3a* H%, %!?<. This power

e=>races the whole s*ste= of pu>lic regulation ;0.. vs. 1insu*a Fan, %D 4hi1 %D(<. The upre=e Court

has said that police power is so far'reaching in scope that it has al=ost >eco=e i=possi>le to li=it its

sweep. -s it derives its e:istence fro= the ver* e:istence of the state itself, it does not need to >e

e:pressed or defined in its scope. Being coe:tensive with self'preservation and survival itself, it is the

=ost positive and active of all govern=ental processes, the =ost essential insistent and illi=ita>le

speciall* it is so under the =odern de=ocratic fra=ework where the de=ands of societ* and nations

have =ultiplied to al=ost uni=agina>le proportions. The field and scope of police power have >eco=e

al=ost >oundless, ust as the fields of pu>lic interest and pu>lic welfare have >eco=e al=ost all

e=>racing and have transcended hu=an foresight. ince the Courts cannot foresee the needs and de=ands

of pu>lic interest and welfare, the* cannot deli=it >eforehand the e:tent or scope of the police power >*

which and through which the state seeks to attain or achieve pu>lic interest and welfare. ;Ichong vs.

2ernandez, 1'!!?, 3a* H%, %!?<.

The police power >eing the =ost active power of the govern=ent and the due process clause >eing the

>roadest station on govern=ental power, the conflict >etween this power of govern=ent and the due

process clause of the Constitution is oftenti=es inevita>le.

It will >e seen fro= the foregoing authorities that police power is usuall* e:ercised in the for= of =ere

regulation or restriction in the use of li>ert* or propert* for the pro=otion of the general welfare. It does

not involve the taking or confiscation of propert* with the e:ception of a few cases where there is a

necessit* to confiscate private propert* in order to destro* it for the purpose of protecting the peace and

order and of pro=oting the general welfare as for instance, the confiscation of an illegall* possessedarticle, such as opiu= and firear=s.

It see=s to the court that ection ! of "rdinance #o. $%%&, eries of %!$( of )uezon Cit* is not a =ere

police regulation >ut an outright confiscation. It deprives a person of his private propert* without due

process of law, na*, even without co=pensation.

In sustaining the decision of the respondent court, we are not un=indful of the heav* >urden shouldered >* whoever

challenges the validit* of dul* enacted legislation whether national or local -s earl* as %!%H, this Court ruled in Case %.

&oard of 'ealt! ;E( 4hi1 E?D< that the courts resolve ever* presu=ption in favor of validit* and, =ore so, where the =a

corporation asserts that the ordinance was enacted to pro=ote the co==on good and general welfare.

7/18/2019 cases1


In the leading case of Ermita(Malate 'otel and Motel Operators )ssociation *nc. %. City Mayor of Manila ;ED CR- &(!<

the Court speaking through the then -ssociate 7ustice and now Chief 7ustice nri@ue 3. Fernando stated

4ri=aril* what calls for a reversal of such a decision is the a of an* evidence to offset the presu=ption of

validit* that attaches to a statute or ordinance. -s was e:pressed categoricall* >* 7ustice 3alcol= The

presu=ption is all in favor of validit*. ... The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot >e

lightl* set aside. The councilors =ust, in the ver* nature of things, >e fa=iliar with the necessities of their

particular ... =unicipalit* and with all the facts and lances which surround the su>ect and necessitate

action. The local legislative >od*, >* enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulationsare essential to the well'>eing of the people. ... The 7udiciar* should not lightl* set aside legislative action

when there is not a clear invasion of personal or propert* rights under the guise of police regulation. ;0..

v. alaveria ;%!%&K, H! 4hil. %DE, at p. %%%. There was an affir=ation of the presu=ption of validit* of

=unicipal ordinance as announced in the leading alaveria decision in >ona v. aet, L%!?DK&? 4hil.

H$!.<

6e have likewise considered the principles earlier stated in Case v. Board of 2ealth supra 9

... 0nder the provisions of =unicipal charters which are known as the general welfare clauses, a cit*, >*

virtue of its police power, =a* adopt ordinances to the peace, safet*, health, =orals and the >est and

highest interests of the =unicipalit*. It is a well'settled principle, growing out of the nature of well'ordered and societ*, that ever* holder of propert*, however a>solute and =a* >e his title, holds it under

the i=plied lia>ilit* that his use of it shall not >e inurious to the e@ual eno*=ent of others having an

e@ual right to the eno*=ent of their propert*, nor inurious to the rights of the co==unit*. -n propert* in

the state is held su>ect to its general regulations, which are necessar* to the co==on good and general

welfare. Rights of propert*, like all other social and conventional rights, are su>ect to such reasona>le

li=itations in their eno*=ent as shall prevent the= fro= >eing inurious, and to such reasona>le

restraints and regulations, esta>lished >* law, as the legislature, under the governing and controlling

power vested in the= >* the constitution, =a* think necessar* and e:pedient. The state, under the police

power, is possessed with plenar* power to deal with all =atters relating to the general health, =orals, and

safet* of the people, so long as it does not contravene an* positive inhi>ition of the organic law and

providing that such power is not e:ercised in such a =anner as to ustif* the interference of the courts to

prevent positive wrong and oppression.

>ut find the= not applica>le to the facts of this case.

There is no reasona>le relation >etween the setting aside of at least si: ;$< percent of the total area of an private

ce=eteries for charit* >urial grounds of deceased paupers and the pro=otion of health, =orals, good order, safet*, or the

general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actuall* a taking without co=pensation of a certain area fro= a private

ce=eter* to >enefit paupers who are charges of the =unicipal corporation. Instead of >uilding or =aintaining a pu>lic

ce=eter* for this purpose, the cit* passes the >urden to private ce=eteries.

The e:propriation without co=pensation of a portion of private ce=eteries is not covered >* ection %E;t< of Repu>lic -ct

?H, the Revised Charter of )uezon Cit* which e=powers the cit* council to prohi>it the >urial of the dead within thecenter of population of the cit* and to provide for their >urial in a proper place su>ect to the provisions of general law

regulating >urial grounds and ce=eteries. 6hen the 1ocal /overn=ent Code, Batas 4a=>ansa Blg. HH provides in

ection % ;@< that a angguniang panlungsod =a* +provide for the >urial of the dead in such place and in such =anner

as prescri>ed >* law or ordinance+ it si=pl* authorizes the cit* to provide its own cit* owned land or to >u* or

e:propriate private properties to construct pu>lic ce=eteries. This has >een the law and practise in the past. It continues to

the present. :propriation, however, re@uires pa*=ent of ust co=pensation. The @uestioned ordinance is different fro=

laws and regulations re@uiring owners of su>divisions to set aside certain areas for streets, parks, pla*grounds, and other

pu>lic facilities fro= the land the* sell to >u*ers of su>division lots. The necessities of pu>lic safet*, health, and

convenience are ver* clear fro= said re@uire=ents which are intended to insure the develop=ent of co==unities with

7/18/2019 cases1


salu>rious and wholeso=e environ=ents. The >eneficiaries of the regulation, in turn, are =ade to pa* >* the su>division

developer when individual lots are sold to ho=e'owners.

-s a =atter of fact, the petitioners rel* solel* on the general welfare clause or on i=plied powers of the =unicipal

corporation, not on an* e:press provision of law as statutor* >asis of their e:ercise of power. The clause has alwa*s

received >road and li>eral interpretation >ut we cannot stretch it to cover this particular taking. 3oreover, the @uestioned

ordinance was passed after 2i=la*ang 4ilipino, Inc. had incorporated. received necessar* licenses and per=its and

co==enced operating. The se@uestration of si: percent of the ce=eter* cannot even >e considered as having >een

i=pliedl* acknowledged >* the private respondent when it accepted the per=its to co==ence operations.

62RF"R, the petition for review is here>* I3I. The decision of the respondent court is affir=ed.

" "RR.

G.R. No. L-1311 6e7)ee+ 2/, 198:

FELICI$%$ VILL%NUEV%, FERN%N$O C%I6I, %NTONIO LI%NG, FELIN% MIR%N$%, RIC%R$O UNO,FLORENCIO L%%, !n" RENE OC%MO, petitioners,

vs.

#ON. M%RI%NO C%6T%;E$%, JR., +e&"n' Ju"'e o( )*e Cou+) o( F+&) In&)!ne o( !7!n'!, +!n* III,VICENTE %. M%C%LINO, O((e+-n-C*!+'e, O((e o( )*e M!0o+, 6!n Fe+n!n"o, !7!n'!, respondents.

CRU, J.:

There is in the vicinit* of the pu>lic =arket of an Fernando, 4a=panga, along 3ercado treet, a strip of land =easuring

%E >* =eters on which stands a conglo=eration of vendors stalls together for=ing what is co==onl* known as a

talipapa. This is the su>ect of the herein petition. The petitioners clai= the* have a right to re=ain in and conduct

>usiness in this area >* virtue of a previous authorization granted to the= >* the =unicipal govern=ent. The respondents

den* this and ustif* the de=olition of their stalls as illegal constructions on pu>lic propert*. -t the petitioners >ehest, we

have issued a te=porar* restraining order to preserve the status +uo >etween the parties pending our decision. 1 #ow we

shall rule on the =erits.

This dispute goes >ack to #ove=>er , %!$%, when the =unicipal council of an Fernando adopted Resolution #o. E%&

authorizing so=e E( =e=>ers of the Fernandino 0nited 3erchants and Traders -ssociation to construct per=anent stags

and sell in the a>ove'=entioned place. 2 The action was protested on #ove=>er %D, %!$%, in Civil Case #o. ED(D, where

the Court of First Instance of 4a=panga, Branch E, issued a writ of preli=inar* inunction that prevented the defendants

fro= constructing the said stalls until final resolution of the controvers*. 3 "n 7anuar* %&, %!$(, while this case was

pending, the =unicipal council of an Fernando adopted Resolution /.R. #o. E!, which declared the su>ect area as +the

parking place and as the pu>lic plaza of the =unicipalit*, 4 there>* i=pliedl* revoking Resolution #o. E%&, series of %!$%.

Four *ears later, on #ove=>er E, %!$&, 7udge -ndres C. -guilar decided the aforesaid case and held that the land

occupied >* the petitioners, >eing pu>lic in nature, was >e*ond the co==erce of =an and therefore could not >e thesu>ect of private occupanc*. 5 The writ of preli=inar* inunction was =ade per=anent.

The decision was apparentl* not enforced, for the petitioners were not evicted fro= the placeJ in fact, according to then

the* and the %E& other persons were in %!% assigned specific areas or space allot=ents therein for which the* paid dail*

fees to the =unicipal govern=ent. : The pro>le= appears to have festered for so=e =ore *ears under a presu=a>l* uneas*

truce a=ong the protagonists, none of who= =ade an* =ove, for so=e reason that does not appear in the record. Then, on

7anuar* %E, %!&E, the -ssociation of Concerned Citizens and Consu=ers of an Fernando filed a petition for the

i==ediate i=ple=entation of Resolution #o. E!, to restore the su>ect propert* +to its original and custo=ar* use as a

pu>lic plaza. 8

7/18/2019 cases1


-cting thereon after an investigation conducted >* the =unicipal attorne*, 9 respondent Vicente -. 3acalino, as officer'in'

charge of the office of the =a*or of an Fernando, issued on 7une %(, %!&E, a resolution re@uiring the =unicipal treasurer

and the =unicipal engineer to de=olish the stalls in the su>ect place >eginning 7ul* %, %!&E. 1< The reaction of the

petitioners was to file a petition for prohi>ition with the Court of First Instance of 4a=panga, docketed as Civil Case #o.

$(D, on 7une E$, %!&E. The respondent udge denied the petition on 7ul* %!, %!&E, 11 and the =otion for reconsideration

on -ugust ?, %!&E, 12 pro=pting the petitioners to co=e to this Court on certiorari to challenge his decision. 13

-s re@uired, respondent 3acalino filed his co==ent 14 on the petition, and the petitioners countered with their repl*. 15

In co=pliance with our resolution of Fe>ruar* E, %!&H, the petitioners su>=itted their =e=orandu= 1 and respondent3acalino, for his part, asked that his co==ent >e considered his =e=orandu=. 1: "n 7ul* E&, %!&$, the new officer'in'

charge of the office of the =a*or of an Fernando, 4aterno . /uevarra, was i=pleaded in lieu of Virgilio anchez, who

had hi=self earlier replaced the original respondent 3acalino. 18

-fter considering the issues and the argu=ents raised >* the parties in their respective pleadings, we rule for the

respondents. The petition =ust >e dis=issed.

There is no @uestion that the place occupied >* the petitioners and fro= which the* are sought to >e evicted is a pu>lic

plaza, as found >* the trial court in Civil Case #o. ED(D. This finding was =ade after consideration of the antecedent facts

as especiall* esta>lished >* the testi=on* of for=er an Fernando 3a*or Rodolfo 2izon, who later >eca=e governor of

4a=panga, that the #ational 4lanning Co==ission had reserved the area for a pu>lic plaza as earl* as %!?%. Thisintention was reiterated in %!$( through the adoption of Resolution #o. E!. 19

It does not appear that the decision in this case was appealed or has >een reversed. In Civil Case /.R. #o. $(D, which is

the su>ect of this petition, the respondent udge saw no reason to distur> the finding in Civil Case #o. ED(D and indeed

used it as a >asis for his own decision sustaining the @uestioned order. 2<

The >asic contention of the petitioners is that the disputed area is under lease to the= >* virtue of contracts the* had

entered into with the =unicipal govern=ent, first in %!$% insofar as the original occupants were concerned, and later with

the= and the other petitioners >* virtue of the space allocations =ade in their favor in %!% for which the* saw the* are

pa*ing dail* fees. 21 The =unicipal govern=ent has denied =aking such agree=ents. In an* case, the* argue, since the

fees were collected dail*, the leases, assu=ing their validit*, could >e ter=inated at will, or an* da*, as the clai=ed rentals

indicated that the period of the leases was fro= da* to da*. 22

The parties >ela>or this argu=ent needlessl*.

- pu>lic plaza is >e*ond the co==erce of =an and so cannot >e the su>ect of lease or an* other contractual undertaking.

This is ele=entar*. Indeed, this point was settled as earl* as in Municipality of Ca%ite %s. Roas, 23 decided in %!%?, where

the Court declared as null and void the lease of a pu>lic plaza of the said =unicipalit* in favor of a private person.

7ustice Torres said in that case9

-ccording to article H(( of the Civil Code9 +4ropert* for pu>lic use in provinces and in towns co=prises

the provincial and town roads, the s@uares, streets, fountains, and pu>lic waters, the pro=enades, and pu>lic works of general service supported >* said towns or provinces.

The said 4laza oledad >eing a pro=enade for pu>lic use, the =unicipal council of Cavite could not in

%!D withdraw or e:clude fro= pu>lic use a portion thereof in order to lease it for the sole >enefit of the

defendant 2ilaria Roas. In leasing a portion of said plaza or pu>lic place to the defendant for private use

the plaintiff =unicipalit* e:ceeded its authorit* in the e:ercise of its powers >* e:ecuting a contract over

a thing of which it could not dispose, nor is it e=powered so to do.

7/18/2019 cases1


The Civil Code, article %E%, prescri>es that ever*thing which is not outside the co==erce of =an =a*

>e the o>ect of a contract, and plazas and streets are outside of this co==erce, as was decided >* the

supre=e court of pain in its decision of Fe>ruar* %E, %&!?, which sa*s9 +co==unal things that cannot >e

sold >ecause the* are >* their ver* nature outside of co==erce are those for pu>lic use, such as the

plazas, streets, co==on lands, rivers, fountains, etc.+

Therefore, it =ust >e concluded that the contract, :hi>it C, where>* the =unicipalit* of Cavite leased to

2ilaria Roas a portion of the 4laza oledad is null and void and of no force or effect, >ecause it is

contrar* to the law and the thing leased cannot >e the o>ect of a was held that the Cit* of contract.

In Muyot %s. de la Fuente, 24 it was held that the Cit* of 3anila could not lease a portion of a pu>lic sidewalk on 4laza

ta. Cruz, >eing likewise >e*ond the co==erce of =an.

choing Roas, the decision said9

-ppellants clai= that the* had o>tained per=it fro= the present of the Cit* of 3anila, to connect >ooths

#os. % and E, along the pre=ises in @uestion, and for the use of spaces where the >ooths were constructed,

the* had paid and continued pa*ing the corresponding rentals. /ranting this clai= to >e true, one should

not entertain an* dou>t that such per=it was not legal, >ecause the Cit* of 3anila does not have an*

power or authorit* at all to lease a portion of a pu>lic sidewalk. The sidewalk in @uestion, for=ing part ofthe pu>lic plaza of ta. Cruz, could not >e a proper su>ect =atter of the contract, as it was not within the

co==erce of =an ;-rticle %H(, new Civil Code, and article %E%, old Civil Code<. -n* contract entered

into >* the Cit* of 3anila in connection with the sidewalk, is ipso facto null and ultra %ires.

;3unicipalit* of Cavite vs. Ro:as, et a%, HD 4hil. $DH.< The sidewalk in @uestion was intended for and

was used >* the pu>lic, in going fro= one place to another. +The streets and pu>lic places of the cit* shall

>e kept free and clear for the use of the pu>lic, and the sidewalks and crossings for the pedestrians, and

the sa=e shall onl* >e used or occupied for other purpose as provided >* ordinance or regulationJ ...+

;ec. %%%!, Revised "rdinances of the Cit* of 3anila.< The >ooths in @uestion served as fruit stands for

their owners and often, if not alwa*s, >locked the fire passage of pedestrians who had to take the plaza

itself which used to >e clogged with vehicular traffic.

:actl* in point is Espiritu %s. Municipal Council of -o#orruio, 25 where the upre=e Court declared9

There is a>solutel* no @uestion that the town plaza cannot >e used for the construction of =arket stalls,

speciall* of residences, and that such structures constitute a nuisance su>ect to a>ate=ent according to

law. Town plazas are properties of pu>lic do=inion, to >e devoted to pu>lic use and to >e =ade availa>le

to the pu>lic in general The* are outside the co==on of =an and cannot >e disposed of or even leased >*

the =unicipalit* to private parties.

-ppl*ing this well'settled doctrine, we rule that the petitioners had no right in the first place to occup* the disputed

pre=ises and cannot insist in re=aining there now on the strength of their alleged lease contracts. The* should have

realized and accepted this earlier, considering that even >efore Civil Case #o. ED(D was decided, the =unicipalcouncil of

an Fernando had alread* adopted Resolution #o. E!, series of %!$(, declaring the area as the parking place and pu>lic plaza of the =unicipalit*.

It is the decision in Civil Case #o. ED(D and the said resolution of the =unicipal council of an Fernando that respondent

3acalino was seeking to enforce when he ordered the de=olition of the stags constructed in the disputed area. -s officer'

in'charge of the office of the =a*or, he had the dut* to clear the area and restore it to its intended use as a parking place

and pu>lic plaza of the =unicipalit* of an Fernando, confor=a>l* to the afore=entioned orders fro= the court and the

council. It is, therefore, not correct to sa* that he had acted without authorit* or taken the law into his hands in issuing his

order.

7/18/2019 cases1


#either can it >e said that he acted whi=sicall* in e:ercising his authorit* for it has >een esta>lished that he directed the

de=olition of the stalls onl* after, upon his instructions, the =unicipal attorne* had conducted an investigation, to look

into the co=plaint filed >* the -ssociation of Concerned Citizens and Consu=ers of an Fernando. 2 There is evidence

that the petitioners were notified of this hearing, 2:which the* chose to disregard. 4hotographs of the disputed area, 28

which does look congested and ugl*, show that the co=plaint was valid and that the area reall* needed to >e cleared, as

reco==ended >* the =unicipal attorne*.

The Court o>serves that even without such investigation and reco==endation, the respondent =a*or was ustified in

ordering the area cleared on the strength alone of its status as a pu>lic plaza as declared >* the udicial and legislativeauthorities. In calling first for the investigation ;which the petitioner saw fit to >o*cott<, he was ust scrupulousl* pa*ing

deference to the re@uire=ents of due process, to re=ove an taint of ar>itrariness in the action he was caged upon to take.

ince the occupation of the place in @uestion in %!$% >* the original E( stallholders ;whose nu=>er later >allooned to

al=ost EDD<, it has deteriorated increasingl* to the great preudice of the co==unit* in general. The proliferation of stags

therein, =ost of the= =akeshift and of fla==a>le =aterials, has converted it into a verita>le fire trap, which, added to the

fact that it o>structs access to and fro= the pu>lic =arket itself, has seriousl* endangered pu>lic safet*. The filth*

condition of the talipapa, where fish and other wet ite=s are sold, has aggravated health and sanitation pro>le=s, >esides

pervading the place with a foul odor that has spread into the surrounding areas. The entire place is unsightl*, to the dis=a*

and e=>arrass=ent of the inha>itants, who want it converted into a showcase of the town of which the* can all >e proud.

The vendors in the talipapa have also spilled into the street and o>struct the flow of traffic, there>* i=pairing theconvenience of =otorists and pedestrians alike. The regular stallholders in the pu>lic =arket, who pa* su>stantial rentals

to the =unicipalit*, are deprived of a siza>le volu=e of >usiness fro= prospective custo=ers who are intercepted >* the

talipapa vendors >efore the* can reach the =arket proper. "n top of all these, the people are denied the proper use of the

place as a pu>lic plaza, where the* =a* spend their leisure in a rela:ed and even >eautiful environ=ent and civic and

other co==unal activities of the town can >e held.

The pro>le=s caused >* the usurpation of the place >* the petitioners are covered >* the police power as delegated to the

=unicipalit* under the general welfare clause. 29 This authorizes the =unicipal council +to enact such ordinances and

=ake such regulations, not repugnant to law, as =a* >e necessar* to carr* into effect and discharge the powers and duties

conferred upon it >* law and such as shall see= necessar* and proper to provide for the health and safet*, pro=ote the

prosperit*, i=prove the =orals, peace, good order, co=fort, and convenience of the =unicipalit* and the inha>itants

thereof, and for the protection of propert* therein.+ This authorit* was validl* e:ercised in this casethrough the adoption

of Resolution #o. E!, series of %!$(, >* the =unicipal council of an Fernando.

ven assu=ing a valid lease of the propert* in dispute, the resolution could have effectivel* ter=inated the agree=ent for

it is settled that the police power cannot >e surrendered or >argained awa* through the =ediu= of a contract. 3< In fact,

ever* contract affecting the pu>lic interest suffers a congenital infir=it* in that it contains an i=plied reservation of the

police power as a postulate of the e:isting legal order. 31 This power can >e activated at an* ti=e to change the provisions

of the contract, or even a>rogate it entirel*, for the pro=otion or protection of the general welfare. uch an act will not

=ilitate against the i=pair=ent clause, which is su>ect to and li=ited >* the para=ount police power. 32

6e hold that the respondent udge did not co==it grave a>use of discretion in den*ing the petition for prohi>ition. "n the

contrar*, he acted correctl* in sustaining the right and responsi>ilit* of the =a*or to evict the petitioners fro= the disputedarea and clear it of an the structures illegall* constructed therein.

The Court feels that it would have >een far =ore a=ia>le if the petitioners the=selves, recognizing their own civic dut*,

had at the outset desisted fro= their original stance and withdrawn in good grace fro= the disputed area to per=it its

peaceful restoration as a pu>lic plaza and parking place for the >enefit of the whole =unicipalit*. The* owned this little

sacrifice to the co==unit* in general which has suffered all these =an* *ears >ecause of their intransigence. Regretta>l*,

the* have refused to recognize that in the trul* de=ocratic societ*, the interests of the few should *ield to those of the

greater nu=>er in deference to the principles that the welfare of the people is the supre=e law and overriding purpose. 6e

do not see an* altruis= here. The traditional ties of sharing are a>sent here. 6hat we find, sad to sa*, is a c*nical

7/18/2019 cases1


disdaining of the spirit of +>a*anihan,+ a selfish reection of the cordial virtues of +pakikisa=a + and +pag>i>iga*an+

which are the hall=arks of our people.

62RF"R, the petition is I3I. The decision dated 7ul* %!, %!&E, and the order'dated -ugust ?, %!&E, are

-FFIR3. The te=porar* restraining order dated -ugust !, %!&E, is 1IFT. This decision is i==ediatel* e:ecutor*.

Costs against the petitioners.

" "RR.

G.R. No. 1<4:8 J!nu!+0 2:, 1994

%LFRE$O %T%LING#UG, petitioner,

vs.

#ON. COURT OF %E%L6, RIC%R$O CRIILLO, M%RTIN %R%OL, COR%ON %LC%6I$, RIMITIV%6E$O, respondents.

on#ales, &atiller, &ilo$ / )ssociates for petitioner.

arcilaso F. Ve$a for pri%ate respondents.

ROMERO, J.:

In the case >efore us, we are called upon to decide whether or not petitioners operation of a funeral ho=e constitutes

per=issi>le use within a particular district or zone in avao Cit*.

"n #ove=>er %, %!&E, the angguniang 4anlungsod of avao Cit* enacted "rdinance #o. H$H, series of %!&E otherwise

known as the +:panded 8oning "rdinance of avao Cit*,+ ection & of which states9

ec. &. 0SE RE0L)T*O1S *1 C(2 D*STR*CTS ;haded light red in the :panded 8oning 3ap< M -C'E istrict shall >e do=inantl* for co==ercial and co=pati>le industrial uses as provided hereunder9

::: ::: :::

::: ::: :::

H.% Funeral 4arlorsA3e=orial 2o=es with ade@uate off street parking space ;see parking standards of

4.. %D!$< and pro%ided t!at t!ey s!all e estalis!ed not less t!an 34 meters from any residential

structures, c!urc!es and ot!er institutional uildin$s. ;=phasis provided<

0pon prior approval and certification of zoning co=pliance >* 8oning -d=inistrator issued on Fe>ruar* %D, %!&

Building 4er=it #o. &DE?( in favor of petitioner for the construction of a funeral parlor in the na=e and st*le of

3etropolitan Funeral 4arlor at Ca>aguio -venue, -gdao, avao Cit*.

Thereafter, petitioner co==enced the construction of his funeral parlor.

-cting on the co=plaint of several residents of Baranga* -gdao, avao Cit* that the construction of petitioners funeral

parlor violated "rdinance

#o. H$H, since it was allegedl* situated within a ?D'=eter radius fro= the Iglesia ni Nristo Chapel and several residential

structures, the angguniang 4anlungsod conducted an investigation and found that +the nearest residential structure,

owned >* 6ilfred /. Tepoot is onl* & inches to the south. . . . .+ 1

7/18/2019 cases1


#otwithstanding the findings of the angguniang 4anlungsod, petitioner continued to construct his funeral parlor which

was finished on #ove=>er H, %!&.

Conse@uentl*, private respondents filed on epte=>er $, %!&& a case for the declaration of nullit* of a >uilding per=it

with preli=inar* prohi>itor* and =andator* inunction andAor restraining order with the trial court. 2

-fter conducting its own ocular inspection on 3arch HD, %!&!, the lower court, in its order dated 7ul* $, %!&!, dis=issed

the co=plaint >ased on the following findings9 3

%. that the residential >uilding owned >* Cri>illo and Iglesia ni Nristo chapel are $H.E? =eters and ??.!?

=eters awa*, respectivel* fro= the funeral parlor.

E. -lthough the residential >uilding owned >* certain

3r. Tepoot is adacent to the funeral parlor, and is onl* separated therefro= >* a concrete fence, said

residential >uilding is >eing rented >* a certain 3r. -siaten who actuall* devotes it to his laundr*

>usiness with =achiner* thereon.

H. 4rivate respondents suit is pre=ature as the* failed to e:haust the ad=inistrative re=edies provided >*

"rdinance #o. H$H.

2ence, private respondents appealed to the Court of -ppeals. ;C- /.R. #o. EHE(H<.

In its decision dated #ove=>er E!, %!!%, the Court of -ppeals reversed the lower court >* annulling >uilding per=it #o.

&DE?( issued in favor of petitioner. 4 It ruled that although the >uildings owned >* Cri>illo and Iglesia ni Nristo were

>e*ond the ?D'=eter residential radius prohi>ited >* "rdinance H$H, the construction of the funeral parlor was within the

?D'=eter radius =easured fro= the Tepoots >uilding. The -ppellate Court disagreed with the lower courts deter=ination

that Tepoots >uilding was co==ercial and ruled that although it was used >* 3r. Tepoots lessee for laundr* >usiness, it

was a residential lot as reflected in the ta: declaration, thus paving the wa* for the application of "rdinance #o. H$H.

2ence, this appeal >ased on the following grounds9

The Respondent Court of -ppeals erred in concluding that the Tepoot >uilding adacent to petitioners

funeral parlor is residential si=pl* >ecause it was allegedl* declared as such for ta:ation purposes, in

co=plete disregard of "rdinance #o. H$H ;The :panded 8oning "rdinance of avao Cit*< declaring the

su>ect area as do=inantl* for co==ercial and co=pati>le industrial uses.

6e reverse the -ppellate Court and reinstate the ruling of the lower court that petitioner did not violate ection & of

avao Cit* "rdinance #o. H$H. It =ust >e e=phasized that the @uestion of whether 3r. Tepoots >uilding is residential or

not is a factual deter=ination which we should not distur>. -s we have repeatedl* enunciated, the resolution of factual

issues is the function of the lower courts where findings on these =atters are received with respect and are in fact >inding

on this court, e:cept onl* where the case is shown as co=ing under the accepted e:ceptions. 5

-lthough the general rule is that factual findings of the Court of -ppeals are conclusive on us, this ad=its of e:ceptions

as when the findings or conclusions of the Court of -ppeals and the trial court are contrar* to each other. : 6hile the trial

court ruled that Tepoots >uilding was co==ercial, the -ppellate Court ruled otherwise. Thus we see the necessit* of

reading and e:a=ining the pleadings and transcripts su>=itted >efore the trial court.

In the case at >ar, the testi=on* of Cit* Councilor Vergara shows that 3r. Tepoots >uilding was used for a dual purpose

>oth as a dwelling and as a place where a laundr* >usiness was conducted. 8 But while its co==ercial aspect has >een

esta>lished >* the presence of =achineries and laundr* paraphernalia, its use as a residence, other than >eing declared for

ta:ation purposes as such, was not full* su>stantiated.

7/18/2019 cases1


The reversal >* the Court of -ppeals of the trial courts decision was >ased on Tepoots >uilding >eing declared for

ta:ation purposes as residential. It is our considered view, however, that a ta: declaration is not conclusive of the nature of

the propert* for zoning purposes. - propert* =a* have >een declared >* its owner as residential for real estate ta:ation

purposes >ut it =a* well >e within a co==ercial zone. - discrepanc* =a* thus e:ist in the deter=ination of the nature of

propert* for real estate ta:ation purposes %is(a(%is the deter=ination of a propert* for zoning purposes.

#eedless to sa*, even if we are to e:a=ine the evidentiar* value of a ta: declaration under the Real 4ropert* Ta: Code, a

ta: declaration onl* ena>les the assessor to identif* the sa=e for assess=ent levels. In fact, a ta: declaration does not >ind

a provincialAcit* assessor, for under ec. EE of the Real state Ta: Code, 9

appraisal and assess=ent are >ased on theactual use irrespective of +an* previous assess=ent or ta:pa*ers valuation thereon,+ which is >ased on a ta:pa*ers

declaration. In fact, a piece of land declared >* a ta:pa*er as residential =a* >e assessed >* the provincial or cit* assessor

as co==ercial >ecause its actual use is co==ercial.

The trial courts deter=ination that 3r. Tepoots >uilding is co==ercial and, therefore, ec. & is inapplica>le, is

strengthened >* the fact that the angguniang 4anlungsod has declared the @uestioned area as co==ercial or

C'E. Conse@uentl*, even if Tepoots >uilding was declared for ta:ation purposes as residential, once a local govern=ent

has reclassified an area as co==ercial, that deter=ination for zoning purposes =ust prevail. 6hile the co==ercial

character of the @uestioned vicinit* has >een declared thru the ordinance, private respondents have failed to present

convincing argu=ents to su>stantiate their clai= that Ca>aguio -venue, where the funeral parlor was constructed, was still

a residential zone. 0n@uestiona>l*, the operation of a funeral parlor constitutes a +co==ercial purpose,+ as gleaned fro="rdinance #o. H$H.

The declaration of the said area as a co==ercial zone thru a =unicipal ordinance is an e:ercise of police power to

pro=ote the good order and general welfare of the people in the localit*. Corollar* thereto, the state, in order to pro=ote

the general welfare, =a* interfere with personal li>ert*, with propert*, and with >usiness and occupations. 1< Thus, persons

=a* >e su>ected to certain kinds of restraints and >urdens in order to secure the general welfare of the state and to this

funda=ental ai= of govern=ent, the rights of the individual =a* >e su>ordinated. The ordinance which regulates the

location of funeral ho=es has >een adopted as part of co=prehensive zoning plans for the orderl* develop=ent of the area

covered thereunder.

62RF"R, the decision of the Court of -ppeals dated #ove=>er E!, %!!% is here>* RVR and the order dated

7ul* $, %!&! of the Regional Trial Court of avao Cit* is RI#T-T.

" "RR.

G.R. No&. L-45338-39 Ju/0 31, 1991

REULIC OF T#E #ILIINE6, petitioner'appellee,

vs.

OLIC%RIO GON%LE6 !n" %UGU6TO JO6UE, respondents'appellants.

7/18/2019 cases1


Jose 5. alsim for respondent(appellant -. on#ales.

Jaime . Man#ano for appellant ). Josue.

FELICI%NO, J.:p

The Repu>lic of the 4hilippines is the owner of two ;E< parcels of land situated in TaOong 3ala>on, 3etro 3anila anddesignated as 1ots % and E of 4lan 3R'%D%&'. 1ot I which adoins F. evilla Boulevard has an area of $D? s@uare

=etersJ 1ot E, an interior lot a>utting F. evilla Boulevard onl* on its northern portion, is $$( s@uare =eters in area. This

piece of propert* was for=erl* a deep swa=p until the occupants thereof, a=ong the= appellants 4olicarpio /onzales and

-ugusta 7osue, started filling it. ach of appellants who are >rothers'in'law, constructed a =i:ed residential and

co==ercial >uilding on the interior part of 1ot E.

"n %( -pril %!??, then 4resident Ra=on 3agsa*sa* issued 4rocla=ation #o. %((, entitled +Reserving for treet

6idening and 4arking pace 4urposes Certain 4arcels of the 4u>lic o=ain ituated in the 3unicipalit* of 3ala>on,

4rovince of Rizal, Island of 1uzon.+ 1 1ots % and E were specificall* withdrawn fro= sale or settle=ent and reserved for

the purposes =entioned in the 4rocla=ation.

The 3unicipal Council of 3ala>on then passed Resolutions 2 authorizing the filing of eect=ent cases against appellants

so that 4rocla=ation #o, %(( could >e i=ple=ented. "n EH 7une %!??, the -ssistant 4rovincial Fiscal of 4asig, Rizal filed

separate co=plaints against appellants for the recover* of the portions of 1ot E the* were occup*ing.

-ppellants disputed the light of the /overn=ent to recover the land occupied >* the=. In his answer, 4olicarpio /onzales

clai=ed ;%< that 1ot E was covered >* a lease application, and later a =iscellaneous sales application, filed >efore the

Bureau of 1andsJ ;E< that he had a =unicipal per=it to construct a >uilding as well as a >usiness license dul* issued >* the

"ffice of the 3a*or of 3ala>onJ and ;H< that the lot occupied >* hi= was not needed >* the 3unicipalit* of 3ala>on in

the widening of F. evilla Boulevard. The defenses interposed >* -ugusto 7osue were su>stantiall* si=ilar to those raised

>* 4olicarpio /onzales.

0pon agree=ent of the parties, the separate cases were tried ointl*. "n E& 7anuar* %!$, the trial court, presided over >*

then 7udge Cecilia 3uOoz'4al=a, rendered a decision with the following dispositive portion9

62RF"R, finding the co=plaints to >e ustified and =eritorious, this Court orders defendants

4olicarpio /onzales and -ugusto 7osue andAor their agents, representatives, successors'in'interest to

vacate 1ots % and E of 4lan 3R%D%&' as descri>ed in the co=plaint, and to re=ove at their e:pense their

respective >uildings andAor i=prove=ents erected and e:isting on said lots, and restore the possession

thereof to the Repu>lic of the 4hilippines, and to pa* the corresponding costs in the respective cases.

" "RR. 3

-ppellants appealed to the Court of -ppeals. In a Resolution dated % ece=>er %!$, the Court of -ppeals, speaking

through 3r. 7ustice 1uis B. Re*es, certified the consolidated cases to this Court since the appeals raised onl* a @uestion of

law, that is, whether 4residential 4rocla=ation #o. %(( was valid or not. 4

-lthough appellants filed separate >riefs >efore the Court of -ppeals, their co==on defense was presented and discussed

in ver* si=ilar language9

tripped of surplusage, it is respectfull* su>=itted that 4rocla=ation #o. %(( dated -pril %(, %!?? of the

4resident of the 4hilippines, =ore particularl* that portion which withdrew fro= sale and settle=ent the

land in @uestion and reserving LtheK sa=e for parking space purposes, is not in accordance with ection &H

7/18/2019 cases1


of the 4u>lic 1and 1aw, Co==onwealth -ct #o. %(%, and therefore, invalid. 0nder said law +parking

space+ is not one of those reservations for pu>lic >enefit which the 4resident of the 4hilippines =a*

designate >* procla=ation fro= an* tracts of land of the pu>lic do=ain. The reservation for +parking lots+

under the presidential procla=ation in @uestion is not re@uired >* pu>lic interest, nor it is for the >enefit

of the pu>lic, >ecause onl* those who have cars can use the parking lot. 4u>lic use or pu>lic >enefit =ust

>e for the general pu>lic and not a use >* or for particular persons. The essential feature of pu>lic use is

that it should not >e confined to privileged individuals, >ut open to the general pu>lic. This is not so of the

parking space as conte=plated >* the presidential procla=ation in @uestion. ;Citations o=itted.<

ection &H of Co==onwealth -ct #o. %(%, known as the 4u>lic 1and 1aw provides9

0pon the reco==endation of the ecretar* of -griculture and Co==erce Lnow ecretar* of nviron=ent

and #atural ResourcesK, t!e -resident may desi$nate y proclamation any tract or tracts of land of t!e

pulic domain as reser%ation for t!e use of the Co==onwealth of the 4hilippines Lnow Repu>lic of the

4hilippinesK or of any of its ranc!es, or of t!e in!aitants t!ereof, in accordance with regulations

prescri>ed for this purpose, or for +uasi(pulic uses or purposes 6!en t!e pulic interest re+uires it,

including reser%ations for !i$!6ays, rights of wa* for railroads, h*draulic power sites, irrigation s*ste=s,

co==unal pastures or le$uas comunales, pu>lic parks, pu>lic @uarries, pu>lic fishponds, working=ens

village and ot!er impro%ements for t!e pulic enefit . ;=phasis supplied<

-ppellants urge this Court to declare 4rocla=ation #o. %(( invalid. The* contend that the setting aside of the lots

occupied >* the= for parking space purposes does not redound to the pu>lic >enefit as re@uired under ection &H of the

4u>lic 1and -ct. The* clai= that onl* certain privileged individuals, i.e., those who have cars, can avail of the parking

facilit* without an* advantage accruing to the general pu>lic.

-s o>served >* the trial court, 4rocla=ation #o. %(( was issued >* then 4resident Ra=on 3agsa*sa* in response to

several resolutions passed >* the 3unicipal Council of 3ala>on, Rizal, which had >eco=e particularl* aware of the

increasing vehicular traffic and congestion along F. evilla Boulevard. 5 The 3unicipal Council had proposed to widen F.

evilla Boulevard and at the sa=e ti=e, to reserve an area for parking space to ease up traffic pro>le=s, in anticipation of

the co=pletion of the then proposed =arket and slaughterhouse located to the west of F. evilla Boulevard. In this da* and

age, it is hardl* open to de>ate that the pu>lic has =uch to gain fro= the proposed widening of F. evilla Boulevard and

fro= esta>lish=ent of a =unicipal parking area. Indiscri=inate parking along F. evilla Boulevard and other =ain

thoroughfares was prevalentJ this, of course, caused the >uild up of traffic in the surrounding area to the great disco=fort

and inconvenience of the pu>lic who use the streets. Traffic congestion constitutes a threat to the health, welfare, safet*

and convenience of the people and it can onl* >e su>stantiall* relieved >* widening streets and providing ade@uate

parking areas.

0nder the 1and Transportation and Traffic Code, parking in designated areas along pu>lic streets or highwa*s is allowed

which clearl* indicates that provision for parking spaces serves a useful purpose. In other urisdictions where traffic is at

least as volu=inous as here, the provision >* =unicipal govern=ents of parking space is not li=ited to parking along

pu>lic streets or highwa*s. There has >een a =arked trend to >uild off'street parking facilities with the view to re=oving

parked cars fro= the streets. 6hile the provision of off'street parking facilities or carparks has >een co==onl*

undertaken >* private enterprise, =unicipal govern=ents have >een constrained to put up carparks in response to pu>licnecessit* where private enterprise had failed to keep up with the growing pu>lic de=and. -=erican courts have upheld

the right of =unicipal govern=ents to construct off'street parking facilities as clearl* redounding to the pu>lic >enefit. :

-ppellants, however, allege that the >enefits, if an*, that =a* >e derived fro= the proposed street'widening and parking

space will >e confined to people who have cars, hence there would >e lacking the essential feature of propert* reserved for

pu>lic use or >enefit. -ppellants would restrict propert* reserved for pu>lic use or >enefit to include onl* propert*

suscepti>le of >eing utilized >* a generall* unli=ited nu=>er of people. The conception urged >* appellants is >oth

flawed and o>solete since the nu=>er of users is not the *ardstick in deter=ining whether propert* is properl* reserved

for pu>lic use or pu>lic >enefit. In the first place, ection &H a>ove speaks not onl* of use >* a local govern=ent >ut also

of +@uasi'pu>lic uses or purposes.+ To constitute pu>lic use, the pu>lic in general should have e@ual or co==on rights to

7/18/2019 cases1


use the land or facilit* involved on the sa=e ter=s, however li=ited in nu=>er the people who can actuall* avail

the=selves of it at a given ti=e. 8 There is nothing in 4rocla=ation #o. %(( which e:cludes non'car'owners fro= using a

widened street or a parking area should the* in fact happen to >e driving carsJ the opportunit* to avail of the use thereof

re=ains open for the pu>lic in general.

Besides, the >enefits directl* o>tained >* car'owners do not deter=ine either the validit* or invalidit* of 4rocla=ation #o

%((. 6hat is i=portant are the long'ter= >enefits which the proposed street widening and parking areas =ake availa>le to

the pu>lic in the for= of enhanced, safe and orderl* transportation on land. This is the kind of pu>lic >enefit envisioned

>* the 3unicipal Council of 3ala>on, Rizal and which was sought to >e pro=oted >* the 4resident in issuing4rocla=ation #o. %((.

6e >elieve and so hold that 4rocla=ation #o. %(( was lawful and valid.

4rocla=ation #o. %(( specificall* provided that the withdrawal of 1ots #o. % and E shall >e su>ect to e:isting private

rights, if an* there >e. 4rior to the issuance of 4rocla=ation #o. %((, appellants had applied for =iscellaneous sales

applications over the lots respectivel* occupied >* the=. Insofar as appellant 4olicarpio /onzales is concerned, it is not

disputed that he had acknowledged the ownership of the #ational /overn=ent of the land applied for >* hi=. 9 -lthough

not e:pressl* stated, -ugusto 7osue =ust >e dee=ed to have si=ilarl* ad=itted that ownership >* the #ational

/overn=ent since he filed a =iscellaneous sales application with the Bureau of 1ands, an agenc* of the /overn=ent, an

application which can onl* >e filed in respect of tracts of pu>lic land, not private land.

The =iscellaneous sales application, however, of appellant 4olicarpio /onzales had not >een approved >* the Bureau of

1ands at the ti=e 4rocla=ation #o. %(( was issuedJ the land therefore retained its character as land of the pu>lic do=ain.

0pon the other hand, the =iscellaneous sales application of appellant -ugusto 7osue had alread* >een reected in an "rder

of the irector of 1ands dated & 7anuar* %!?(. 1< -ccordingl*, no private rights had accrued and >eco=e vested in

appellants. In >oth cases, the lots re=ained pu>lic lands and were in fact su>ect to the free disposition and control of the

/overn=ent.

-ppellants allege having >uilt =i:ed residential and co==ercial >uildings on 1ot E. The evidence of record discloses that

appellants had secured the appropriate =unicipal per=its or licenses therefor, that is, for the construction of said >uildings

as well as the carr*ing on of >usiness therein. 2owever, since the lease, sale or an* other for= of concession or

disposition and =anage=ent of lands of the pu>lic do=ain was directl* under the e:ecutive control of the irector of

1ands, 11 and not of local govern=ent officials, the 3ala>on 3unicipal 3a*or =ust >e held to have e:ceeded his

authorit* in allowing the use of lands of the pu>lic do=ain to appellants >* constructing thereon co==ercial and

residential use >uildings, or an* other kind of >uilding for that =atter.

o=eti=e after 4rocla=ation #o. %(( was issued >* the 4resident, appellants >rought their predica=ent to the attention of

the 4resident. The then 4residential Co=plaints and -ction Co==ittee ;+4C-C+< conducted an investigation on the >asis

of which it eventuall* reco==ended the e:clusion fro= the reservation of the lots affected, in line with the +1and for the

1andless+ polic* of 4resident 3agsa*sa*s ad=inistration. 12 The then ecretar* of -griculture and #atural Resources

si=ilarl* reco==ended the e:clusion of the portion of 1ot E occupied >* appellants and forwarded to the "ffice of the

4resident a draft of a proposed a=end=ent of 4rocla=ation #o. %(( specificall* e:cluding 1ot E fro= the scope of

application thereof .The a=end=ent, however, re=ained =erel* a proposal for failure on the part of the 4resident of the4hilippines to act favora>l* thereon.

62RF"R, the 4etition for Review is here>* #I for lack of =erit. The ecision dated E& 7anuar* %!$ of then

Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch % is here>* -FFIR3. Costs against appellants.

" "RR.

G.R. No. 92299 %7+/ 19, 1991

7/18/2019 cases1


REYN%L$O R. 6%N JU%N, petitioner,

vs.

CIVIL 6ERVICE COMMI66ION, $E%RTMENT OF U$GET %N$ M%N%GEMENT !n" CECILI%%LM%JO6E, respondents.

Le$al Ser%ices Di%ision for petitioner.

Sumulon$, Sumulon$, -aras / )ano La6 Offices for pri%ate respondent.

GUTIERRE, JR., J.:

In this petition for certiorari pursuant to ection , -rticle IX ;-< of the present Constitution, the petitioner /overnor of

the 4rovince of Rizal, pra*s for the nullification of Resolution #o. &!'&$& of the Civil ervice Co==ission ;CC< dated

#ove=>er E%, %!&! and its Resolution #o. !D'%?D dated Fe>ruar* !, %!!D.

The dispositive portion of the @uestioned Resolution reads9

62RF"R, foregoing pre=ises considered, the Co==ission resolved to dis=iss, as it here>* dis=isses the

appeal of /overnor Re*naldo an 7uan of Rizal. -ccordingl*, the approved appoint=ent of 3s. Cecilia -l=aose

as 4rovincial Budget "fficer of Rizal, is upheld. ; Rollo, p. HE<

The su>se@uent Resolution #o. !D'%?D reiterates CCs position upholding the private respondents appoint=ent >*

den*ing the petitioners =otion for reconsideration for lack of =erit.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows9

"n 3arch EE, %!&&, the position of 4rovincial Budget "fficer ;4B"< for the province of Rizal was left vacant >* its

for=er holder, a certain 2enedi=a del Rosario.

In a letter dated -pril %&, %!&&, the petitioner infor=ed irector Re*naldo ->ella of the epart=ent of Budget and3anage=ent ;B3< Region IV that 3s. alisa* antos assu=ed office as -cting 4B" since 3arch EE, %!&& pursuant to

a 3e=orandu= issued >* the petitioner who further re@uested irector ->ella to endorse the appoint=ent of the said 3s.alisa* antos to the contested position of 4B" of Rizal. 3s. alisa* antos was then 3unicipal Budget "fficer of

Ta*ta*, Rizal >efore she discharged the functions of acting 4B".

In a 3e=orandu= dated 7ul* E$, %!&& addressed to the B3 ecretar*, then irector ->ella of Region IV reco==ended

the appoint=ent of the private respondent as 4B" of Rizal on the >asis of a co=parative stud* of all 3unicipal Budget

"fficers of the said province which included three no=inees of the petitioner. -ccording to ->ella, the private respondent

was the =ost @ualified since she was the onl* Certified 4u>lic -ccountant a=ong the contenders.

"n -ugust %, %!&&, B3 0ndersecretar* #azario . Ca>u@uit, 7r. signed the appoint=ent papers of the private

respondent as 4B" of Rizal upon the aforestated reco==endation of ->ella.

In a letter dated -ugust H, %!&& addressed to ecretar* Carague, the petitioner reiterated his re@uest for the appoint=ent of

alisa* antos to the contested position unaware of the earlier appoint=ent =ade >* 0ndersecretar* Ca>u@uit.

"n -ugust H%, %!&&, B3 Regional irector -gripino /. /alvez wrote the petitioner that alisa* antos and his other

reco==endees did not =eet the =ini=u= re@uire=ents under 1ocal Budget Circular #o. H% for the position of a local

>udget officer. irector /alvez whether or not through oversight further re@uired the petitioner to su>=it at least three

other @ualified no=inees who are @ualified for the position of 4B" of Rizal for evaluation and processing.

"n #ove=>er E, %!&&, the petitioner after having >een infor=ed of the private respondents appoint=ent wrote ecretar*

Carague protesting against the said appoint=ent on the grounds that Ca>u@uit as B3 0ndersecretar* is not legall*

authorized to appoint the 4B"J that the private respondent lacks the re@uired three *ears work e:perience as provided in

7/18/2019 cases1


1ocal Budget Circular #o. H%J and that under :ecutive "rder #o. %%E, it is the 4rovincial /overnor, not the Regional

irector or a Congress=an, who has the power to reco==end no=inees for the position of 4B".

"n 7anuar* !, %!&! respondent B3, through its irector of the Bureau of 1egal P 1egislative -ffairs ;B11-< Virgilio

-. -furung, issued a 3e=orandu= ruling that the petitioners letter'protest is not =eritorious considering that pu>lic

respondent B3 validl* e:ercised its prerogative in filling'up the contested position since none of the petitioners

no=inees =et the prescri>ed re@uire=ents.

"n 7anuar* E, %!&!, the petitioner =oved for a reconsideration of the B11- ruling.

"n Fe>ruar* E&, %!&!, the B3 ecretar* denied the petitioners =otion for reconsideration.

"n 3arch E, %!&!, the petitioner wrote pu>lic respondent CC protesting against the appoint=ent of the private

respondent and reiterating his position regarding the =atter.

u>se@uentl*, pu>lic respondent CC issued the @uestioned resolutions which pro=pted the petitioner to su>=it >efore us

the following assign=ent of errors9

-. T2 CC RR I# 042"1I#/ T2 -44"I#T3#T B5 B3 -IT-#T CRT-R5

C-B0)0IT "F CCI1I- -13-7" - 4B" "F RI8-1.

B. T2 CC RR I# 2"1I#/ T2-T CCI1I- -13- 7" 4" -11 T2 R)0IR

)0-1IFIC-TI"#.

C. T2 CC RR I# C1-RI#/ T2-T 4TITI"#R #"3I# -R #"T )0-1IFI T" T2

0B7CT 4"ITI"#.

. T2 CC -# T2 B3 /R-V15 -B0 T2IR ICRTI"# I# #"T -11"6I#/

4TITI"#R T" 0B3IT #6 #"3I# 62" C"01 3T T2 R)0IR )0-1IFIC-TI"#

;4etition, pp. '&, Rollo, pp. %?'%$<

-ll the assigned errors relate to the issue of whether or not the private respondent is lawfull* entitled to discharge the

functions of 4B" of Rizal pursuant to the appoint=ent =ade >* pu>lic respondent B3s 0ndersecretar* upon thereco==endation of then irector ->ella of B3 Region IV.

The petitioners argu=ents rest on his contention that he has the sole right and privilege to reco==end the no=inees to the position of 4B" and that the appointee should co=e onl* fro= his no=inees. In support thereof, he invokes ection % of

:ecutive "rder #o. %%E which provides that9

ec. %. -ll >udget officers of provinces, cities and =unicipalities shall >e appointed henceforth >* the 3inister of

Budget and 3anage=ent upon reco==endation of the local chief e:ecutive concerned, su>ect to civil servicelaw, rules and regulations, and the* shall >e placed under the ad=inistrative control and technical supervision of

the 3inistr* of Budget and 3anage=ent.

The petitioner =aintains that the appoint=ent of the private respondent to the contested position was =ade in derogation

of the provision so that >oth the pu>lic respondents co==itted grave a>use of discretion in upholding -l=aoses

appoint=ent.

There is no @uestion that under ection % of :ecutive "rder #o. %%E the petitioners power to reco==end is su>ect to

the @ualifications prescri>ed >* e:isting laws for the position of 4B". Conse@uentl*, in the event that the

reco==endations =ade >* the petitioner fall short of the re@uired standards, the appointing authorit*, the 3inister ;now

ecretar*< of pu>lic respondent B3 is e:pected to reect the sa=e.

In the event that the /overnor reco==ends an un@ualified person, is the epart=ent 2ead free to appoint an*one he

fancies G This is the issue >efore us.

7/18/2019 cases1


Before the pro=ulgation of :ecutive "rder #o. %%E on ece=>er E(, %!&$, Batas 4a=>ansa Blg. HH, otherwise known

as the 1ocal /overn=ent Code vested upon the /overnor, su>ect to civil service rules and regulations, the power to

appoint the 4B" ;ec. E%$, su>paragraph ;%<, B4 HH<. The Code further enu=erated the @ualifications for the position of

4B". Thus, ection E%$, su>paragraph ;E< of the sa=e code states that9

;E< #o person shall >e appointed provincial >udget officer unless he is a citizen of the 4hilippines, of good =oral

character, a holder of a degree prefera>l* in law, co==erce, pu>lic ad=inistration or an* related course fro= a

recognized college or universit*, a first grade civil service eligi>ilit* or its e@uivalent, and has ac@uired at least

five *ears e:perience in >udgeting or in an* related field.

The petitioner contends that since the appointing authorit* with respect to the 4rovincial Budget "fficer of Rizal was

vested in hi= >efore, then, the real intent >ehind :ecutive "rder #o. %%E in e=powering hi= to reco==end no=inees to

the position of 4rovincial Budget "fficer is to =ake his reco==endation part and parcel of the appoint=ent process. 2e

states that the phrase +upon reco==endation of the local chief e:ecutive concerned+ =ust >e given =andator* application

in consonance with the state polic* of local autono=* as guaranteed >* the %!& Constitution under -rt. II, ec. E? and

-rt. X, ec. E thereof. 2e further argues that his power to reco==end cannot validl* >e defeated >* a =ere ad=inistrative

issuance of pu>lic respondent B3 reserving to itself the right to fill'up an* e:isting vacanc* in case the petitioners

no=inees do not =eet the @ualification re@uire=ents as e=>odied in pu>lic respondent B3s 1ocal Budget Circular #o.

H% dated Fe>ruar* !, %!&&.

The @uestioned ruling is ustified >* the pu>lic respondent CC as follows9

-s re@uired >* said .". #o. %%E, the B3 ecretar* =a* choose fro= a=ong the reco==endees of the

4rovincial /overnor who are thus @ualified and eligi>le for appoint=ent to the position of the 4B" of Rizal.

#otwithstanding, the reco==endation of the local chief e:ecutive is =erel* director* and not a condition sine+ua non to the e:ercise >* the ecretar* of B3 of his appointing prerogative. To rule otherwise would in effect

give the law or .". #o. %%E a different interpretation or construction not intended therein, taking into

consideration that said officer has >een nationalized and is directl* under the control and supervision of the B3

ecretar* or through his dul* authorized representative. It cannot >e gainsaid that said national officer has a

si=ilar role in the local govern=ent unit, onl* on another area or concern, to that of a Co==ission on -udit

resident auditor. 2ence, to preserve and =aintain the independence of said officer fro= the local govern=ent unit,

he =ust >e pri=aril* the choice of the national appointing official, and the e:ercise thereof =ust not >e undul*

ha=pered or interfered with, provided the appointee finall* selected =eets the re@uire=ents for the position inaccordance with prescri>ed Civil ervice 1aw, Rules and Regulations. In other words, the appointing official is

not restricted or circu=scri>ed to the list su>=itted or reco==ended >* the local chief e:ecutive in the final

selection of an appointee for the position. 2e =a* consider other no=inees for the position %is a %is the no=inees

of the local chief e:ecutive. ;CC Resolution #o. &!'&$&, p. EJ Rollo, p. H%<

The issue >efore the Court is not li=ited to the validit* of the appoint=ent of one 4rovincial Budget "fficer. The tug of

war >etween the ecretar* of Budget and 3anage=ent and the /overnor of the pre=ier province of Rizal over a

see=ingl* innocuous position involves the application of a =ost i=portant constitutional polic* and principle, that of local

autono=*. 6e have to o>e* the clear =andate on local autono=*. 6here a law is capa>le of two interpretations, one in

favor of centralized power in 3alacaOang and the other >eneficial to local autono=*, the scales =ust >e weighed in favor

of autono=*.

The e:ercise >* local govern=ents of =eaningful power has >een a national goal since the turn of the centur*. -nd *et,

inspite of constitutional provisions and, as in this case, legislation =andating greater autono=* for local officials, national

officers cannot see= to let go of centralized powers. The* den* or water down what little grants of autono=* have so far

>een given to =unicipal corporations.

4resident 3cNinle*s Instructions dated -pril , %!DD to the econd 4hilippine Co==ission ordered the new /overn=ent

+to devote their attention in the first instance to the esta>lish=ent of =unicipal govern=ents in which natives of the

Islands, >oth in the cities and rural co==unities, shall >e afforded the opportunit* to =anage their own local officers to

the fullest e:tent of which the* are capa>le and su>ect to the least degree of supervision and control which a careful stud*

of their capacities and o>servation of the workings of native control show to >e consistent with the =aintenance of law,

order and lo*alt*.

7/18/2019 cases1


In this initial organic act for the 4hilippines, the Co==ission which co=>ined >oth e:ecutive and legislative powers was

directed to give top priorit* to =aking local autono=* effective.

The %!H? Constitution had no specific article on local autono=*. 2owever, in distinguishing >etween presidential control

and supervision as follows9

The 4resident shall have control of all the e:ecutive depart=ents, >ureaus, or offices, e:ercise general supervisionover all local govern=ents as =a* >e provided >* law, and take care that the laws >e faithfull* e:ecuted. ;ec. %%,

-rticle VII, %!H? Constitution<

the Constitution clearl* li=ited the e:ecutive power over local govern=ents to +general supervision . . . as =a* >e

provided >* law.+ The 4resident controls the e:ecutive depart=ents. 2e has no such power over local govern=ents. 2e

has onl* supervision and that supervision is >oth general and circu=scri>ed >* statute.

In Tecson %. Salas, H( CR- E?, E&E ;%!D<, this Court stated9

. . . 2e>ron v. Re*es, ;%D( 4hil. %? L%!?&K< with the then 7ustice, now Chief 7ustice, Concepcion as the ponente,

clarified =atters. -s was pointed out, the presidential co=petence is not even supervision in general, >ut general

supervision as =a* >e provided >* law. 2e could not thus go >e*ond the applica>le statutor* provisions, which

>ind and fetter his discretion on the =atter. 3oreover, as had >een earlier ruled in an opinion penned >* 7ustice

4adilla in 3ondano V. ilvosa, ;! 4hil. %(H L%!??K< referred to >* the present Chief 7ustice in his opinion in the2e>ron case, supervision goes no further than +overseeing or the power or authorit* of an officer to see that

su>ordinate officers perfor= their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill the= the for=er =a* take such action

or step as prescri>ed >* law to =ake the= perfor= their duties.+ ; *id , pp. %('%(&< Control, on the other hand,

+=eans the power of an officer to alter or =odif* or nullif* or set aside what a su>ordinate had done in the

perfor=ance of their duties and to su>stitute the udg=ent of the for=er for that of the latter.+ It would follow

then, according to the present Chief 7ustice, to go >ack to the 2e>ron opinion, that the 4resident had to a>ide >*

the then provisions of the Revised -d=inistrative Code on suspension and re=oval of =unicipal officials, there

>eing no power of control that he could rightfull* e:ercise, the law clearl* specif*ing the procedure >* which

such disciplinar* action would >e taken.

4ursuant to this principle under the %!H? Constitution, legislation i=ple=enting local autono=* was enacted. In %!?!,

Repu>lic -ct #o. EE$(, +-n -ct -=ending the 1aw /overning 1ocal /overn=ents >* Increasing Their -utono=* andReorganizing 1ocal /overn=ents+ was passed. It was followed in %!$ when Repu>lic -ct #o. ?%&?, the

ecentralization 1aw was enacted, giving +further autono=ous powers to local govern=ents govern=ents.+

The provisions of the %!H Constitution =oved the countr* further, at least insofar as legal provisions are concerned,

towards greater autono=*. It provided under -rticle II as a >asic principle of govern=ent9

ec. %D. The tate shall guarantee and pro=ote the autono=* of local govern=ent units, especiall* the >aranga*

to ensure their fullest develop=ent as self'reliant co==unities.

-n entire article on 1ocal /overn=ent was incorporated into the Constitution. It called for a local govern=ent code

defining =ore responsive and accounta>le local govern=ent structures. -n* creation, =erger, a>olition, or su>stantial

>oundar* alteration cannot >e done e:cept in accordance with the local govern=ent code and upon approval >* a ple>iscite. The power to create sources of revenue and to lev* ta:es was specificall* settled upon local govern=ents.

The e:ercise of greater local autono=* is even =ore =arked in the present Constitution.

-rticle II, ection E? on tate 4olicies provides9

ec. E?. The tate shall ensure the autono=* of local govern=ents

The %( sections in -rticle X on 1ocal /overn=ent not onl* reiterate earlier doctrines >ut give in greater detail the

provisions =aking local autono=* =ore =eaningful. Thus, ections E and H of -rticle X provide9

7/18/2019 cases1


ec. E. The territorial and political su>divisions shall eno* local autono=*.

ec. H. The Congress shall enact a local govern=ent code which shall provide for a =ore responsive and

accounta>le local govern=ent structure instituted through a s*ste= of decentralization with effective =echanis=s

of recall, initiative, and referendu=, allocate a=ong the different local govern=ent units their powers,

responsi>ilities, and resources, and provide for the @ualifications, election, appoint=ent and re=oval, ter=,

salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other =atters relating to the organization and

operation of the local units.

6hen the Civil ervice Co==ission interpreted the reco==ending power of the 4rovincial /overnor as purel* director*,

it went against the letter and spirit of the constitutional provisions on local autono=*. If the B3 ecretar* ealousl*

hoards the entiret* of >udgetar* powers and ignores the right of local govern=ents to develop self'reliance and

resoluteness in the handling of their own funds, the goal of =eaningful local autono=* is frustrated and set >ack.

The right given >* 1ocal Budget Circular #o. H% which states9

ec. $.D M The B3 reserves the right to fill up an* e:isting vacanc* where none of the no=inees of the local

chief e:ecutive =eet the prescri>ed re@uire=ents.

is ultra vires and is, accordingl*, set aside. The B3 =a* appoint onl* fro= the list of @ualified reco==endees

no=inated >* the /overnor. If none is @ualified, he =ust return the list of no=inees to the /overnor e:plaining wh* noone =eets the legal re@uire=ents and ask for new reco==endees who have the necessar* eligi>ilities and @ualifications.

The 4B" is e:pected to s*nchronize his work with B3. 3ore i=portant, however, is the proper ad=inistration of fiscal

affairs at the local level. 4rovincial and =unicipal >udgets are prepared at the local level and after co=pletion are

forwarded to the national officials for review. The* are prepared >* the local officials who =ust work within the

constraints of those >udgets. The* are not for=ulated in the inner sanctu=s of an all'knowing B3 and unilaterall*

i=posed on local govern=ents whether or not the* are relevant to local needs and resources. It is for this reason that there

should >e a genuine interpla*, a >alancing of viewpoints, and a har=onization of proposals fro= >oth the local and

national officials. It is for this reason that the no=ination and appoint=ent process involves a sharing of power >etween

the two levels of govern=ent.

It =a* not >e a=iss to give >* wa* of analog* the procedure followed in the appoint=ents of 7ustices and 7udges.786p!i70nder -rticle VIII of the Constitution, no=inations for udicial positions are =ade >* the 7udicial and Bar Council. The

4resident =akes the appoint=ents fro= the list of no=inees su>=itted to her >* the Council. he cannot appl* the B3

procedure, reect all the Council no=inees, and appoint another person who= she feels is >etter @ualified. There can >e no

reservation of the right to fill up a position with a person of the appointing powers personal choice.

The pu>lic respondents grave a>use of discretion is aggravated >* the fact that irector /alvez re@uired the 4rovincial

/overnor to su>=it at least three other na=es of no=inees >etter @ualified than his earlier reco==endation. It was a

=eaningless e:ercise. The appoint=ent of the private respondent was for=alized >efore the /overnor was e:tended the

courtes* of >eing infor=ed that his no=inee had >een reected. The co=plete disregard of the local govern=ents

prerogative and the s=ug >elief that the B3 has a>solute wisdo=, authorit*, and discretion are =anifest.

In his classic work +4hilippine 4olitical 1aw+ ean Vicente /. inco stated that the value of local govern=ents asinstitutions of de=ocrac* is =easured >* the degree of autono=* that the* eno*. Citin$ Toc@ueville, he stated that +local

asse=>lies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations. . . . - people =a* esta>lish a s*ste= of free govern=ent >ut

without the spirit of =unicipal institutions, it cannot have the spirit of li>ert*.+ ;inco, 4hilippine 4olitical 1aw, leventh

dition, pp. D?'D$<.

"ur national officials should not onl* co=pl* with the constitutional provisions on local autono=* >ut should also

appreciate the spirit of li>ert* upon which these provisions are >ased.

62RF"R, the petition is here>* /R-#T. The @uestioned resolutions of the Civil ervice Co==ission are T-I. The appoint=ent of respondent Cecilia -l=aose is nullified. The epart=ent of Budget and 3anage=ent is

7/18/2019 cases1


ordered to appoint the 4rovincial Budget "fficer of Rizal fro= a=ong @ualified no=inees su>=itted >* the 4rovincial

/overnor.

" "RR.

G.R. No. 8<391 Fe+u!+0 28, 1989

6ULT%N %LIMU6%R . LIMON%, petitioner,

vs.CONTE M%NGELIN, 6%LIC %LI, 6%LIN$%TO %LI, ILIMIN%6 CON$ING, %CM%$ TOM%=I6, GERRYTOM%=I6, JE6U6 ORTI, %NTONIO $EL% FUENTE, $IEGO %LOM%RE6, JR., R%UL $%G%L%NGIT,!n" IMO 6IN6U%T, respondents.

)mrosio -adilla, Mempin / Reyes La6 Offices for petitioner petitioner.

Ma9aan$9it &. Lanto for respondents.

6%RMIENTO, J.:

The acts of the angguniang 4a=pook of Region XII are assailed in this petition. The antecedent facts are as follows9

%. "n epte=>er E(, %!&$, petitioner ultan -li=>usar 1i=>ona was appointed as a =e=>er of the

angguniang 4a=pook, Regional -utono=ous /overn=ent, Region XII, representing 1anao del ur.

E. "n 3arch %E, %!& petitioner was elected peaker of the Regional 1egislative -sse=>l* or Batasang

4a=pook of Central 3indanao ;-sse=>l* for >revit*<.

H. aid -sse=>l* is co=posed of eighteen ;%&< =e=>ers. Two of said =e=>ers, respondents -c=ad

To=awis and 4akil agalangit, filed on 3arch EH, %!& with the Co==ission on lections their

respective certificates of candidac* in the 3a* %%, %!& congressional elections for the district of 1anao

del ur >ut the* later withdrew fro= the aforesaid election and thereafter resu=ed again their positions as

=e=>ers of the -sse=>l*.

(. "n "cto>er E%, %!& Congress=an atu /ui=id 3atala=, Chair=an of the Co==ittee on 3usli=

-ffairs of the 2ouse of Representatives, invited 3r. Xavier Razul, 4a=pook peaker of Region XI,

8a=>oanga Cit* and the petitioner in his capacit* as peaker of the -sse=>l*, Region XII, in a letter

which reads9

The Co==ittee on 3usli= -ffairs well undertake consultations and dialogues with local

govern=ent officials, civic, religious organizations and traditional leaders on the recent

and present political develop=ents and other issues affecting Regions IX and XII.

The result of the conference, consultations and dialogues would hopefull* chart the

autono=ous govern=ents of the two regions as envisioned and =a* prod the 4resident to

constitute i==ediatel* the Regional Consultative Co==ission as =andated >* the

Co==ission.

5ou are re@uested to invite so=e =e=>ers of the 4a=pook -sse=>l* of *our respective

asse=>l* on #ove=>er % to %?, %!&, with venue at the Congress of the 4hilippines.

5our presence, unstinted support and cooperation is ;sic< indispensa>le.

7/18/2019 cases1


?. Consistent with the said invitation, petitioner sent a telegra= to -cting ecretar* 7ohnn* -li=>u*ao of

the -sse=>l* to wire all -sse=>l*=en that there shall >e no session in #ove=>er as +our presence in the

house co==ittee hearing of Congress take ;sic< precedence over an* pending >usiness in >atasang

pa=pook ... .+

$. In co=pliance with the aforesaid instruction of the petitioner, -cting ecretar* -li=>u*ao sent to the

=e=>ers of the -sse=>l* the following telegra=9

TR-#3ITTI#/ F"R 5"0R I#F"R3-TI"# -# /0I-#C T1/R-3RCIV FR"3 4-NR 1I3B"#- )0"T C"#/R3-# 7I335

3-T-1-3 C2-IR3-# "F T2 2"0 C"33ITT "# 301I3 -FF-IR

R)0T 3 T" -IT -I C"33ITT I# T2 IC0I"# "F T2

4R"4" -0T"#"35 "R/-#IC #"V. %T T" %?. 2#C 6R -11

-3B153# T2-T T2R 2-11 B #" I"# I# #"V3BR - "0R

4R#C I# T2 2"0 C"33ITT 2-RI#/ "F C"#/R T-N

4RC#C "VR -#5 4#I#/ B0I# I# B-T--#/ 4-34""N "F

3-T-1-3 F"11"6 0#)0"T R/-R.

. "n #ove=>er E, %!&, the -sse=>l* held session in defiance of petitioners advice, with the following

asse=>l*=en present9

%. ali, alic

E. Conding, 4ilipinas ;sic<

H. agalangit, Rakil

(. ela Fuente, -ntonio

?. 3angelen, Conte

$. "rtiz, 7esus

. 4alo=ares, iego

&. insuat, Bi=>o

!. To=awis, -c=ad

%D. To=awis, 7err*

-fter declaring the presence of a @uoru=, the peaker 4ro'Te=pore was authorized to preside in the

session. "n 3otion to declare the seat of the peaker vacant, all -sse=>l*=en in attendance voted in the

affir=ative, hence, the chair declared said seat of the peaker vacant. &. "n #ove=>er ?, %!&, the

session of the -sse=>l* resu=ed with the following -sse=>l*=en present9

%. 3angelen Conte'4residing "fficer

E. -li alic

H. -li alindatu

7/18/2019 cases1


(. -ratuc, 3alik

?. Caelo, Rene

$. Conding, 4ilipinas ;sic<

. agalangit, Rakil

&. ela Fuente, -ntonio

!. "rtiz, 7esus

%D 4alo=ares, iego

%%. )uiano, 7esus

%E. insuat, Bi=>o

%H. To=awis, -c=ad

%(. To=awis, 7err*

-n e:cerpt fro= the de>ates and proceeding of said session reads9

2"#. -/-1-#/IT9 3r. peaker, 2onora>le 3e=>ers of the 2ouse, with the presence of our

colleagues who have co=e to attend the session toda*, I =ove to call the na=es of the new co=ers in

order for the= to cast their votes on the previous =otion to declare the position of the peaker vacant. But

>efore doing so, I =ove also that the designation of the Spea9er -ro Tempore as the 4residing "fficer and

3r. 7ohnn* vangelists as -cting ecretar* in the session last #ove=>er E, %!& >e reconfir=ed in

toda*s session.

2"#. -1IC -1I9 I second the =otions.

4RII#/ "FFICR9 -n* co==ent or o>ections on the two =otions presentedG 3e chair hears none

and the said =otions are approved. ...

Twelve ;%E< =e=>ers voted in favor of the =otion to declare the seat of the peaker vacantJ one

a>stained and none voted against. 1

-ccordingl*, the petitioner pra*s for udg=ent as follows9

62RF"R, petitioner respectfull* pra*s that'

;a< This 4etition >e given due courseJ

;>< 4ending hearing, a restraining order or writ of preli=inar* inunction >e issued enoining respondents

fro= proceeding with their session to >e held on #ove=>er ?, %!&, and on an* da* thereafterJ

;c< -fter hearing, udg=ent >e rendered declaring the proceedings held >* respondents of their session on

#ove=>er E, %!& as null and voidJ

7/18/2019 cases1


;d< 2olding the election of petitioner as peaker of said 1egislative -sse=>l* or Batasan 4a=pook,

Region XII held on 3arch %E, %!& valid and su>sisting, and

;e< 3aking the inunction per=anent.

4etitioner likewise pra*s for such other relief as =a* >e ust and e@uita>le. 2

4ending further proceedings, this Court, on 7anuar* %!, %!&&, received a resolution filed >* the angguniang 4a=pook,

+X4CTI#/ -1I3B0-R 4. 1I3B"#- FR"3 33BR2I4 "F T2 -#//0#I-#/ 4-34""N-0T"#"3"0 R/I"# XII,+ 3 on the grounds, a=ong other things, that the petitioner +had caused to >e prepared and

signed >* hi= pa*ing LsicK the salaries and e=olu=ents of "din ->dula, who was considered resigned after filing his

Certificate of Candidac* for Congress=en for the First istrict of 3aguindanao in the last 3a* %%, elections. . . and

nothing in the record of the -sse=>l* will show that an* re@uest for reinstate=ent >* ->dula was ever =ade . . .+ 4 and

that +such action of 3r. 1i= >ona in pa*ing ->dula his salaries and e=olu=ents without authorit* fro= the -sse=>l* . . .

constituted a usurpation of the power of the -sse=>l*,+ 5 that the petitioner +had recentl* caused withdrawal of so =uch

a=ount of cash fro= the -sse=>l* resulting to the non'pa*=ent of the salaries and e=olu=ents of so=e -sse=>l* LsicK,+ and that he had +filed a case >efore the upre=e Court against so=e =e=>ers of the -sse=>l* on @uestion which should

have >een resolved within the confines of the -sse=>l*,+ : for which the respondents now su>=it that the petition had

>eco=e +=oot and acade=ic+. 8

The first @uestion, evidentl*, is whether or not the e:pulsion of the petitioner ;pending litigation< has =ade the case =oot

and acade=ic.

6e do not agree that the case has >een rendered =oot and acade=ic >* reason si=pl* of the e:pulsion resolution so

issued. For, if the petitioners e:pulsion was done purposel* to =ake this petition =oot and acade=ic, and to pree=pt the

Court, it will not =ake it acade=ic.

"n the ground of the i==uta>le principle of due process alone, we hold that the e:pulsion in @uestion is of no force and

effect. In the first place, there is no showing that the anggunian had conducted an investigation, and whether or not the

petitioner had >een heard in his defense, assu=ing that there was an investigation, or otherwise given the opportunit* to

do so. "n the other hand, what appears in the records is an ad=ission >* the -sse=>l* ;at least, the respondents< that

+since #ove=>er, %!& up to this writing, the petitioner has not set foot at the angguniang 4a=pook.+ 9 +To >e sure, the

private respondents aver that +LtKhe -sse=>l*=en, in a conciliator* gesture, wanted hi= to co=e to Cota>ato Cit*,+ 1< >ut

that was +so that their differences could >e threshed out and settled.+ 11 Certainl*, that avowed wanting or desire to thresh

out and settle, no =atter how conciliator* it =a* >e cannot >e a su>stitute for the notice and hearing conte=plated >* law.

6hile we have held that due process, as the ter= is known in ad=inistrative law, does not a>solutel* re@uire notice and

that a part* need onl* >e given the opportunit* to >e heard, 12 it does not appear herein that the petitioner had, to >egin

with, >een =ade aware that he had in fact stood charged of graft and corruption >efore his collegues. It cannot >e said

therefore that he was accorded an* opportunit* to re>ut their accusations. -s it stands, then, the charges now levelled

a=ount to =ere accusations that cannot warrant e:pulsion.

In the second place, ;the resolution< appears strongl* to >e a >are act of vendetta >* the other -sse=>l*=en against the petitioner arising fro= what the for=er perceive to >e a>durac* on the part of the latter. Indeed, it ;the resolution< speaks

of +a case Lhaving >een filedK L>* the petitionerK >efore the upre=e Court . . . on @uestion which should have >een

resolved within the confines of the -sse=>l*=an act which so=e =e=>ers clai=ed unnecessaril* and undul* assails their

integrit* and character as representative of the people+ 13 an act that cannot possi>l* ustif* e:pulsion. -ccess to udicial

re=edies is guaranteed >* the Constitution, 14 and, unless the recourse a=ounts to =alicious prosecution, no one =a* >e

punished for seeking redress in the courts.

6e therefore order reinstate=ent, with the caution that should the past acts of the petitioner indeed warrant his re=oval,

the -sse=>l* is enoined, should it still >e so =inded, to co==ence proper proceedings therefor in line with the =ost

ele=entar* re@uire=ents of due process. -nd while it is within the discretion of the =e=>ers of the anggunian to punish

7/18/2019 cases1


their erring colleagues, their acts are nonetheless su>ect to the =oderating >and of this Court in the event that such

discretion is e:ercised with grave a>use.

It is, to >e sure, said that precisel* >ecause the angguniang 4a=pook;s< are +autono=ous,+ the courts =a* not rightfull*

intervene in their affairs, =uch less strike down their acts. 6e co=e, therefore, to the second issue9 -re the so'called

autono=ous govern=ents of 3indanao, as the* are now constituted, su>ect to the urisdiction of the national courtsG In

other words, what is the e:tent of self'govern=ent given to the two autono=ous govern=ents of Region IX and XIIG

The autono=ous govern=ents of 3indanao were organized in Regions IX and XII >* 4residential ecree #o. %$%&15

pro=ulgated on 7ul* E?, %!!. -=ong other things, the ecree esta>lished +internal autono=*+ 1 in the two regions

+LwKithin the fra=ework of the national sovereignt* and territorial integrit* of the Repu>lic of the 4hilippines and its

Constitution,+ 1: with legislative and e:ecutive =achiner* to e:ercise the powers and responsi>ilities 18 specified therein.

It re@uires the autono=ous regional govern=ents to +undertake all internal ad=inistrative =atters for the respective

regions,+ 19 e:cept to +act on =atters which are within the urisdiction and co=petence of the #ational /overn=ent,+ 2<

+which include, >ut are not li=ited to, the following9

;%< #ational defense and securit*J

;E< Foreign relationsJ

;H< Foreign tradeJ

;(< Currenc*, =onetar* affairs, foreign e:change, >anking and @uasi'>anking, and e:ternal >orrowing,

;?< isposition, e:ploration, develop=ent, e:ploitation or utilization of all natural resourcesJ

;$< -ir and sea transport

;< 4ostal =atters and teleco==unicationsJ

;&< Custo=s and @uarantineJ

;!< I==igration and deportationJ

;%D< Citizenship and naturalizationJ

;%%< #ational econo=ic, social and educational planningJ and

;%E< /eneral auditing. 21

In relation to the central govern=ent, it provides that +LtKhe 4resident shall have the power of general supervision and

control over the -utono=ous Regions ...+ 22

#ow, autono=* is either decentralization of ad=inistration or decentralization of power. There is decentralization of

ad=inistration when the central govern=ent delegates ad=inistrative powers to political su>divisions in order to >roaden

the >ase of govern=ent power and in the process to =ake local govern=ents +=ore responsive and accounta>le,+ 23 +and

ensure their fullest develop=ent as self'reliant co==unities and =ake the= =ore effective partners in the pursuit of

national develop=ent and social progress.+ 24 -t the sa=e ti=e, it relieves the central govern=ent of the >urden of

=anaging local affairs and ena>les it to concentrate on national concerns. The 4resident e:ercises +general supervision+ 25

over the=, >ut onl* to +ensure that local affairs are ad=inistered according to law.+ 2 2e has no control over their acts in

the sense that he can su>stitute their udg=ents with his own. 2:

7/18/2019 cases1


ecentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an a>dication of political power in the favor of local govern=ents

units declare to >e autono=ous . In that case, the autono=ous govern=ent is free to chart its own destin* and shape its

future with =ini=u= intervention fro= central authorities. -ccording to a constitutional author, decentralization of power

a=ounts to +self'i==olation,+ since in that event, the autono=ous govern=ent >eco=es accounta>le not to the central

authorities >ut to its constituenc*. 28

But the @uestion of whether or not the grant of autono=* 3usli= 3indanao under the %!& Constitution involves, trul*,

an effort to decentralize power rather than =ere ad=inistration is a @uestion foreign to this petition, since what is involved

herein is a local govern=ent unit constituted prior to the ratification of the present Constitution. 2ence, the Court will notresolve that controvers* now, in this case, since no controvers* in fact e:ists. 6e will resolve it at the proper ti=e and in

the proper case.

0nder the %!& Constitution, local govern=ent units eno* autono=* in these two senses, thus9

ection %. The territorial and political su>divisions of the Repu>lic of the 4hilippines are the provinces,

cities, =unicipalities, and >aranga*s. 2ere shall >e autono=ous regions in 3usli= 3indanao ,and the

Cordilleras as hereinafter provided. 29

ec. E. The territorial and political su>divisions shall eno* local autono=*. 3<

::: ::: :::

ee. %?. 3ere shall >e created autono=ous regions in 3usli= 3indanao and in the Cordilleras consisting

of provinces, cities, =unicipalities, and geographical areas sharing co==on and distinctive historical and

cultural heritage, econo=ic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the fra=ework

of this Constitution and the national sovereignt* as well as territorial integrit* of the Repu>lic of the

4hilippines. 31

-n autono=ous govern=ent that eno*s autono=* of the latter categor* LC"#T. ;%!&<, art. X, sec. %?.K is su>ect alone

to the decree of the organic act creating it and accepted principles on the effects and li=its of +autono=*.+ "n the other

hand, an autono=ous govern=ent of the for=er class is, as we noted, under the supervision of the national govern=ent

acting through the 4resident ;and the epart=ent of 1ocal /overn=ent<. 32 If the angguniang 4a=pook ;of Region XII<,

then, is autono=ous in the latter sense, its acts are, de>ata>l* >e*ond the do=ain of this Court in perhaps the sa=e wa*

that the internal acts, sa*, of the Congress of the 4hilippines are >e*ond our urisdiction. But if it is autono=ous in the

for=er categor* onl*, it co=es unargua>l* under our urisdiction. -n e:a=ination of the ver* 4residential ecree creating

the autono=ous govern=ents of 3indanao persuades us that the* were never =eant to e:ercise autono=* in the second

sense, that is, in which the central govern=ent co==its an act of self'i==olation. 4residential ecree #o. %$%&, in the

first place, =andates that +LtKhe 4resident shall have the power of general supervision and control over -utono=ous

Regions.+ 33 In the second place, the angguniang 4a=pook, their legislative ar=, is =ade to discharge chiefl*

ad=inistrative services, thus9

C. . 4owers of the angguniang 4a=pook. The angguniang 4a=pook shall e:ercise local legislative

powers over regional affairs within the fra=ework of national develop=ent plans, policies and goals, inthe following areas9

;%< "rganization of regional ad=inistrative s*ste=J

;E< cono=ic, social and cultural develop=ent of the -utono=ous RegionJ

;H< -gricultural, co==ercial and industrial progra=s for the -utono=ous RegionJ

;(< Infrastructure develop=ent for the -utono=ous RegionJ

7/18/2019 cases1


;?< 0r>an and rural planning for the -utono=ous RegionJ

;$< Ta:ation and other revenue'raising =easures as provided for in this ecreeJ

;< 3aintenance, operation and ad=inistration of schools esta>lished >* the -utono=ous RegionJ

;&< sta>lish=ent, operation and =aintenance of health, welfare and other social services, progra=s and

facilitiesJ

;!< 4reservation and develop=ent of custo=s, traditions, languages and culture indigenous to the

-utono=ous RegionJ and

;%D< uch other =atters as =a* >e authorized >* law,including the enact=ent of such =easures as =a* >e

necessar* for the pro=otion of the general welfare of the people in the -utono=ous Region.

The 4resident shall e:ercise such powers as =a* >e necessar* to assure that enact=ent and acts of the

angguniang 4a=pook and the 1upong Tagapagpaganap ng 4ook are in co=pliance with this ecree,

national legislation, policies, plans and progra=s.

The angguniang 4a=pook shall =aintain liaison with the Batasang 4a=>ansa.34

2ence, we assu=e urisdiction. -nd if we can =ake an in@uir* in the validit* of the e:pulsion in @uestion, with =ore

reason can we review the petitioners re=oval as peaker.

Briefl*, the petitioner assails the legalit* of his ouster as peaker on the grounds that9 ;%< the anggunian, in convening on

#ove=>er E and ?, %!& ;for the sole purpose of declaring the office of the peaker vacant<, did so in violation of the

Rules of the angguniang 4a=pook since the -sse=>l* was then on recessJ and ;E< assu=ing that it was valid, his ouster

was ineffective nevertheless for lack of @uoru=.

0pon the facts presented, we hold that the #ove=>er E and ?, %!& sessions were invalid. It is true that under ection H%

of the Region XII anggunian Rules, +LsKessions shall not >e suspended or adourned e:cept >* direction of theangguniang 4a=pook,+ 35 >ut it provides likewise that +the peaker =a*, on LsicK his discretion, declare a recess of +short

intervals.+ 3 "f course, there is disagree=ent >etween the protagonists as to whether or not the recess called >* the

petitioner effective #ove=>er % through %?, %!& is the +recess of short intervals+ referred toJ the petitioner sa*s that it is

while the respondents insist that, to all intents and purposes, it was an adourn=ent and that +recess+ as used >* their

Rules onl* refers to +a recess when argu=ents get heated up so that protagonists in a de>ate can talk things out infor=all*

and o>viate dissenssion LsicK and disunit*. 3: The Court agrees with the respondents on this regard, since clearl*, the Rules

speak of +short intervals.+ econdl*, the Court likewise agrees that the peaker could not have validl* called a recess

since the -sse=>l* had *et to convene on #ove=>er %, the date session opens under the sa=e Rules. 38 2ence, there can

>e no recess to speak of that could possi>l* interrupt an* session. But while this opinion is in accord with the respondents

own, we still invalidate the twin sessions in @uestion, since at the ti=e the petitioner called the +recess,+ it was not a

settled =atter whether or not he could. do so. In the second place, the invitation tendered >* the Co==ittee on 3usli=

-ffairs of the 2ouse of Representatives provided a plausi>le reason for the inter=ission sought. Thirdl*, assu=ing that a

valid recess could not >e called, it does not appear that the respondents called his attention to this =istake. 6hat appears

is that instead, the* opened the sessions the=selves >ehind his >ack in an apparent act of =utin*. 0nder the

circu=stances, we find e@uit* on his side. For this reason, we uphold the +recess+ called on the ground of good faith.

It does not appear to us, =oreover, that the petitioner had resorted to the aforesaid +recess+ in order to forestall the

-sse=>l* fro= >ringing a>out his ouster. This is not apparent fro= the pleadings >efore us. 6e are convinced that the

invitation was what precipitated it.

7/18/2019 cases1


In holding that the +recess+ in @uestion is valid, we are not to >e taken as esta>lishing a precedent, since, as we said, a

recess can not >e validl* declared without a session having >een first opened. In upholding the petitioner herein, we are

not giving hi= a carte lanc!e to order recesses in the future in violation of the Rules, or otherwise to prevent the lawful

=eetings thereof.

#either are we, >* this disposition, discouraging the anggunian fro= reorganizing itself pursuant to its lawful

prerogatives. Certainl*, it can do so at the proper ti=e. In the event that >e petitioner should initiate o>structive =oves, the

Court is certain that it is ar=ed with enough coercive re=edies to thwart the=. 39

In view hereof, we find no need in dwelling on the issue of @uoru=.

62RF"R, pre=ises considered, the petition is /R-#T. The angguniang 4a=pook, Region XII, is #7"I#

to ;%< RI#T-T the petitioner as 3e=>er, angguniang 4a=pook, Region XIIJ and ;E< RI#T-T hi= as peaker

thereof. #o costs.

" "RR.

Documents

cases1