alfredo patalinghug

8/9/2019 Alfredo Patalinghug

1/198

ALFREDO PATALINGHUG, petitioner,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, et al, respondents.

On November 17, 1982, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao it! ena"ted Ordinan"e No. #$#, series

of 1982 other%ise &no%n as the '()panded *oning Ordinan"e of Davao it!,' Se"tion 8 of %hi"h states+

Se". 8. USE REGULATIONS IN C-2 DISTRICTS Shaded light red in the()panded *oning -ap / 02 Distri"t shall be dominantl! for "ommer"ial and"ompatible industrial uses as provided hereunder+

))) ))) )))

))) ))) )))

#.1 uneral Parlors3-emorial 4omes %ith ade5uate off street par&ing spa"e seepar&ing standards of P.D. 169$ and provided that they shall be established not

less than ! "eters #ro" any residential str$%t$res& %h$r%hes and otherinstit$tional b$ildin's. (mphasis provided

pon prior approval and "ertifi"ation of oning "omplian"e b! *oning 0dministrator issued on ebruar!16, 1987 uilding Permit No. 8762:; in favor of petitioner for the "onstru"tion of a funeral parlor in thename and st!le of -etropolitan uneral Parlor at abaguio 0venue, 0gdao, Davao it!.

glesia ni ?risto hapel and several residential stru"tures, the Sangguniang Panlungsod"ondu"ted an investigation and found that 'the nearest residential stru"ture, o%ned b! @ilfred A. glesia ni ?risto "hapel are$#.2: meters and ::.9: meters a%a!, respe"tivel! from the funeral parlor.

2. 0lthough the residential building o%ned b! "ertain-r.


2/198

t is our "onsidered vie%, ho%ever, that a ta) de"laration isnot "on"lusive of the nature of the propert! for oning purposes. 0 propert! ma! have been de"lared b!its o%ner as residential for real estate ta)ation purposes but it ma! %ell be %ithin a "ommer"ial one. 0dis"repan"! ma! thus e)ist in the determination of the nature of propert! for real estate ta)ationpurposes vis-a-vis the determination of a propert! for oning purposes.

Needless to sa!, even if %e are to e)amine the evidentiar! value of a ta) de"laration under the eal

Propert!


3/198

government units to re"lassif! lands is subBe"t to the approval of the D0 is no longer novel, this havingbeen de"ided b! this ourt in the "ase of (rovin%e o# Ca"arines S$r& et al) vs) Co$rt o# Appeals # %herein%e held that lo"al government units need not obtain the approval of the D0 to "onvert or re"lassif! landsfrom agri"ultural to nonagri"uultural use.


4/198

the nearb! -uni"ipalit! of >mpasugong, u&idnon, ten 16 !ears ago, for %hi"hthe! have not re"eived 'Bust "ompensation' up to this time.

Neither "an the assertion that 'there is no "lear and tangible "ompensationpa"&age arrangements for the benefi"iaries' hold %ater as, in the first pla"e,there are no benefi"iaries to spea& about, for the land is not tenanted as alread!

stated.

Nor "an pro"edural lapses in the manner of identif!ing3re"lassif!ing the subBe"tpropert! for agroindustrial purposes be allo%ed to defeat the ver! purpose of thela% granting autonom! to lo"al government units in the management of their lo"alaffairs. Stated more simpl!, the language of Se"tion 26 of .0. No. 71$6, s$pra,is "lear and affords no room for an! other interpretation. ! une5uivo"al legalmandate, it grants lo"al governments units autonom! in their lo"al affairsin"luding the po%er to "onvert portions of their agri"ultural lands and provide forthe manner of their utiliation and disposition to enable them to attain their fullestdevelopment as selfreliant "ommunities.

@4((O(, in pursuan"e of the spirit and intent of the said legal mandate

and in vie% of the favorable re"ommendations of the various governmentagen"ies abovementioned, the subBe"t Order, dated November 1;, 199; of the4on. Se"retar!, Department of 0grarian eform, is hereb! S(< 0S>D( and theinstant appli"ation of NGS-D30>D0 is hereb! 0PPOE(D. 23 (mphasissupplied

nstitute for ontinuing 4igher (du"ationF >nstitute for Hivelihood S"ien"eEo"ational and


5/198

()pressing full support for the proposed proBe"t, the Sangguniang a!an of Sumilao, u&idnon, on -ar"h;, 199#, ena"ted Ordinan"e No. 2; "onverting or re"lassif!ing the subBe"t 11;he"tare land fromagri"ultural to industrial3institutional use %ith a vie% of providing an opportunit! to attra"& investors %ho"an inBe"t ne% e"onomi" vitalit!, provide more Bobs and raise the in"ome of its people. mpressed %ith the proposed proBe"t, several government agen"ies and a private "ooperative, in"ludingthe people of the affe"ted baranga!, re"ommended the same.

>n this regard, the petitioners gave this assuran"e+ 't is "apableof emplo!ing thousands of residents, enabling them to earn good in"ome ranging about P;6,666.66 toP:6,666.66 for ea"h. 2$

NICOLAS LA!NESA a%& SANTOS LA!NESA, petitioners,vs.PA'UITO a%& PACITA U!, respondents.

>n 19#8, obert -orle! %as the o%ner of a four ;he"tare par"el of land in *arrio


6/198


7/198

therefore, be submitted b! the "on"erned HAs to the 4H, upon re"eipt of su"happli"ation, the 4H shall "ondu"t initial revie% to determine if+

1 the "it! or muni"ipalit! "on"erned has an e)isting "omprehensive land use planrevie%ed and approved in a""ordan"e %ith (O 72 199#F and

2 the proposed re"lassifi"ation "omplies %ith the limitations pres"ribed in S(ON 1d hereof.

pon determination that the above "onditions have been satisfied, the 4H shall then"onsult %ith the "on"erned agen"ies on the re5uired "ertifi"ations. f the land being re"lassified is in e)"ess of the limit, the appli"ation shall be submitted toN(D0.

ailure of the 4H and the NA0s to a"t on a proper and "omplete appli"ation %ithinthree months from re"eipt of the same shall be deemed as approved thereof.

d e"lassifi"ation of agri"ultural lands ma! be authoried through an ordinan"e ena"ted

b! the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang ba!an, as the "ase ma! be, after"ondu"ting publi" hearings for the purpose. Su"h ordinan"e shall be ena"ted andapproved in a""ordan"e %ith 0rti"les 167 and 168 of the > of the HA.

e Provisions of Se". 1 b2 hereof to the "ontrar! not%ithstanding, the sanggunian"on"erned shall see& the advi"e of D0 prior to the ena"tment of an ordinan"ere"lassif!ing agri"ultural lands. >f the D0 has failed to a"t on su"h re5uest %ithin thirt!#6 da!s from re"eipt thereof, the same shall be deemed to have been "omplied %ith.

Should the land subBe"t to re"lassifi"ation is found to be still e"onomi"all! feasible foragri"ulture, the D0 shall re"ommend to the HA "on"erned alternative areas fordevelopment purposes.

f U(% +)a%e 5 t4e e-t+5+at+% e%)e-ate& +% Set+% 2 6*7 4e-e5, t4ea%//)%+a% %e-%e& a % e%at a% -&+%a%e a)t4-+:+%/ t4e-ela+5+at+% 5 a/-+)lt)-al la%& a%& (-+&+%/ 5- t4e a%%e- 5 t4e+-)t+l+:at+% - &+(+t+%. S)4 -&+%a%e 4all l+;e+e )(&ate t4e (-e4e%+ela%& )e (la% 5 t4e LGU %e-%e&. (mphasis supplied.

>t is be"ause of the authorit! granted to a "it! or muni"ipalit! b! Se". 26 of 0 71$6 "oupled %ith theimplementing guidelines laid do%n in - :; dated Cune 8, 199# that the 0 %as "onvin"ed to rule thatthe disputed lot is no longer agri"ultural but industrial land and, hen"e, the D00 does not have or haslost Burisdi"tion over the subBe"t matter of D00 ase No. E628.


8/198

averments of the D00 "ase "learl! pertain to an agrarian reform matter and involve theimplementation of the agrarian reform la%s. Su"h being the "ase, the "omplaint falls %ithin the Burisdi"tionof the D00 under Se". :6 of 0 $$:7 on the 5uasiBudi"ial po%ers of the D0. >t bears stressing thatthe D0 has (-+a- o%ned t%o par"els of land %ith a total area of 221.#6;8 he"tares lo"ated at aranga!


9/198

>Ms "reditors, -. Pursuant to esolution No. :6: of the -onetar! oard of the ang&o Sentral ngPilipinas SP, - %as pla"ed under re"eivership on 22 -a! 1987, in a""ordan"e %ith Se"tion 29 ofthe entral an& 0"t epubli" 0"t 2$:. Pursuant to this la%, the assets of - %ere pla"ed in thehands of its re"eiver under "ustodia legis.# On 29 September 1989, the D0 issued a Noti"e of overagepla"ing the propert! under "ompulsor! a"5uisition under the omprehensive 0grarian eform Ha% of1988.;

>n the meantime, > %as unable to "ompl! %ith its mortgage obligations to -.


10/198

"onversion and3or e)emption pursuant to its prerogative as a lando%ner under Part >E of D0 0.O. 129;and the pro"edure outlined therein.

On #1 O"tober 1997, Se"retar! Aarilao issued onversion Order No. ;9716296:1, approving the"onversion and3or e)emption of the 221he"tare propert! in Silang, based on the findings of the D0Msenter for Hand se Poli"!, Planning and >mplementation HPP> and of the -uni"ipal 0grarian eform

Offi"er -0O. and 0H> %ere guilt! of misrepresentation in "laiming that the propert! had been re"lassified through amere esolution, %hen the la% re5uired an ordinan"e of the Sanggunian.1# , and

upon 0H> having bought the land from apitol. >t lies some%here deeper+ that the sale %as done as earl!as 199: prior to the landMs "onversion, and %as "on"ealed in the appli"ation until it %as registered in1999.

0t the time of the registration of the deed on 29 September 1999, the subBe"t land had "eased to be anagri"ultural land sin"e it has alread! been "onverted to other uses b! virtue of an approved "onversion

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_178110_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_178110_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_178110_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_178110_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_178110_2011.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_178110_2011.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_178110_2011.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_178110_2011.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/gr_178110_2011.html#fnt13


11/198

appli"ation. 0s su"h, the re5uirement of reporting b! the egister of Deeds of an! transa"tion involvingagri"ultural lands be!ond five : he"tares, %as not made as it is no longer ne"essar!.1;

>t is important to note, ho%ever, that Se"retar! -orales de"lared that > and 0H> had "ompleted thepa!ment of disturban"e "ompensation to the farmers, as sho%n b! the ?asunduan, %hi"h %as a %aiver of all the farmersM rights over the landholding, and b! the ?atuna!an ng Pagbaba!ad, %hi"h e)pressl!

a"&no%ledged the amounts paid as the full and final settlement of their "laims against > and 0H>.

%asthe o%ner of the subBe"t landholding at the time of the appli"ationF and # %hether there %as "ompletepa!ment of the disturban"e "ompensation. 0gain, Se"retar! ragana %as not afforded an opportunit! todis"uss an! eviden"e related to the e)isten"e or effe"t of an! Noti"e of 0"5uisition, as the Boinder ofissues %as limited to those alread! summaried above.

Se"retar! ragana found that the Deed of Partial edemption %as "onditional, and that there %as no

transfer of o%nership to > or its su""essorininterest, 0H>. 4en"e, there "ould be no violation of the0H arising from an unauthoried transfer of the land to 0H>. >n fa"t, the obligation of 0H> to pa! thepur"hase pri"e did not arise until the D0Ms issuan"e of an order of e)emption or "onversion.


12/198

0ssuming arguendo ho%ever, that the farmers had submitted the proper do"ument to the appellate "ourt,the latter "ould not have reversed the OP De"ision on nothing more than this submission, as the issue ofthe Noti"e of 0"5uisition had never been raised before the administrative agen"! "on"erned.

onsidering that these issues involve an evaluation of the D0Ms findings of fa"ts, this ourt is"onstrained to a""ord respe"t to su"h findings. >t is settled that fa"tual findings of administrative agen"ies

are generall! a""orded respe"t and even finalit! b! this ourt, if su"h findings are supported b!substantial eviden"e. , on Auiding Prin"iples, is paragraph #, %hi"h reads+

>f at the time of the appli"ation, the land still falls %ithin the agri"ultural one, "onversion shall be allo%edonl! on the follo%ing instan"es+

a @hen the land has "eased to be e"onomi"all! feasible and sound for agri"ulturalpurposes, as "ertified b! the egional Dire"tor of the Department of 0gri"ulture D0 or

b @hen the lo"alit! has be"ome highl! urbanied and the land %ill have a greatere"onomi" value for residential, "ommer"ial and industrial purposes, as "ertified b! thelo"al government unit.


13/198

rural development,#2 it also 're"ognies the indispensable role of the private se"tor, en"ourages privateenterprise, and provides in"entives to needed investments.'##

espondents herein muddle the issue in "ontending that a Sangguniang a!an esolution %as not asuffi"ient "omplian"e %ith the re5uirement of the Ho"al Aovernment ode that an ordinan"e must beena"ted for a valid re"lassifi"ation. Qet there %as alread! a onversion Order.


14/198

d 0n! "it!, muni"ipalit!, or baranga! ma!, b! a dul! ena"ted ordinan"e, temporaril!"lose and regulate the use of an! lo"al street, road, thoroughfare, or an! other publi"pla"e %here shopping malls, Sunda!, flea or night mar&ets, or shopping areas ma! beestablished and %here goods, mer"handise, foodstuffs, "ommodities, or arti"les of"ommer"e ma! be sold and dispensed to the general publi".

H( E>>>

losure and Opening of oads or Par&s

0H( ;#. 0uthorit! to lose or Open. / 0n HA ma!, through an ordinan"e, permanentl! ortemporaril! "lose or open an! road, alle!, par&, or s5uare %ithin its Burisdi"tion.

0H( ;;. Permanent losure. / a No permanent "losure of an! lo"al road, street, alle!, par&, ors5uare shall be affe"ted unless there e)ists a "ompelling reason or suffi"ient Bustifi"ation therefor su"h as,but not limited to, "hange in land use, establishment of infrastru"ture fa"ilities, proBe"ts, or su"h other

Bustifiable reasons as publi" %elfare ma! re5uire.

b @hen ne"essar!, an ade5uate substitute for the publi" fa"ilit! that is subBe"t to "losure shall beprovided. No freedom par& shall be "losed permanentl! %ithout provision for its transfer or relo"ation to a

ne% site.

" No su"h %a! or pla"e or an! part thereof shall be permanentl! "losed %ithout ma&ing provisions forthe maintenan"e of publi" safet! therein.

d 0 propert! permanentl! %ithdra%n from publi" use ma! be used or "onve!ed for an! purpose for%hi"h other real propert! belonging to HA ma! be la%full! used or "onve!ed.

e


15/198

" No national or lo"al road, alle!, par&, or s5uare shall be temporaril! "losed for athleti", "ultural, or "ivi"a"tivities not offi"iall! sponsored, re"ognied, or approved b! the HA.

LEV! D. =ACASIANO, B-+/a&+e- Ge%e-al>PNP S)(e-+%te%&e%t, =et-(l+ta% T-a55+Ca%&, petitioner,vs.

HONORABLE ROBERTO C. DIONO, et al, respondents.

On Cune 1#, 1996, the respondent muni"ipalit! passed Ordinan"e No. 8$, Series of 1996 %hi"hauthoried the "losure of C. Aabriel, A.A. ru, a!anihan, Ht. Aar"ia ()tension and Opena Streetslo"ated at a"laran, ParaRa5ue, -etro -anila and the establishment of a flea mar&et thereon.


16/198

n resolving the 5uestion of %hether the disputed muni"ipal ordinan"eauthoriing the flea mar&et on the publi" streets is valid, it is ne"essar! to e)amine the la%s in for"e

during the time the said ordinan"e %as ena"ted, namel!, atas Pambansa lg. ##7, other%ise &no%n asHo"al Aovernment ode, in "onne"tion %ith established prin"iples embodied in the ivil ode an propert!and settled Burispruden"e on the matter.

> of the Ho"al Aovernment ode, %hi"h states+

Se". 16. Clos$re o# roads. / 0 lo"al government unit ma! li&e%ise, through its

head a"ting pursuant to a resolution of its sangguniang and in a%%ordan%e ithe.istin' la and the provisions o# this Code, "lose an! baranga!, muni"ipal, "it!or provin"ial road, street, alle!, par& or s5uare. No s$%h ay or pla%e or any parto# thereo# shall be %losed itho$t inde"ni#yin' any person pre,$di%ed thereby) A

property th$s ithdran #ro" p$bli% $se ma! be used or "onve!ed for an!purpose for %hi"h other real propert! belonging to the lo"al unit "on"erned mightbe la%full! used or "onve!ed. (mphasis ours.

4o%ever, the aforestated legal provision %hi"h gives authorit! to lo"al government units to "lose roadsand other similar publi" pla"es should be read and interpreted in a""ordan"e %ith basi" prin"iples alread!established b! la%.


17/198

4o%ever, those roads and streets %hi"h are available to the publi" in general and ordinaril! used forvehi"ular traffi" are still "onsidered publi" propert! devoted to publi" use. >n su"h "ase, the lo"algovernment has no po%er to use it for another purpose or to dispose of or lease it to private persons.

(ven assuming, in 'ratia ar'$"enti& that respondent muni"ipalit! has the authorit! to pass the disputedordinan"e, the same "annot be validl! implemented be"ause it "annot be "onsidered approved b! the

-etropolitan -anila 0uthorit! due to non"omplian"e b! respondent muni"ipalit! of the "onditionsimposed b! the former for the approval of the ordinan"e, to %it+

1.


18/198

Pursuant thereto, Deeds of ()"hange %ere e)e"uted under %hi"h the Provin"e of atanduanes"onve!ed to emedios . agadiong, redes%indo . 0l"ala, (lena S. Hatorre, aldomero


19/198

n the "ase of Ceb$ O.y'en and A%etylene Co)& In%) v) *er%illes, 3 the ourt held the "losure of a "it!street as %ithin the po%ers of the "it! "oun"il under the evised harter of ebu it!.

>t sustained the subse5uent sale of the land as being in a""ordan"e not onl! %ith the "harter but also %ith 0rti"le ;22 of the ivil ode, %hi"h provides+ 'Propert! of publi" dominion, %hen no longer intended forpubli" use or for publi" servi"e, shall form part of the patrimonial propert! of the State.'

@hile it is true that the above "ases dealt %ith "it! "oun"ils and not the provin"ial board, there is noreason for not appl!ing the do"trine announ"ed therein to the provin"ial board in "onne"tion %ith the"losure of provin"ial roads.


20/198

CEBU O"!GEN ? ACET!LENE CO., INC., petitioner,vs.HON. PASCUAL A. BERCILLES et al, respondents.


21/198

Su"h po%er to va"ate a street or alle! is dis"retionar!. 0nd the dis"retion %ill notordinaril! be "ontrolled or interfered %ith b! the "ourts, absent a plain "ase ofabuse or fraud or "ollusion. aithfulness to the publi" trust %ill be presumed. Sothe fa"t that some private interests ma! be served in"identall! %ill not invalidatethe va"ation ordinan"e.

2 Sin"e that portion of the "it! street subBe"t of petitioner=s appli"ation for registration of title %as%ithdra%n from publi" use, it follo%s that su"h %ithdra%n portion be"omes patrimonial propert! %hi"h "anbe the obBe"t of an ordinar! "ontra"t.

0rti"le ;22 of the ivil ode e)pressl! provides that 'Propert! of publi" dominion, %hen no longerintended for publi" use or for publi" servi"e, shall form part of the patrimonial propert! of the State.'

esides, the evised harter of the it! of ebu heretofore 5uoted, in ver! "lear and une5uivo"al terms,states that+ 'Propert! thus %ithdra%n from publi" servitude ma! be used or "onve!ed for an! purpose for%hi"h other real propert! belonging to the it! ma! be la%full! used or "onve!ed.'

0""ordingl!, the %ithdra%al of the propert! in 5uestion from publi" use and its subse5uent sale to thepetitioner is valid. 4en"e, the petitioner has a registerable title over the lot in 5uestion.

ANTONIO C. FAVIS, plaintiffappellant,vs.THE CIT! OF BAGUIO a%& THE SHELL CO=PAN! OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendantsappellees.

On 0pril #6, 19:7, 0ntonio avis bought a par"el of land of about 1,666 s5uare meters / Hot 2(##2 of the subdivision plan H Psd2179 / from the 0ssumption onvent, >n". Said lot is bounded onthe south%est b! Hot 2(##1 proposed road, o%ned b! 0ssumption onvent, >n". and part ofsubdivision plan Psd2179.

Simultaneous %ith the sale, 0ssumption donated to the it! / 'for road purposes' / the lotindi"ated in its subdivision plan as the proposed road / Hot 2(##1 aforesaid.


22/198

0 par"el of land, &no%n as Hot No. 2: of the -ar&et Subdivision and sho%n as 'Hot 0' on S&et"hPlan ... mar&ed '()hibit 0' and made a part hereof, situated in the it! of aguio, "ontaining an area of##: s5. m....

and

0lso a par"el of land "ontaining an area of 166 s5. m. more or less, mar&ed as 'Hot ' on S&et"hPlan...

Hot 2: Hot 0, it is to be noted, is the same lot leased to Shell %a! ba"& in Cune, 19;7 and thelease of Hot is merel! an addition thereto. nstan"e of aguio. # 4e pra!ed that 1 defendants be ordered to stop,remove and3or demolish %hatever "onstru"tions had been introdu"ed at the additional leased area onHapuHapu StreetF 2 the building permit and "ontra"t of lease entered into b! and bet%een thedefendants be "an"elled and revo&ed for being null and voidF and # defendants be dire"ted to pa!,

Bointl! and severall!, a"tual, "ompensator!, "orre"tive and "onse5uential damages totalling P:6,666,attorne!s= fees in the sum of P2,666, and the "osts.

0fter hearing, the lo%er "ourt, on -a! 21, 19$2, rendered Budgment uphelding the t%o 5uestionedresolutions and dismissing the "omplaint, %ith "osts.

@e first address ourselves to the preliminar! 5uestions raised in the appeal.la%phi1.nTt

1. 0mongst these is appellant=s "harge that the resolutions dire"ting the partial "losing of HapuHapu Street and the lease thereof are invalid. e"ause, so appellant avers, those resolutions "ontravenethe it! harter. 4e relies on subse"tion H of Se"tion 2::# of the evised 0dministrative ode. >tprovides that the po%ers granted to the it! / in"luding the po%er to "lose streets / shall be "arried'into effe"t b! ordinan"e.'


23/198

n the "ase at bar, the resolutions in 5uestion do not at all "all for an! &ind of assessment againstappellant or his land. 4en"e, the noti"e that appellant %ould %ant to have, need not be given.

esides, appellant did a"tuall! protest esolution 1#2 authoriing the lease to Shell. Su"h protest%as, ho%ever, overruled. 0nd the "oun"il passed esolution 21:, in effe"t, "onfirming the lease.


24/198

>n the se"ond pla"e, the resolutions in 5uestion do not have the effe"t of de"reasing the %idth ofthe opening be"ause said opening is far from the leased portion of HapuHapu Street.


25/198

0ND @4((0S, in the subdivision s"heme of the burned area of the it! -ar&et Subdivision,alread! approved b! the it! oun"il, provision %as made for another road behind HapuHapu Streetinteresting Dagoho! Street.

esides, there are the spe"ifi" findings b! the trial "ourt that the '2.: opening is suffi"ient forPlaintiff to enter and e)it from the lot he pur"hased from 0ssumption onvent, >n".'F that the 'present road

right of %a! %as rendered narro% b! surrounding properties and is suffi"ient for the needs of the Plaintiff'Fand that the 'portion leased to Shell ompan! %as not ne"essar! for publi" use.' @e are bound b! thesefindings of fa"t.

! the embattled resolutions, no right of the publi" is over%helmed, none defeated. Publi" interest%as not at all disregarded. On the "ontrar!, some benefit did flo% from the %ithdra%al of a portion of thestreet and the lease thereof.


26/198

maneuvering at the interse"tion of Dagoho! Street and HapuHapu Street. 17 urther, as stated in theresolution, provision has been 'made for another road behind HapuHapu Street and interse"ting Dagoho!Street.' >t has been said that /

f, subse5uent to his appre"iation, the "it! authorities abandon aportion of the street to %hi"h his propert! is not immediatel! adBa"ent, he ma! suffer loss be"ause of thein"onvenien"e imposed, but the publi" treasur! "annot be re5uired to re"ompense him. Su"h "ase isdamnum abs5ue inBuria.18

OSE D. SANGALANG a%& LUTGARDA D. SANGALANG, (et+t+%e-,

.

INTER=EDIATE APPELLATE COURT a%& A!ALA CORPORATION, -e(%&e%t.

>n brief, A.. Nos. 7;#7$, 7$#9;, 78182, and 82281 are efforts to enfor"e the 'deed restri"tions' in5uestion against spe"ifi" residents private respondents in the petitions of Cupiter Street and %ith respe"tto A.. No. 78182, eposo Street.


27/198

residential blo"&s. >t %as not originall! "onstru"ted, therefore, for the e)"lusive use of either blo"&, least of all the residents of el0ir Eillage, but, %e repeat, in favor of both, as distinguished from the generalpubli".

@hen the %all %as ere"ted in 19$$ and rebuilt t%i"e, in 1976 and 1972, it %as not for the purpose ofph!si"all! separating the t%o blo"&s. 0""ording to 0!ala orporation, it %as put up to enable the el0ir

Eillage 0sso"iation 'better "ontrol of the se"urit! in the area, ;1 and as the 0!ala orporation=s 'sho% ofgood%ill ' ;2 a vie% %e find a""eptable in the premises. or it "annot be denied that at that time, the"ommer"ial area %as va"ant, 'open for Jsi"K animals and people to have a""ess to el0ir Eillage.' ;#n an! "ase, %e find the petitioners= theor!, that maintaining the %all %as a matter of a "ontra"tualobligation on the part of 0!ala, to be pure "onBe"ture.


28/198


29/198

ho%ever, ends at that portion of the propert! of the Pilapils %here a"amino ve"inal e)ists all the %a! tothe said National oad. 16

>n the earl! part of Cul! of 1981, the olomidas 'tried to improve the road of '"amino ve"inal', for the"onvenien"e of the publi",' but the Pilapils harassed and threatened them %ith 'bodil! harm from ma&ingsaid improvement.'


30/198

>t is be!ond dispute that the establishment, "losure or abandonment of the "amino ve"inal is the soleprerogative of the -uni"ipalit! of Hiloan. No private part! "an interfere %ith su"h a right. n the first pla"e,under the appli"able la%, the ma!or %as both a member and the presiding offi"er of the Sanggunianga!an. @9 Se"ondl!, %hat invested the oning map %ith legal effe"t %as neither the authorit! of the person%ho ordered its preparation nor the authorit! of the person %ho a"tuall! prepared it, but its approval b!the Sangguniang a!an. urthermore, %ith or %ithout the order of the -a!or or Sangguniang a!an,

(ngineer Cordan, as the then -uni"ipal Planning and Development oordinator, had the authorit! toprepare the plan and admit it to the Sangguniang a!an for approval. 0mong his fun"tions under thegoverning la% at the time %as to formulate an integrated e"onomi", so"ial, ph!si"al and otherdevelopment obBe"tives and poli"ies for the "onsideration and approval of the san''$nian' bayan and themuni"ipal ma!or, and prepare muni"ipal "omprehensive plans and other development planningdo"ument. #0


31/198

0s further de"lared b! (ngineer Cordan, this %a"ino ve%inal in sitio aha& 'passes the side of the land ofSo"rates Pilapil.


32/198

it! treasurer, Philippine National an& hereinafter referred to as the ban& and n". hereinafter referred to as


33/198

2 "omplements of light and heav! e5uipments to be used b!the it! (ngineering Department for ratifi"ation b! this od!.

d Not%ithstanding the re5uest "ontained in esolution No. 122, the defendantit! -a!or, arlos C. uion, %ithout having been dul! authoried thru properresolution of the it! oun"il, and %ithout "omplian"e %ith esolution No. 122,

signed a "ontra"t %ith the n". for the a"5uisition of theheav! e5uipments on ebruar! :, 19$$. 3

e On ebruar! 1;, 19$$, the it! oun"il, %ithout &no%ledge that the "ontra"thad alread! been signed b! defendant it! -a!or arlos C. uion and then". / sin"e the same %as signed in the it! of -anila/ approved esolution No. 292, %hi"h %e 5uote as follo%s+

(SOHE(D, to reiterate this it! oun"il=s re5uest embodied inits esolution No. 122, "urrent series, addressed to the 0%ardommittee to for%ard to this bod! the pertinent papers in"onne"tion %ith the bidding for t%o 2 "omplements of light andheav! e5uipments to be used b! the it! (ngineering

Department for ratifi"ation b! this od!.

f On -ar"h 16, 19$$, in vie% of the fa"t that the defendant it! -a!or ignored the re5uests of the it!oun"il, the said it! oun"il approved esolution No. ;7#

(SOHE(D, to revo1e esolution No. 1$;8 dated November 29,19$: and esolution No. 18#1, dated De"ember 2#, 19$:,authoriing 4is 4onor, the it! -a!or, to negotiate and to"ontra"t for, b! publi" bidding, on deferred pa!ment plan and b!lot bid, .S. or (uropean made road "onstru"tion e5uipments for the it! of ebu and authoriing him for this purpose, to sign the"orresponding "ontra"t and other pertinent papers andauthoriing the it! -a!or to utilie the


34/198

appropriation for the pur"hase of heav! e5uipments %as made b! the it!oun"il.

i


35/198

and void ab initio and therefore "ould not give rise to an! valid or allo%able monetar! "laims against the"it!.

(ven defendant


36/198

On 0pril 18, 1996, petitioners 0ntonio . amos, osalinda -. Pere, Norma .astillo, and the aliuag -ar&et Eendors 0sso"iation, >n". filed a petition beforethe "ourt a +$o do"&eted as ivil ase No. 2$;-9 for the De"laration of Nullit!of -uni"ipal Ordinan"es No. 91 197$ and No. 7 1996 and the "ontra"t oflease over a "ommer"ial ar"ade to be "onstru"ted in the muni"ipalit! of aliuag,ula"an.

On 0pril 27, 1986, during the hearing on the petitioners= motion for the issuan"eof preliminar! inBun"tion, %as issued b! the "ourt a +$o on -a! 9, 1996.

-ean%hile, on -a! #, 1996, the provin"ial is"al and the Provin"ial 0ttorne!,Oliviano D. egalado, filed an 0ns%er in si% behalf of respondent muni"ipalit!.

0t the pretrial "onferen"e s"heduled on -a! 28, 1996, 0tt!. oberto .omanillos appeared, manifesting that he %as "ounsel for respondentmuni"ipalit!. On the same date, and on Cune 1:, 1996, respe"tivel!, 0tt!.omanillos filed a motion to dissolve inBun"tion and a motion to admit an

0mended 0ns%er %ith motion to dismiss.

On Cune 18, 1996, Provin"ial 0ttorne! Oliviano D. egalado appeared as"ollaborating "ounsel of 0tt!. omanillos. t%as 0tt!. omanillos %ho submitted the epl! to petitioners= Opposition torespondents= motion to dissolve inBun"tion. >t %as also 0tt!. omanillos %hosubmitted a %ritten formal offer of eviden"e on Cul! 17, 1996 for respondentmuni"ipalit!.

During the hearing on 0ugust 16, 1996, petitioners 5uestioned the personalit! of 0tt!. omanillos to appear as "ounsel of si% the respondent muni"ipalit!, %hi"hopposition %as reiterated on 0ugust 1:, 1996, and %as put in %riting inpetitioners= motion of 0ugust 26, 1996 to dis5ualif! 0tt!. omanillos fromappearing as "ounsel for respondent muni"ipalit! and to de"lare null and void thepro"eedings parti"ipated in and underta&en b! 0tt!. omanillos.

-ean%hile, 0tt!. omanillos and 0tt!. egalado filed a Boint motion dated 0ugust22, 1996 stating, among others, that 0tt!. omanillos %as %ithdra%ing as"ounsel for respondent muni"ipalit! and that 0tt!. egalado, as his "ollaborating"ounsel for respondent muni"ipalit!, is adopting the entire pro"eedingsparti"ipated in3underta&en b! 0tt!. omanillos.

On September 19, 1996 respondent Cudge issued the Order no% being assailed %hi"h, as alread! stated,denied petitioners= motion to dis5ualif! 0tt!. omanillos as "ounsel for respondent muni"ipalit! and tode"lare null and void the pro"eeding parti"ipated in b! 0tt!. omanillosF and on the other hand, granted

0tt!. egalado=s motion 'to formall! adopt the entire pro"eedings in"luding the formal offer of eviden"e'.


37/198

>n the re"ent "ase of 5$ni%ipality o# (ililla& Ri;al vs. Co$rt o# Appeals, 13 this ourt, through -r. Custi"eloren D. egalado, set in "lear"ut terms the ans%er to the 5uestion of %ho ma! legall! represent amuni"ipalit! in a suit for or against it, thus+ 1@

. . . and that the interests o# the "$ni%ipality o$ld be best prote%tedi# a 'overn"ent layer handles its liti'ations. (mphasis supplied.


38/198

None of the foregoing e)"eptions is present in this "ase. >t ma! be said that 0tt!. omanillos appeared for respondent muni"ipalit! inasmu"h as he %as alread! "ounsel of ?risti orporation %hi"h %as sued %ithrespondent muni"ipalit! in this same "ase.


39/198

ourt does not see an! inBusti"e "ommitted against petitioners b! the adoptions of the %or& of private"ounsel nor an! interest of Busti"e being served b! re5uiring retrial of the "ase b! the dul! authoried legalrepresentative of the to%n.

>n sum, although a muni"ipalit! ma! not hire a private la%!er to represent it in litigations, in the interest ofsubstantial Busti"e ho%ever, %e hold that a muni"ipalit! ma! adopt the %or& alread! performed in good

faith b! su"h private la%!er, %hi"h %or& is benefi"ial to it 1 provided that no inBusti"e is thereb! heapedon the adverse part! and 2 provided further that no "ompensation in an! guise is paid therefor b! saidmuni"ipalit! to the private la%!er. nless so e)pressl! adopted, the private la%!ers %or& "annot bind themuni"ipalit!.

Third Iss$e9 >?oint 5otion> Need Not Co"ply ith R$le 6

@e also agree %ith the Bustifi"ation of publi" respondent that a motion to %ithdra% the appearan"e of anunauthoried la%!er is a nonadversarial motion that need not "ompl! %ith Se"tion ; ule 1: as to noti"eto the adverse part!. n addition to the foregoing duties and fun"tions, the legal offi"er shall+

i epresent the lo"al government unit in all "ivil a"tions and spe"ialpro"eedings %herein the lo"al government unit or an! offi"ial thereof, inhis offi"ial "apa"it!, is a part!+ Provided, , "harged before the Sandiganba!anunder three separate informations for violation of Se"tions #e, g and B of epubli" 0"t No. #619 the 0ntiAraft and orrupt Pra"ti"es 0"t.

represented b!respondent Aar"ia for the "onstru"tion of the alamba Shopping enter under the 'uildOperate


40/198

On ebruar! $, 199$, private respondents filed a Petition for einvestigation9 and a -otion to SuspendPro"eedings and to 4old in 0be!an"e the >ssuan"e of @arrant of 0rrest16 due to the penden"! of t%o "ivila"tions for the nullifi"ation of the -O0, ivil ase No. 21869:, '5erlinda (aner& #or hersel# and #or thevendors o# the Cala"ba ($bli% 5ar1et v) 5ayor Severino La,ara A$stralian (ro#essional Realty&In% .,' 11 and ivil ase No. 218$9:,>Cala"ba 0endors Credit Cooperative and its 5e"bers v) The5$ni%ipality o# Cala"ba& La'$na& 5ayor Sereriano La,ara and A$stralian (ro#essional Realty& In%)&> 12 atran"h 92 of the egional


41/198

private respondents through evident bad faith "aused undue inBur! to the "omplainants and to thegovernment for entering into a -O0, &no%ing that a -uni"ipal Ordinan"e No. ;97 %hi"h gave authorit!to the -a!or to enter into said agreement %as still under stud! b! the Sangguniang Panlala%igan ofHaguna, b 0P> %as not an a""redited "ontra"tor, and " no pre5ualifi"ation, bidding and a%arding ofthe proBe"t %as "ondu"ted.

>ndeed, there %ould be no reason to pro"eed %ith the "riminal "ases in light of the trial "ourtMs findings,%hi"h had be"ome final and e)e"utor! after the appellate "ourt "onsidered the appeal therefromabandoned and dismissed, that the -O0 %as valid as 0P> %as 5ualified to enter into the sameF 0P>and the muni"ipalit! through private respondents "omplied %ith all the pro"edural re5uirements ne"essar!for entering into the -O0F and the terms and "onditions of the -O0 %ere not grossl! disadvantageous tothe muni"ipalit!.

. . . is a O< proBe"t proponent and not a "ontra"tor to underta&e a"tual"onstru"tion for the proBe"t and thus, 0P> need not register %ith and be a""redited b! the P0 p. 9, b! N(D0 egional Dire"tor -r. atalino o5uiren to the effe"t that the alambaShopping enter is not "overed b! >3N(D0 revie% and approval p. 9, to enter into the -O0 %ith the muni"ipalit! having been dul! established, privaterespondents "ould no longer be held a""ountable under Se"tion # B %hi"h punishes the a"t of publi"offi"ers of &no%ingl! granting a li"ense, permit, privilege or advantage to a person not 5ualified or legall!entitled thereto.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_162748_2006.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_162748_2006.html#fnt39


42/198


43/198

0ll other propert! possessed b! an! of them is patrimonial and shall be governed b! this ode, %ithoutpreBudi"e to the provisions of spe"ial la%s. #;;a

BENA=IN RABUCO, et al, petitioners,vs.HON. ANTONIO . VILLEGAS et al, respondent.

n the earl! morning of 0pril 19, 1976, a large fire of undetermined origin gutted the -alate area in"ludingthe lot on %hi"h petitioners had built their homes and d%ellings. espondents "it! offi"ials then too& overthe lot and &ept petitioners from re"onstru"ting or repairing their burned d%ellings. 0t petitioners= instan"e,the ourt issued on Cune 17, 1976 a temporar! restraining order enBoining respondents "it! offi"ials 'fromperforming an! a"t "onstituting an interferen"e in or disturban"e of herein petitioners= possession of HotNo. 21, lo"& No. $16, of the adastral Surve! of the it! of -anila' as safeguarded them under theourt=s subsisting preliminar! inBun"tion of 0ugust 17, 19$:.


44/198

the 0"t to "ontinue possession and o""upation of the premises and to the lifting and dismissal of the order of demolition issued against them must be enfor"ed and the trial "ourt=s Budgment must be set aside.

espondents "it! offi"ials= "ontention that the 0"t must be stri"&en do%n as un"onstitutional for deprivingthe "it! of -anila of the lots in 5uestion and providing for their sale in subdivided small lots to bona fideo""upants or tenants %ithout pa!ment of Bust "ompensation is untenable and %ithout basis, sin"e the lots

in 5uestion are manifestl! o%ned b! the "it! in its p$bli% and 'overn"ental "apa"it! and are thereforepubli" propert! over %hi"h ongress had absolute "ontrol as distinguished from patrimonial propert!o%ned b! it in its private or proprietary "apa"it! of %hi"h it "ould not be deprived %ithout due pro"ess and%ithout Bust "ompensation. $

4ere, epubli" 0"t #126 e)pressl! de"lared that the properties %ere 'reserved as %o""$nal property 'and ordered their "onversion into 'disposable and alienable lands of the State' for sale in small lots to thebona fide o""upants thereof. >t is established do"trine that the a"t of "lassif!ing State propert! "alls for thee)er"ise of %ide dis"retionar! legislative po%er %hi"h %ill not be interfered %ith b! the "ourts.


45/198

their stalls as illegal "onstru"tions on publi" propert!. 0t the petitioners= behest, %e have issued atemporar! restraining order to preserve the stat$s +$o bet%een the parties pending our de"ision. 1 No%%e shall rule on the merits.

nstan"e of Pampanga,ran"h 2, issued a %rit of preliminar! inBun"tion that prevented the defendants from "onstru"ting the saidstalls until final resolution of the "ontrovers!. 3 On Canuar! 18, 19$;, %hile this "ase %as pending, themuni"ipal "oun"il of San ernando adopted esolution A.. No. 29, %hi"h de"lared the subBe"t area as'the par&ing pla"e and as the publi" plaa of the muni"ipalit!, @ thereb! impliedl! revo&ing esolution No.218, series of 19$1. our !ears later, on November 2, 19$8, Cudge 0ndres . 0guilar de"ided theaforesaid "ase and held that the land o""upied b! the petitioners, being publi" in nature, %as be!ond the"ommer"e of man and therefore "ould not be the subBe"t of private o""upan"!. #


46/198

Sin"e the o""upation of the pla"e in 5uestion in 19$1 b! the original 2; stallholders %hose number laterballooned to almost 266, it has deteriorated in"reasingl! to the great preBudi"e of the "ommunit! ingeneral. it! -a!or and the it! (ngineer and3or their deputies ivil ase No. 12921 inthe egional


47/198

and -a"alino, 1: S0 1;2, "iting the -uni"ipalit! of avite vs. oBas, #6 S0 $62F (spiritu vs.-uni"ipal oun"il of Poorrubio, 162 Phil. 8$9F and -u!ot vs. De la uente, ;8 O.A. ;8$6.

0s the stallholders pa! fees to the it! Aovernment for the right to o""up! portions of the publi" street,the it! Aovernment, "ontrar! to la%, has been leasing portions of the streets to them. Su"h leases orli"enses are null and void for being "ontrar! to la%. n resolving this petition, the ourt addressed the 5uestions of %hether a donor of open spa"es in aresidential subdivision "an validl! impose "onditions on the said donationF %hether the "it! government asdonee "an build and operate a drug rehabilitation "enter on the donated land intended for open spa"eFand %hether the said donation ma! be validl! res"inded b! the donor.

Petitioners "laim the! have the right to "onstru"t and operate a drug rehabilitation "enter on the donatedland in 5uestion, "ontrar! to the provisions stated in the amended Deed of Donation.

On the other hand, private respondent, o%ner3developer of the


48/198

D(N0H D((( NO. 121$

Defining 'Open Spa"e' >n esidential Subdivisions 0nd 0mending Se"tion #1 Of

Presidential De"ree No. 9:7 e5uiring Subdivision O%ners


49/198

>t %ill be noted that under the afore5uoted original provision, it %as optional on the part of the o%ner ordeveloper to donate the roads and spa"es found %ithin the proBe"t to the "it! or muni"ipalit! %here theproBe"t is lo"ated. (lse%ise stated, there %as no legal obligation to ma&e the donation.

4o%ever, said Se". #1 as amended no% states in its last paragraph+

pon their "ompletion . . ., the roads, alle!s, side%al&s and pla!grounds shall bedonated b! the o%ner or developer to the "it! or muni"ipalit! and it shall bemandator! for the lo"al government to a""eptF provided& hoever , that the par&sand pla!grounds ma! be donated to the 4omeo%ners 0sso"iation of the proBe"t%ith the "onsent of the "it! or must "on"erned. . . .

Third Iss$e9 I"position o# Conditions in Donation o# Open Spa%e

Petitioners argue that sin"e the private respondent is re5uired b! la% to donate the par&s andpla!grounds, it has no right to impose the "ondition in the 0mended Deed of Donation that 'the propertiesdonated shall be devoted and utilied solel! for the site of the 0ngeles it! Sports enter.' >t "annotpres"ribe an! "ondition as to the use of the area donated be"ause the use of the open spa"es alread!governed b! P.D. 121$. >n other %ords, the donation should be absolute. onse5uentl!, the "onditions in

the amended deed %hi"h %ere allegedl! violated are dee"ed not ritten. Su"h being the "ase,petitioners "annot be "onsidered to have "ommitted an! violation of the terms and "onditions of the saidamended deed, as the donation is deemed un"onditional, and it follo%s that there is no basis forrevo"ation of the donation.

4o%ever, the general la% on donations does not prohibit the imposition of "onditions on a donation solong as the "onditions are not illegal or impossible. 11

>n regard to donations of open spa"es, P.D. 121$ itself re5uires among other things that the re"reationalareas to be donated be based, as aforementioned, on a per"entage #.: 7, or 9 of the total area ofthe subdivision depending on %hether the division is lo% /, medium /, or highdensit!. >t furtherde"lares that su"h open spa"e devoted to par&s, pla!grounds and re"reational areas are nonalienablepubli" land and nonbuildable. 4o%ever, there is no prohibition in either P.D. 9:7 or P.D. 121$ against

imposing "onditions on su"h donation.

@e hold that an! "ondition ma! be imposed in the donation, so long as the same is not "ontrar! to la%,morals, good "ustoms, publi" order or publi" poli"!. n the "ase at bar, one of the "onditions imposed in the 0mended Deed of Donation is that the doneeshould build a sports "omple) on the donated land. Sin"e P.D. 121$ "learl! re5uires that the #.: to 9of the gross area alloted for par&s and pla!grounds is 'nonbuildable', then the obvious 5uestion arises%hether or not su"h "ondition %as validl! imposed and is binding on the donee. >t is "lear that the 'nonbuildable' "hara"ter applies onl! to the #.: to 9 area set b! la%. >f there is an! e)"ess land over andabove the #.: to 9 re5uired b! the de"ree, %hi"h is also used or allo"ated for par&s, pla!grounds andre"reational purposes, it is obvious that su"h e)"ess area is not "overed b! the nonbuildabilit! restri"tion.>n the instant "ase, if there be an e)"ess, then the donee %ould not be barred from developing andoperating a sports "omple) thereon, and the "ondition in the amended deed %ould then be "onsideredvalid and binding.


50/198

>f the subdivision falls under the lo density or open mar&et housing "ategor!, %ith 26 famil! lots or belo%per gross he"tare, the developer %ill need to allot onl! #.: of gross area for par&s and pla!grounds, andsin"e the donated land "onstitutes 'more than five : per"ent of the total land area of thesubdivision 13 there %ould therefore be an e)"ess of over 1.: of gross area %hi"h %ould not be nonbuildable. Petitioners, on the other hand, alleged and private respondent did not "ontrovert that thesubdivision in 5uestion is a 'mediumdensit! or e"onomi" housing' subdivision based on the sies of thefamil! lots donated in the amended deed, 1@ for %hi"h "ategor! the de"ree mandates that not less than7 of gross area be set aside. Sin"e the donated land "onstitutes onl! a little more than : of the grossarea of the subdivision, %hi"h is less than the area re5uired to be allo"ated for nonbuildable open spa"e,therefore there is no 'e)"ess land' to spea& of.


51/198

b! la%, and for agreeing to build and operate a sports "omple) on the nonbuildable openspa"e so donatedF and petitioners, for "onstru"ting a drug rehabilitation "enter on thesame nonbuildable area.

-oreover, sin"e the "ondition to "onstru"t a sport "omple) on the donated land has previousl! beensho%n to be "ontrar! to la%, therefore, stipulation no. 8 of the amended deed "annot be implemented

be"ause 1 no valid stipulation of the amended deed had been brea"hed, and 2 it is highl! improbablethat the de"ree %ould have allo%ed the return of the donated land for open spa"e under an!"ir"umstan"e, "onsidering the nonalienable "hara"ter of su"h open spa"e, in the light of the se"ond@hereas "lause of P.D. 121$ %hi"h de"lares that . . . su"h open spa"es, roads, alle!s and side%al&s inresidential subdivisions are for publi" use and are, there#ore& beyond the %o""er%e o# "en.

urther, as a matter of publi" poli"!, private respondent "annot be allo%ed to evade its statutor! obligationto donate the re5uired open spa"e through the e)pedien"! of invo&ing petitioners brea"h of the aforesaid"ondition. >t is a familiar prin"iple that the "ourts %ill not aid either part! to enfor"e an illegal "ontra"t, but%ill leave them both %here the! f ind them. Neither part! "an re"over damages from the other arising fromthe a"t "ontrar! to la%, or plead the same as a "ause of a"tion or as a defense. (a"h must bear the"onse5uen"es of his o%n a"ts. 19

>(D as follo%s+

1 Petitioners are hereb! (NCO>N(D perpetuall! from operating the drug rehabilitation "enter or an!other su"h fa"ilit! on the donated open spa"e.

2 Petitioner it! of 0ngeles is OD((D to underta&e and removal of said drug rehabilitation "enter%ithin a period of three # months from finalit! of this De"ision, and thereafter, to devote publi" use as apar&, pla!ground or other re"reational use.

#


52/198

21876 entitled >5an$el O) (on%e& et al) v) on) A"ador Go"e;& et al)> and No. H22$$9 entitled >5an$elO) (on%e& et al) v) The City o# Ceb$& et al)> >(on%e Cases>4. In effect, the Supplement to theDissenting Opinion claims that these two Resolutions serve as authority that a single privatecorporation like Amari may acquire hundreds of hectares of submerged lands, as well asreclaimed submerged lands, within anila !ay under the Amended "oint #enture Agreement$%Amended "#A%&'

@e find the "ited Pon"e ases inappli"able to the instant "ase.

irst, as Custi"e ellosillo himself states in his supplement to his dissent, the Pon"e ases admitthat %submerged lands still belong to the (ational )overnment'> 9 > of the 1987onstitution provides+

All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, "oal, petroleum, and other mineraloils, all for"es of potential energ!, fisheries, forests or timber, %ildlife, flora and fauna, andother natural resour"es are owned by the State' *ith the e+ception of agriculturallands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated' ) ) ). (mphasis supplied

Submerged lands, li&e the %aters sea or ba! above them, are part of the StateMs inalienable naturalresour"es. Submerged lands are propert! of publi" dominion, absolutel! inalienable and outside the"ommer"e of man.16 n the instant "ase, the bul& of the lands subBe"t of the 0mended CE0 are still submerged lands even to

this ver! da!, and therefore inalienable and outside the "ommer"e of man. Of the 7:6 he"tares subBe"t ofthe 0mended CE0, :92.1: he"tares or -. of the total area are still submerged, permanently underthe waters of anila !ay . nder the 0mended CE0, the P(0 "onve!ed to 0mari the submerged landseven before their a"tual re"lamation, although the do"umentation of the deed of transfer and issuan"e ofthe "ertifi"ates of title %ould be made onl! after a"tual re"lamation.

>n the Pon"e ases, the it! of ebu retained o%nership of the re"laimed foreshore lands and (ssel, >n".onl! had an 'irrevo"able option' to pur"hase portions of the foreshore lands on"e a"tuall! re"laimed. >nsharp "ontrast, in the instant "ase o%nership of the re"lamation area, in"luding the submerged lands, %asimmediatel! transferred to the Boint venture. 0mari immediatel! a"5uired the absolute right to o%n 76per"ent of the re"lamation area, %ith the deeds of transfer to be do"umented and the "ertifi"ates of title tobe issued upon a"tual re"lamation. 0mariMs right to o%n the submerged lands is immediatel! effe"tiveupon the approval of the 0mended CE0 and not merel! an option to be e)er"ised in the future if and %hen

the re"lamation is a"tuall! realied.


53/198

e)pressl! re5uired in Se"tion 7917 of PD No. 1;;:. n the instant "ase, the 0mended CE0 is a negotiated "ontra"t %hi"h"learl! "ontravenes Se"tion 79 of PD No. 1;;:.


54/198

alienable publi" lands, mu"h less submerged lands, sin"e under the present onstitution a private"orporation li&e 0mari is barred from a"5uiring alienable lands of the publi" domain.

learl!, the fa"ts in the Pon"e ases are different from the fa"ts in the instant "ase. -oreover, thegoverning "onstitutional and statutor! provisions have "hanged sin"e the Pon"e ases %ere disposed ofin 19$: and 19$$ through minute esolutions of a divided $ to : ourt.

PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOP=ENT AUTHORIT!, petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, et al, respondent.


55/198

propert! ta) 'e)"ept %hen the benefi"ial use thereof has been granted, for "onsideration or other%ise, toa ta)able person.'

loilo.

Similarl!, for the same reason, the NP "annot be sold at publi" au"tion in satisfa"tion of the ta)delin5uen"! assessments made b! the -uni"ipalit! of Navotas on the entire "omple).

0dditionall!, the land on %hi"h the NP propert! sits is a re"laimed land, %hi"h belongs to the State.>n Chave; v) ($bli% Estates A$thority&27 the ourt de"lared that re"laimed lands are lands of the publi"domain and "annot, %ithout ongressional fiat, be subBe"t of a sale, publi" or private. 28

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_150301_2007.html#fnt28


56/198


57/198

t %as further agreed that petitioner shall pa!respondent He)ber a redu"ed fee of fift! per"ent :6 of the monthl! "ontra"t pri"e, or P7$8,;9#.66, inthe event petitioner fails to dump the agreed volume of :;,666 "ubi" meters of garbage for an! givenmonth. On De"ember 11, 1991, respondent %as notified b! petitioner, through the it! (ngineer, 0lfredo-a"apuga!, ProBe"t -anager, ene Haaro and -a!or Simon to "ommen"e maintenan"e and dumping

operations at the site starting on De"ember 1:, 1991.7

espondent He)ber alleged that petitioner immediatel! "ommen"ed dumping garbage on the landfill site"ontinuousl! from De"ember 1991 until -a! 1992.


58/198

On De"ember 12, 1992, respondent=s "ounsel sent a demand letter to petitioner demanding the pa!mentof at least :6 of its servi"e fee under the said "ontra"t, in the total amount of P9,989,17;.66. >n vie% ofthe idle state of the dumpsite for more than a !ear, respondent also sought a "larifi"ation from petitionerregarding its intention on the dumpsite proBe"t, "onsidering the %aste of e5uipment and manpo%er in themeantime, as %ell as its loss of opportunit! for the propert!.

Petitioner, this time a"ting through -a!or >smael 0. -atha!, Cr. %ho su""eeded -a!or Simon in theinterim, denied an! liabilit! under the "ontra"t on the ground that the same %as invalid andunenfor"eable. 0""ording to -a!or -atha!, the subBe"t "ontra"t %as signed onl! b! -a!or Simon andhad neither the approval nor ratifi"ation of the it! oun"il, and it la"&ed the re5uired budgetappropriation.6phi6)nHt


59/198

part! for an! "onse5uent damage to the same e)tent as if the transa"tion had been%holl! bet%een private parties.

>f %e are to limit our dis5uisition to the "ited provisions of Presidential De"ree No. 1;;:, or the 0uditingode of the Philippines, in "onBun"tion %ith Se"tion 177 b of atas Pambansa lg. ##7, or the Ho"alAovernment ode of 198#, %hi"h empo%ered the Sangguniang Panlungsod to 'appropriate funds for

e)penses of the "it! government, and fi) the salaries of its offi"ers and emplo!ees a""ording to la%,'there %ould be no debate that prior appropriation b! the "it! "oun"il and a "ertifi"ation that funds areavailable therefor is indeed mandatoril! re5uired.


60/198

hand, the "it! "oun"il must provide for the 'depositing, leaving or thro%ing of garbage'1# and toappropriate funds for su"h e)penses.1; XSe"tion 177 JbK. >t "annot refuse to so provide and appropriatepubli" funds for su"h servi"es %hi"h are ver! vital to the maintenan"e of "leanliness of the "it! and thegood health of its inhabitants.

! entering into the t%o "ontra"ts, -a!or Simon did not usurp the "it! "oun"il=s po%er to provide for the

proper disposal of garbage and to appropriate funds therefor. n the latter "ase, the Supreme ourt did not de"lare the "ontra"t null andvoid ab initio for the reason that appropriation for the proBe"t "an be made subse5uent to the e)e"ution ofthe "ontra"t. onse5uentl!, the ruling in the I"$s "ase is germane to the instant "ase. urthermore, thetrial "ourt noted that %hile herein petitioner %ould atta"& the subBe"t "ontra"t for being fatall! defe"tive,the ommission on 0udit did not de"lare the said "ontra"t as null and void, unli&e in the Os"ea "ase%here the 5uestioned "ontra"t %as de"lared invalid b! the O0. 4en"e, the ruling in the Os"ea "ase

finds no appli"ation in the instant "ontrovers!.

ULIAN SEGUNDO =ANANTAN, et al, petitionersappellants,vs.THE =UNICIPALIT! OF LUNA, LA UNION, et al, respondentsappellees.

On De"ember 1:, 19;:, the muni"ipal "oun"il of Huna, Provin"e of Ha nion, passed its esolution No.#2, series of 19;:, the purpose of offering at publi" au"tion on Canuar! 1:, 19;$, a lease of the privilegeto "at"h 'baRgus' fr! %ithin "ertain se"tion of the muni"ipal %aters.

0"ting on the authorit! granted in said resolution the muni"ipal treasurer issued the ne"essar! noti"es forthe au"tion %herein it %as stated, among other things that the fishing privilege in 5uestion %ould beleased to the highest bidder ranging from P1,666 and up together %ith a deposit of 16 per "ent of the

amount so offered for the period of one !ear from Canuar! 1, 19;$, to De"ember #1, 19;$.' %ith thefurther statement that 'ids for more than one !ear but not more than four !ears "an be offered.Prospe"tive bidders ma! see the -uni"ipal Se"retar! about the "onditions of the lease for more than one!ear.

n offi"ial "onfirmation of thisde"laration the muni"ipal "oun"il passed esolution No. #7, series of 19;$, granting to Culian Segundo-anantan and his asso"iates the fishing privilege in 5uestion and authoriing the muni"ipal ma!or to


61/198

e)e"ute the "orresponding "ontra"t of lease. >n due time the "ontra"t %as signed b! the parties, and"onformabl! to the bid, the lease %as to be four !ears from 19;$ to 19;9, in"lusiveat the agreed pri"e of P1,666 fro the first !ear pa!able immediatel!, and P2,;66 for the su""eeding three !ears, pa!able in alump sum at the beginning of 19;7 or in installments at the dis"retion of the muni"ipal "oun"il.

0fter pa!ing the P1,666 "orresponding to the first !ear of the lease, the lessees began "at"hing 'bangus'

fr! %ithin the fisher! one in 5uestion. ut on Cul! 26, 19;$, the muni"ipal "oun"il, no% "omposed of ane% set "oun"ilors headed b! a ne% ma!or, passed, esolution No. 2, series of 19;$, re5uesting theProvin"ial oard of Ha nion to annul esolution No. #2, series of 19;:, and the fishing privilege grantedthereunder to Culian Segundo -anantan and his partners, and the re5uest having been granted, the said"oun"il, on De"ember 22, 19;$, approved esolution No. 2# fishing privilege for the !ear 19;7 at theminimum au"tion, Culian Segundo -anantan, later Boined b! his partners, "ommen"ed the present suit inthe ourt of irst >nstan"e of Ha nion to have the lastmentioned resolution de"lared void and themuni"ipal "oun"il enBoined from "arr!ing out the au"tion. t is obvious that the "ase hinges on the validit! of esolution No. #7 granting the fishingprivileges to the petitioners. t is a rule repeatedl! follo%ed b! this ourt that 'the "onstru"tion pla"eupon a la% at the time b! the offi"ial in "harge of enfor"ing it should be respe"ted.' In re 0llen, 2 Phil.,$#6F Aovernment of the Philippine >slands vs. -uni"ipalit! of inalonan, #2 Phil., $#;F -olina vs. affert!,#7 Phil., :;:F -adrigal and Paterno vs. affert! and on"ep"ion, #8 Phil., ;1;.= Auanio vs. ernande,:: Phil., 81;, 819.


62/198

0s that part of the noti"e issued b! the muni"ipal treasurer %hi"h "alls for bids for a longer period thanone !ear but not more than four !ears is in a""ord %ith the real intent of esolution No. #2, as thatintention %as subse5uentl! "onfirmed in esolution No. #7 of the same muni"ipal "oun"il, the said noti"e"an not be deemed to be unauthoried and void, so that it is erro to hold that he grant of the fishingprivilege to the petitioners %as null and void for la"& of a valid noti"e of the publi" au"tion.

>t results that the "ontra"t of lease entered into under the authorit! of esolution No. #7 bet%een thepetitioners and the muni"ipal government of Huna is a valid and binding "ontra"t and as su"h it isprote"ted b! the onstitution and "an not, therefore, be impaired b! a subse5uent resolution %hi"h sets init aside and grants the fishing privilege to another part!.

OSE D. SANGALANG a%& LUTGARDA D. SANGALANG, (et+t+%e-,

.

INTER=EDIATE APPELLATE COURT a%& A!ALA CORPORATION, -e(%&e%t.

>n brief, A.. Nos. 7;#7$, 7$#9;, 78182, and 82281 are efforts to enfor"e the 'deed restri"tions' in5uestion against spe"ifi" residents private respondents in the petitions of Cupiter Street and %ith respe"t

to A.. No. 78182, eposo Street.


63/198

all the residents of el0ir Eillage, but, %e repeat, in favor of both, as distinguished from the generalpubli".

@hen the %all %as ere"ted in 19$$ and rebuilt t%i"e, in 1976 and 1972, it %as not for the purpose ofph!si"all! separating the t%o blo"&s. 0""ording to 0!ala orporation, it %as put up to enable the el0irEillage 0sso"iation 'better "ontrol of the se"urit! in the area, ;1 and as the 0!ala orporation=s 'sho% of

good%ill ' ;2 a vie% %e find a""eptable in the premises. or it "annot be denied that at that time, the"ommer"ial area %as va"ant, 'open for Jsi"K animals and people to have a""ess to el0ir Eillage.' ;#n an! "ase, %e find the petitioners= theor!, that maintaining the %all %as a matter of a "ontra"tualobligation on the part of 0!ala, to be pure "onBe"ture.


64/198

@hat 0!ala submits as the real "ause %as the opening of Cupiter Street to vehi"ular traffi" in 1977., :8ut this %as upon orders of the -a!or, and for %hi"h the homeo%ners= asso"iation had pre"isel! filed suitivil ase No. #;998:9 to "ontest the a"t of the -a!or.

Our de"ision also resolves, 5uite anti"lima"ti"all!, these "ompanion "ases. ut %e do so for various otherreasons. >n the Sangalang "ase, %e absolve the 0!ala orporation primaril! o%ing to our finding that it is

not liable for the opening of Cupiter Street to the general publi". >nsofar as these petitions are "on"erned,%e li&e%ise e)"ulpate the private respondents, not onl! be"ause of the fa"t that Cupiter Street is not"overed b! the restri"tive easements based on the 'deed restri"tions' but "hiefl! be"ause the NationalAovernment itself, through the -etro -anila ommission --, had re"lassified Cupiter Street into highdensit! "ommer"ial # one, $; pursuant to its Ordinan"e No. 8161. 4en"e, the petitioners have no"ause of a"tion on the strength alone of the said 'deed restri"tions.

>t is not that %e are sa!ing that restri"tive easements, espe"iall! the easements herein in 5uestion, areinvalid or ineffe"tive. 0s far as the el0ir subdivision itself is "on"erned, "ertainl!, the! are valid andenfor"eable. ut the! are, li&e all "ontra"ts, subBe"t to the overriding demands, needs, and interests of thegreater number as the State ma! determine in the legitimate e)er"ise of poli"e po%er. Our Burisdi"tionguarantees san"tit! of "ontra"t and is said to be the 'la% bet%een the "ontra"ting parties, $: but %hile itis so, it "annot "ontravene =la%, morals, good "ustoms, publi" order, or publi" poli"!. $$ 0bove all, it

"annot be raised as a deterrent to poli"e po%er, designed pre"isel! to promote health, safet!, pea"e, andenhan"e the "ommon good, at the e)pense of "ontra"tual rights, %henever ne"essar!.

ndoubtedl!, the -- Ordinan"e represents a legitimate e)er"ise of poli"e po%er. rene Sto. Domingo for the period from Cune $, 1971 to Cune$, 2621 per Offi"ial e"eipt No. $1#67 dated Cune $, 1971 see ()h. 0 %ith an e)pir! date of Cune $,2621 see ()h. 01. ull pa!ment of the rental therefor of P:6.66 is eviden"ed b! the said re"eipt %hi"happears to be regular on its fa"e. 0part from the aforementioned re"eipt, no other do"ument %ase)e"uted to embod! su"h lease over the burial lot in 5uestion. >n fa"t, the burial re"ord for lo"& No. 19;

of -anila North emeter! see ()h. 2 in %hi"h subBe"t Hot No. 1:9 is situated does not refle"t the term of duration of the lease thereover in favor of the Sto. Domingos.

elieving in good faith that, in a""ordan"e %ith 0dministrative Order No. :, Series of 197:, dated -ar"h $,197:, of the it! -a!or of -anila See ()h. 1 pres"ribing uniform pro"edure and guidelines in thepro"essing of do"uments pertaining to and for the use and disposition of burial lots and plots %ithin theNorth emeter!, et"., subBe"t Hot No. 1:9 of lo"& 19; in %hi"h the mortal remains of the late Eiven"ioSto. Domingo %ere laid to rest, %as leased to the bereaved famil! for five : !ears onl!, subBe"t lot %as"ertified on Canuar! 2:, 1978 as read! for e)humation.


65/198

On the basis of su"h "ertifi"ation, the authorities of the North emeter! then headed b! defendant Coseph4elmuth authoried the e)humation and removal from subBe"t burial lot the remains of the late Eiven"ioSto. Domingo, Sr., pla"ed the bones and s&ull in a bag or sa"& and &ept the same in the depositor! orbodega of the "emeter! ! Subse5uentl!, the same lot in 5uestion %as rented out to another lessee so that%hen the plaintiffs herein %ent to said lot on 0ll Souls Da! in their sho"&, "onsternation and disma!, thatthe resting pla"e of their dear departed did not an!more bear the stone mar&er %hi"h the! lovingl! pla"edon the tomb. >ndignant and disgusted over su"h a sorro%ful finding, >rene Sto. Domingo lost no time inin5uiring from the offi"erin"harge of the North emeter!, defendant Sergio -allari, and %as told that theremains of her late husband had been ta&en from the burial lot in 5uestion %hi"h %as given to anotherlessee.

>rene Sto. Domingo %as also informed that she "an loo& for the bones of her de"eased husband in the%arehouse of the "emeter! %here the e)humed remains from the different burial lots of the Northemeter! are being &ept until the! are retrieved b! interested parties. ut to the bereaved %ido%, %hatshe %as advised to do %as simpl! una""eptable. 0""ording to her, it %as Bust impossible to lo"ate theremains of her late husband in a depositor! "ontaining thousands upon thousands of sa"&s of humanbones. She did not %ant to run the ris& of "laiming for the %rong set of bones. She %as even offeredanother lot but %as never appeased. She %as too aggrieved that she "ame to "ourt for relief even beforeshe "ould formall! present her "laims and demands to the "it! government and to the other defendantsnamed in the present "omplaint. De"ision, ourt of 0ppeals, pp. 2#F ollo, pp. #;::


66/198

t %ould havebeen but fair and e5uitable that the! %ere notified of the intention of the "it!government to transfer the s&eletal remains of the late Eiven"io Sto. Domingo to

give them an opportunit! to demand the faithful fulfillment of their "ontra"t, or atleast to prepare and ma&e provisions for said transfer in order that the! %ould notlose tra"& of the remains of their beloved dead, as %hat has a"tuall! happenedon this "ase. @e understand full! %hat the famil! of the de"eased must have felt%hen on 0ll Saints Da! of 1978, the! found a ne% mar&er on the grave the! %ereto visit, onl! to be told to lo"ate their beloved dead among thousands of s&eletalremains %hi"h to them %as dese"ration and an impossible tas&. (ven the lo%er"ourt re"ognied this %hen it stated in its de"ision thus+


67/198

0ll things "onsidered, even as the ourt "ommiserates %ithplaintiffs for the unfortunate happening "omplained of anduntimel! dese"ration of the resting pla"e and remains of theirde"eased dearl! beloved, it finds the reliefs pra!ed for b! themla"&ing in legal and fa"tual basis. nder the aforementionedfa"ts and "ir"umstan"es, the most that plaintiffs ran as& for is therepla"ement of subBe"t lot %ith another lot of e5ual sie andsimilar lo"ation in the North emeter! %hi"h substitute lotplaintiffs "an ma&e use of %ithout pa!ing an! rental to the "it!government for a period of fort!three ;# !ears, four ; monthsand eleven 11 da!s "orresponding to the une)pired portion ofthe term of the lease sued upon as of Canuar! 2:, 1978 %henthe remains of the late Eiven"io Sto. Domingo, Sr. %ereprematurel! removed from the disputed lotF and to re5uire thedefendants to loo& in earnest for the bones and s&ull of the lateEiven"io Sto. Domingo Sr. and to bur! the same in the substitutelot adBudged in favor of plaintiffs hereunder. De"ision,>ntermediate 0ppellate ourt, p. 7, ollo, p. #9

0s regards the issue of the validit! of the "ontra"t of lease of grave lot No. 1:9, lo"& No. 19: of theNorth emeter! for :6 !ears beginning from Cune $, 1971 to Cune $, 2621 as "learl! stated in the re"eiptdul! signed b! the deput! treasurer of the it! of -anila and sealed b! the "it! government, there isnothing in the re"ord that Bustifies the reversal of the "on"lusion of both the trial "ourt and the >ntermediate

0ppellate ourt to the effe"t that the re"eipt is in itself a "ontra"t of lease. De"ision, >ntermediate 0ppellate ourt, p. #, ollo, pp. :$.

nder the do"trine of respondent s$perior , ts audit team rendered a report, Part >> of %hi"h states+ 'Several "ontra"ts in thetotal amount ofP162,692,8;1.;7 %ere not supported %ith a San''$nian' (anlalai'an resolutionauthoriing the Provin"ial Aovernor to enter into a "ontra"t, as re5uired under Se"tion 22 of .0. No.71$6.'2


68/198

0lleging that the infrastru"ture "ontra"ts; subBe"t of the audit report "omplied %ith the bidding pro"eduresprovided under .0. No. 918; and %ere entered into pursuant to the general and3or supplementalappropriation ordinan"es passed b! the San''$nian' (anlalai'an, Aov. Aar"ia alleged that a separateauthorit! to enter into su"h "ontra"ts %as no longer ne"essar!.

espondent Aovernor insists that at the time of the filing of the petition for de"larator! relief, there %as

not !et an! brea"h of .0. No. 71$6. She further argues that the 5uestioned "ontra"ts %ere e)e"utedafter a publi" bidding in implementation of spe"ifi" items in the regular or supplemental appropriationordinan"es passed b! the San''$nian' (anlalai'an.


69/198

Se". 22. Corporate (oers.La (ver! lo"al government unit, as a "orporation, shall havethe follo%ing po%ers+

) ) )

" nless other%ise provided in this ode, no "ontra"t ma! be entered into b! the lo"al

"hief e)e"utive in behalf of the lo"al government unit %ithout prior authoriation b!the san''$nian "on"erned. 0 legible "op! of su"h "ontra"t shall be posted at a"onspi"uous pla"e in the provin"ial "apitol or the "it!, muni"ipal or baranga! hall.

0s it "learl! appears from the foregoing provision, prior authoriation b! the san''$nian "on"erned isre5uired before the lo"al "hief e)e"utive ma! enter into "ontra"ts on behalf of the lo"al government unit.

Aov. Aar"ia posits that Se"tions #6$ and #;$ of .0. No. 71$6 are the e)"eptions to Se". 22" andoperate to allo% her to enter into "ontra"ts on behalf of the Provin"e of ebu %ithout further authorit! fromthe San''$nian' (anlalai'an other than that alread! granted in the appropriation ordinan"e for 266#and the supplemental ordinan"es %hi"h, ho%ever, she did not "are to elu"idate on.

Se". #;$. Disb$rse"ents o# Lo%al /$nds and State"ent o# A%%o$nts.LDisbursements

shall be made in a""ordan"e %ith the ordinan"e authoriing the annual or supplementalappropriations %ithout the prior approval of the san''$nian "on"erned. @ithin thirt! #da!s after the "lose of ea"h month, the lo"al a""ountant shall furnish the san''$nian %ithsu"h finan"ial statements as ma! be pres"ribed b! the O0. >n the "ase of the !earendstatement of a""ounts, the period shall be si)t! $6 da!s after the thirt!first #1st ofDe"ember.

Se". #6$ of .0. No. 71$6 merel! "ontains a definition of terms. ead in "onBun"tion %ith Se". #;$, Se".#6$ authories the lo"al "hief e)e"utive to ma&e disbursements of funds in a""ordan"e %ith the ordinan"eauthoriing the annual or supplemental appropriations.


70/198

"ontra"tual obligations %hi"h %ere not in"luded in the previous !earMs annual and supplemental budgets"annot be disbursed b! the lo"al government unit. >t follo%s, too, that ne% "ontra"ts entered into b! thelo"al "hief e)e"utive re5uire the prior approval of the san''$nian.

0nd so, to give life to the obvious intendment of the la% and to avoid a "onstru"tion %hi"h %ould renderSe". 22" of .0. No. 71$6 meaningless,22 disbursement, as used in Se". #;$, should be understood to

pertain to pa!ments for statutor! and "ontra"tual obligations %hi"h the san''$nian has alread!authoried thru ordinan"es ena"ting the annual budget and are therefore alread! subsisting obligations of the lo"al government unit. ontra"ts, as used in Se". 22" on the other hand, are those %hi"h bind thelo"al government unit to ne% obligations, %ith their "orresponding terms and "onditions, for %hi"h thelo"al "hief e)e"utive needs prior authorit! from the san''$nian.


71/198

On the other hand, should the appropriation ordinan"e des"ribe the proBe"ts in generi" terms su"h as'infrastru"ture proBe"ts,' 'intermuni"ipal %ater%or&s, drainage and se%erage, flood "ontrol, and irrigations!stems proBe"ts,' 're"lamation proBe"ts' or 'roads and bridges,' there is an obvious need for a "overing"ontra"t for ever! spe"ifi" proBe"t that in turn re5uires approval b! the san''$nian.Spe"ifi" san''$nian approval ma! also be re5uired for the pur"hase of goods and servi"es %hi"h areneither spe"ified in the appropriation ordinan"e nor en"ompassed %ithin the regular personal servi"esand maintenan"e operating e)penses.

SEVERINO B. VERGARA, Petitioner,vs.THE HON. O=BUDS=AN, SEVERINO . LAARA, a%& VIRGINIA G. BARORO, espondents.

On 2: Cune 2661, the it! oun"il of alamba it! oun"il, %here petitioner %as a member, issuedesolution No. 11:, Series of 2661. nternal evenue 0llotment >0

alamba it!Ms >0s from Canuar! 2662 to #1 Canuar! 266# %ere assigned to Pamanaand Prudential an& in the amount of P119,617,$66.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_174567_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_174567_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_174567_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_174567_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_174567_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_174567_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_174567_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_174567_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_174567_2009.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/mar2009/gr_174567_2009.html#fnt9


72/198

On 19 November 2661, the above do"uments %ere endorsed to the it! oun"il. Petitioner alleged thatall these do"uments %ere not ratified b! the it! oun"il, a fa"t dul! noted in an 0udit Observation-emorandum dated 9 0ugust 2662 and issued b! State 0uditor uben . Pagaspas of the ommissionon 0udit.

On the rati#i%ation by the City Co$n%il o# all

do%$"ents pertainin' to the p$r%hase o# the lots

Petitioner "ontends that all the do"uments, li&e the -emorandum of 0greement, Deed of Sale, Deed of-ortgage, and Deed of 0ssignment, do not bear the ratifi"ation b! the it! oun"il.

>n the assailed Order, the Ombudsman held that the various a"tions performed b! -a!or HaBara in"onne"tion %ith the pur"hase of the lots %ere all authoried b! the Sangguniang Panlungsod asmanifested in numerous resolutions.


73/198

@e dismiss the appeal.

N%C(l+a%e +t4 t4e Re)+-ee%t 5 Pe-%al Ca%a

0 71$67 e)pli"itl! provides that, as a rule, 'a"5uisitions of supplies b! lo"al government units shall bethrough "ompetitive bidding.'8 ! %a! of e)"eption, no bidding is re5uired in the follo%ing instan"es+

1 personal "anvass of responsible mer"hantsF

2 emergen"! pur"haseF

# negotiated pur"haseF

; dire"t pur"hase from manufa"turers or e)"lusive distributors and

: pur"hase from other government entities.9

Sin"e personal "anvass the method availed of b! petitioner is an e)"eption to the rule re5uiring publi"

bidding, Se"tion #$7 of 0 71$6 provides for limitations on the resort to this mode of pro"urement+

Se". #$7. (ro%$re"ent thro$'h (ersonal Canvass)Jpon approval b! the ommittee on 0%ards,pro"urement of supplies ma! be affe"ted after personal "anvass of at least three # responsible suppliersin the lo"alit! b! a "ommittee of three # "omposed of the lo"al general servi"es offi"er or the muni"ipalor baran'ay treasurer, as the "ase ma! be, the lo"al a""ountant, and the head of offi"e or department for%hose use the supplies are being pro"ured.


74/198

Note that the la% repeatedl! uses the %ord 'shall' to emphasie the mandator! nature of its provisions.

>nsofar as the pur"hase of the sabela, bought# an >suu dumptru"&; for P7:6,666.66 from Cosephine hing for the use of the muni"ipalit!.

On -ar"h 2$, 1997, a letter"omplaint: %as filed against petitioner b! her su""essor, -a!or DiosdadoSi5uian$ and several other Sangguniang a!an members7 before the Offi"e of the Ombudsman, a""usingher of malversation of publi" funds and propert! in "onne"tion %ith several alleged irregularities"ommitted during her term as -a!or of 0ngadanan, in"luding the pur"hase of the dump tru"& for beinggrossl! overpri"ed.

On 0ugust 1;, 1997, Araft >nvestigation Offi"er > Aermain A. Him found no probable "ause to holdpetitioner liable for the "harges. pon re"onsideration ho%ever, she %as indi"ted for violation of Se". # eof 0 No. #619, as amended, %ith respe"t to the a"5uisition of the dump tru"&.

4en"e, this appeal %here petitioner "ontends that the Sandiganba!an erred in finding her guilt! of

violation of Se"tion # e of 0 No. #619. >n parti"ular, petitioner denies "ausing inBur! or giving an!bod!an! un%arranted benefits, advantage or preferen"e in the dis"harge of her offi"ial or administrativefun"tions, or that she is guilt! of an! manifest partialit!, evident bad faith or gross negligen"e.

@e are not persuaded.

Section 2) orrupt pra"ti"es of publi" offi"ers. In addition to a%ts or o"issions o# p$bli% o##i%ers already penali;ed by e.istin' la& the #olloin' shall %onstit$te %orr$pt pra%ti%es o# any p$bli% o##i%er and arehereby de%lared to be $nla#$l

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_176546_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_176546_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_176546_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_176546_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_176546_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_170339_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_176546_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_176546_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_176546_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_176546_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/sep2009/gr_176546_2009.html#fnt7


75/198

) ) ) )

e ausing an! undue inBur! to an! part!, in"luding the Aovernment, or giving an! private part! an!un%arranted benefits, advantage or preferen"e in the dis"harge of his offi"ial, administrative or Budi"ialfun"tions through manifest partialit!, evident bad faith or gross ine)"usable negligen"e.


76/198


77/198

suffered "ontusions on the left thigh, the left upper arm, the right leg and the upper lip apart from anabrasion on the right infrapatella region. nstan"e of

-anila, a "omplaint / %hi"h %as, subse5uentl!, amended / for damages against the it! of -anila, itsma!or, "it! engineer, "it! health offi"er, "it! treasurer and "hief of poli"e.


78/198

la .>


79/198


80/198

S< P0>

ntegrated orporation, %hereb! in "onsideration of a fi)edservi"e fee, the it! hired the servi"es of the said "orporation to underta&e theph!si"al management, maintenan"e, rehabilitation and development of the it!=spubli" mar&ets and= t is believed that there is nothing in"ongruous in the e)er"ise of these po%ersvisavis the e)isten"e of the "ontra"t, inasmu"h as the City retains the poer o#s$pervision and %ontrol over its p$bli% "ar1ets and talipapas $nder the ter"s o#the %ontra%t . ()hibit '70' (mphasis supplied. ollo, p. 7:.

>n fa"t, the it! of -anila emplo!ed a mar&et master for the Sta. 0na Publi" -ar&et %hose primar! dut! isto ta&e dire"t supervision and "ontrol of that parti"ular mar&et, more spe"ifi"all!, to "he"& the safet! of thepla"e for the publi".

inall!, Se"tion #6 g of the Ho"al


81/198


82/198

"onsisting of her monthl! salar! and other means of in"ome, but sin"e Cul! 2:,1978 up to the present she has been deprived of said in"ome as she has alread!"onsumed her a""rued leaves in the government servi"e. She has lost severalpounds as a result of the a""ident and she is no longer her former Bovial self, shehas been unable to perform her religious, so"ial, and other a"tivities %hi"h sheused to do prior to the in"ident.

Dr. Norberto eli) and Dr. Dominado -anano of the Provin"ial 4ospital, as %ellas Dr. 0ntonio Sison of the -edi"al it! Aeneral 4ospital in -andalu!ong ial()h. >F see also ()hs. , A, A1 to A19 have "onfirmed be!ond shado% of an!doubt the e)tent of the fra"ture and inBuries sustained b! the plaintiff as a result of the mishap. On the other hand, Patrolman laveria, De 0sis and ereo"orroborated the testimon! of the plaintiff regarding the mishap and the! have"onfirmed the e)isten"e of the manhole ()hs. 0, , and sube)hibits on theside%al& along Pere lvd., at the time of the in"ident on Cul! 2:, 1978 %hi"h%as partiall! "overed b! a "on"rete flo%er pot b! leaving gaping hole about 2 ft.long b! 1 132 feet %ide or ;2 "ms. %ide b! 7: "ms. long b! 1:6 "ms. deep see()hs. D and D1.

Defendant 0lfredo n his ans%er defendantn this revie% on "ertiorari, %e have simplified the errors assigned b! the petitioner to a single issue+%hether or not "ontrol or supervision over a national road b! the it! of Dagupan e)ists, in effe"t bindingthe "it! to ans%er for damages in a""ordan"e %ith arti"le 2189 of the ivil ode.


83/198

Se". 22.


84/198

nder a 'Contra%t /or :ater Servi%e Conne%tions'2 entered into b! and bet%een the -etropolitan@ater%or&s and Se%erage S!stem -@SS and ?%o& heung as sole proprietor of ?.. @ater%or&sS!stem onstru"tion ?, for short, the former engaged the servi"es of the latter to install %ater servi"e"onne"tions. 0rti"le 11 S"ope of @or&, paragraph 2.61 of the agreement provides+

2.61


85/198

@ith no similar re"ourse having been ta&en b! the other parties, the ourt shall limit itself to the liabilit! or nonliabilit! of petitioner muni"ipalit! for the inBur! sustained b! iglanga%a.

>n den!ing liabilit! for the subBe"t a""ident, petitioner essentiall! an"hored its defense on t%o provisions of la%s, namel!+ 1 Se"tion 1;9, J1KJK of atas Pambansa lg. ##7, other%ise &no%n

alfredo patalinghug

Documents