Acaac v. Azcuna JR., G.R. No. 187378, September 30, 2013

RepublicofthePhilippines entryofanyentity,association,corporationor
SUPREMECOURT organizationinsidethesanctuaries;11and(b)the
Manila constructionofanystructures,permanentor
temporary,onthepremises,exceptifauthorizedby
SECONDDIVISION thelocalgovernment.12OnJuly12,2002,Azcuna
approvedthesubjectordinance;hence,thesamewas
submittedtotheSangguniangPanlalawiganof
G.R.No.187378September30,2013
MisamisOccidental(SP),whichinturn,conducteda
jointhearingonthematter.Thereafter,noticeswere
RAMONITOO.ACAAC, postedatthedesignatedareas,includingCapayas
PETALFOUNDATION,INC.,APOLINARIOM. Island,declaringthepremisesasgovernment
ELORDE,HECTORACAAC,andROMEO propertyandprohibitingingressandegressthereto.13
BULAWIN,Petitioners,
vs. OnAugust23,2002,aNoticeofVoluntary
MELQUIADESD.AZCUNA,JR.,inhiscapacity DemolitionwasserveduponPETALdirectingitto
asMayor,andMARIETESB.BONALOS,inher removethestructuresitbuiltonCapayasIsland.
capacityasMunicipalEngineerandBuilding Amongthereasonscitedwasitsviolationofthe
OfficialDesignate,bothofLopezJaena subjectordinance.Asimilarnoticewasalsoserved
Municipality,MisamisOccidental,Respondents. againstindividualpetitionersonOctober25,2002.
RESOLUTION OnOctober29,2002,petitionersfiledanaction
prayingfortheissuanceofatemporaryrestraining
PERLASBERNABE,J.: order,injunctionanddamages15againstrespondents
beforetheRTC,docketedasCivilCaseNo.4684,
allegingthattheyhavepriorvestedrightstooccupy
Assailedinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorari1are andutilizeCapayasIsland.PETALclaimedthatits
theDecision2datedSeptember30,2008and predecessorsininteresthavebeeninpossession
Resolution3datedMarch9,2009oftheCourtof thereofsince1961,withwhomitenteredintoa
Appeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.00284MIN MemorandumofAgreementfortheoperationofthe
whichreversedandsetasidetheDecision4dated saidislandasacamping,tourism,andrecreational
November26,2004oftheRegionalTrialCourtof resort;thus,theissuanceofthesubjectordinancewas
OroquietaCity,Branch2(RTC)inCivilCaseNo. prejudicialtotheirinterestastheyweredeprivedof
4684forinjunction. theirlivelihood.Moreover,PETALassailedthe
validityofthesubjectordinanceonthefollowing
TheFacts grounds:(a)itwasadoptedwithoutpublic
consultation;(b)itwasnotpublishedinanewspaper
PetitionerPeoplesEcoTourismandLivelihood ofgeneralcirculationintheprovinceasrequiredby
Foundation,Inc.(PETAL)isanongovernmental RepublicActNo.7160,16otherwiseknownas"The
organization,foundedbypetitionerRamonitoO. LocalGovernmentCodeof1991"(LGC);and(c)it
Acaac,whichisengagedintheprotectionand wasnotapprovedbytheSP.Therefore,its
conservationofecology,tourism,andlivelihood implementationshouldbeenjoined.17
projectswithinMisamisOccidental.5Inlinewithits
objectives,PETALbuiltsomecottagesmadeof IntheirAnswer,18respondentsaverredthat
indigenousmaterialsonCapayasIsland(a1,605 petitionershavenocauseofactionagainstthem
squaremeterislet)in1995aswellasaseminar sincetheyarenotthelawfulownersorlesseesof
cottagein20016whichitrentedouttothepublicand CapayasIsland,whichwasclassifiedastimberland
becamethesourceoflivelihoodofitsbeneficiaries,7 andpropertybelongingtothepublicdomain.
amongwhomarepetitionersHectorAcaacand Further,theymaintainedthattheyhavecomplied
RomeoBulawin. withallthepublicationandhearingrequirementsfor
thepassageofthesubjectordinance,whichwas
OnApril11andMay20,2002,however, deemedapprovedbyoperationoflawforfailureof
respondentsMayorMelquiadesD.Azcuna,Jr. theSPtotakeanypositiveactionthereonasprovided
(Azcuna)andBuildingOfficialMarietesB.Bonalos undertheLGC.Assuch,itisvalidandenforceable.
issuedseparateNoticesofIllegalConstruction
againstPETALforitsfailuretoapplyforabuilding TheRTCRuling
permitpriortotheconstructionofitsbuildingsin
violationofPresidentialDecreeNo.1096,8otherwise OnNovember26,2004,theRTCrendereda
knownasthe"NationalBuildingCodeofthe Decision19declaringthesubjectordinanceas
Philippines,"orderingittostopallillegalbuilding invalid/voidbasedonthefollowinggrounds:(a)
activitiesonCapayasIsland.WhenPETALfailedto PETALsprotesthasnotbeenresolvedandthatthe
complywiththerequirementsfortheissuanceofa subjectordinancewasnotdulyapprovedbytheSP;
buildingpermit,aThirdandFinalNoticeofIllegal (b)thesaidordinancewasnotpublishedina
Constructionwasissuedbyrespondentsagainstiton newspaperofgeneralcirculationnorwasitpostedin
July8,2002,9butstillthesameremainedunheeded. publicplaces;(c)CapayasIslandisclassifiedas
timberland,hence,notsuitedtobeabirdorfish
ItwasalsoonJuly8,2002thattheSangguniang sanctuary;and(d)theauthorityandcontrolover
BayanofLopezJaena(SB)adoptedMunicipal timberlandsbelongtothenationalgovernment,
OrdinanceNo.02,Seriesof200210(subject throughtheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNatural
ordinance)whichprohibited,amongothers:(a)the Resources(DENR).20Basedontheforegoing,
1
respondentswereordered,amongothers,todesist (b)Withinthirty(30)daysafterreceiptof
fromclosingCapayasIslandtothepublic.21 copiesofsuchordinancesandresolutions,
However,thepetitionerswereorderedtoremovethe theSangguniangPanlalawiganshall
structurestheybuiltthereonwithoutvalidbuilding examinethedocumentsortransmitthemto
permits22sincetheywerefoundtohavenotitleover theprovincialattorney,oriftherebenone,
thedisputedproperty.23 totheprovincialprosecutorforprompt
examination.Theprovincialattorneyor
Aggrieved,respondentsappealedtheforegoing provincialprosecutorshall,withinaperiod
pronouncementbeforetheCA,docketedasCAG.R. often(10)daysfromreceiptofthe
CVNo.00284MIN. documents,informtheSangguniang
Panlalawiganinwritinghiscommentsor
TheProceedingsBeforetheCA recommendations,whichmaybeconsidered
bytheSangguniangPanlalawiganinmaking
itsdecision.
OnSeptember30,2008,theCArendereda
Decision24grantingrespondentsappeal.
(c)IftheSangguniangPanlalawiganfinds
thatsuchanordinanceorresolutionis
ContrarytotheRTCsruling,itheldthatthesubject
beyondthepowerconferreduponthe
ordinancewasdeemedapproveduponfailureofthe
SangguniangPanlungsodorSangguniang
SPtodeclarethesameinvalidwithin30daysafterits
Bayanconcerned,itshalldeclaresuch
submissioninaccordancewithSection56ofthe
ordinanceorresolutioninvalidinwholeor
LGC.25ItalsogavecredencetoAzcunastestimony
inpart.TheSangguniangPanlalawiganshall
thatthesubjectordinancewaspostedandpublished
enteritsactionintheminutesandshall
inconspicuousplacesintheirmunicipality,andin
advisethecorrespondingcityormunicipal
thebulletinboard.26Moreover,publicconsultations
authoritiesoftheactionithastaken.
wereconductedwithvariousgroupsbeforethe
subjectordinancewaspassed.27TheCAfurtherruled
thattheMunicipalityofLopezJaenawasvestedwith (d)Ifnoactionhasbeentakenbythe
sufficientpowerandauthoritytopassandadoptthe SangguniangPanlalawiganwithinthirty
subjectordinanceunderSection447inrelationto (30)daysaftersubmissionofsuchan
Section16oftheLGC.28Therefore,itisnotonlythe ordinanceorresolution,thesameshallbe
DENRthatcouldcreateandadministersanctuaries.29 presumedconsistentwithlawandtherefore
Havingenactedthesubjectordinancewithinits valid.
powersasamunicipalityandinaccordancewiththe
procedureprescribedbylaw,theCApronouncedthat Inthiscase,petitionersmaintainthatthesubject
thesubjectordinanceisvalid.30 ordinancecannotbedeemedapprovedthroughthe
merepassageoftimeconsideringthatthesameis
Ontheotherhand,theCAupheldtheRTCsfinding stillpendingwiththeCommitteeonFisheriesand
thatpetitionershavenoproprietaryrightsoverthe AquaticResourcesoftheSP.35It,however,bearsto
CapayasIsland,therebyrenderingtheiractionfor notethatmorethan30dayshavealreadyelapsed
injunctionimproper.31 fromthetimethesaidordinancewassubmittedtothe
latterforreviewbytheSB;36hence,itshouldbe
deemedapprovedandvalidpursuanttoSection56
Petitionersmotionforreconsideration32therefrom
(d)above.AsproperlyobservedbytheCA:
wasdeniedbytheCAinaResolution33datedMarch
9,2009.Hence,theinstantpetition.
Par.(d)shouldbereadinconjunctionwithpar.(c),
inordertoarriveatthemeaningofthedisputed
TheIssueBeforetheCourt
word,"action."Itisclear,basedontheforegoing
provision,thattheactionthatmustbeenteredinthe
Theessentialissueinthiscaseiswhetherornotthe minutesofthesangguniangpanlalawiganisthe
subjectordinanceisvalidandenforceableagainst declarationofthesangguniangpanlalawiganthatthe
petitioners.34 ordinanceisinvalidinwholeorinpart.xxx.
TheCourtsRuling Thisconstructionwouldbemoreinconsonancewith
theruleofstatutoryconstructionthatthepartsofa
Thepetitionlacksmerit. statutemustbereadtogetherinsuchamannerasto
giveeffecttoallofthemandthatsuchpartsshallnot
Section56oftheLGCprovides: beconstruedascontradictingeachother.xxxlaws
aregivenareasonableconstructionsuchthat
SEC.56.ReviewofComponentCityandMunicipal apparentlyconflictingprovisionsareallowedto
OrdinancesorResolutionsbytheSangguniang standandgiveneffectbyreconcilingthem,reference
Panlalawigan.(a)Withinthree(3)daysafter beinghadtothemovingspiritbehindtheenactment
approval,thesecretarytotheSangguniang ofthestatute.37
PanlungsodorSangguniangBayanshallforwardto
theSangguniangPanlalawiganforreview,copiesof NeithercantheCourtgivecredencetopetitioners
approvedordinancesandtheresolutionsapproving contentionsthatthesubjectordinancewasnot
thelocaldevelopmentplansandpublicinvestment publishednorpostedinaccordancewiththe
programsformulatedbythelocaldevelopment provisionsoftheLGC.38Itisnoteworthythat
councils. petitionersownevidencerevealsthatapublic
hearing39wasconductedpriortothepromulgationof
thesubjectordinance.Moreover,otherthantheir
2
bareallegations,petitionersfailedtopresentany conductedpriortotheenactmentthereof,weare
evidencetoshowthatnopublicationorpostingof constrainedtoupholdtheirconstitutionalityor
thesubjectordinancewasmade.Incontrast,Azcuna legality.43(Emphasessupplied,citationomitted)
hadtestifiedthattheyhavecompliedwiththe
publicationandpostingrequirements.40Whileitis Alltold,theCourtfindsnoreversibleerror
truethathelikewisefailedtosubmitanyother committedbytheCAinupholdingthevalidityofthe
evidencethereon,still,inaccordancewiththe subjectordinance.
presumptionofvalidityinfavorofanordinance,its
constitutionalityorlegalityshouldbeupheldinthe Inanyevent,petitionershavenotshownanyvalid
absenceofanycontrovertingevidencethatthe title44tothepropertyindisputetobeentitledtoits
procedureprescribedbylawwasnotobservedinits possession.Besides,theRTCsorderdirectingthe
enactment.Likewise,petitionershadtheburdenof removalofthestructuresbuiltbypetitionerson
provingtheirownallegation,whichthey,however, CapayasIslandwithoutbuildingpermitswasnot
failedtodo.InthesimilarcaseofFiguerresv.CA,41 appealed.Assuch,thesameshouldnowbedeemed
citingUnitedStatesv.Cristobal,42theCourtupheld asfinalandconclusiveuponthem.
thepresumptivevalidityoftheordinancetherein
despitethelackofcontrovertingevidenceonthepart
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.The
ofthelocalgovernmenttoshowthatpublichearings
DecisiondatedSeptember30,2008andResolution
wereconductedinlightof:(a)theoppositorsequal
datedMarch9,2009oftheCourtofAppealsinCA
lackofcontrovertingevidencetodemonstratethe
G.R.CVNo.00284MINareherebyAFFIRMED.
localgovernmentsnoncompliancewiththesaid
publichearing;and(b)thefactthatthelocal
governmentsnoncompliancewasanegative SOORDERED.
allegationessentialtotheoppositorscauseofaction:
However,itisnoteworthythatapartfromherbare
assertions,petitionerFiguerreshasnotpresentedany
evidencetoshowthatnopublichearingswere
conductedpriortotheenactmentoftheordinancesin
question.Ontheotherhand,theMunicipalityof
Mandaluyongclaimsthatpublichearingswere
indeedconductedbeforethesubjectordinanceswere
adopted,althoughitlikewisefailedtosubmitany
evidencetoestablishthisallegation.However,in
accordancewiththepresumptionofvalidityinfavor
ofanordinance,theirconstitutionalityorlegality
shouldbeupheldintheabsenceofevidenceshowing
thattheprocedureprescribedbylawwasnot
observedintheirenactment.Inananalogouscase,
UnitedStatesv.Cristobal,itwasallegedthatthe
ordinancemakingitacrimeforanyonetoobstruct
waterwayshadnotbeensubmittedbytheprovincial
boardasrequiredby22322233ofthe
AdministrativeCode.Inrejectingthiscontention,the
Courtheld:
FromthejudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstancethe
defendantappealedtothiscourtuponthetheorythat
theordinanceinquestionwasadoptedwithout
authorityonthepartofthemunicipalityandwas
thereforeunconstitutional.Theappellantarguesthat
therewasnoproofadducedduringthetrialofthe
causeshowingthatsaidordinancehadbeenapproved
bytheprovincialboard.Consideringtheprovisions
oflawthatitisthedutyoftheprovincialboardto
approveordisapproveordinancesadoptedbythe
municipalcouncilsofthedifferentmunicipalities,we
willassume,intheabsenceofprooftothecontrary,
thatthelawhasbeencompliedwith.
Wehavearighttoassumethatofficialshavedone
thatwhichthelawrequiresthemtodo,inthe
absenceofpositiveprooftothecontrary.
Furthermore,thelackofapublichearingisa
negativeallegationessentialtopetitioner'scauseof
actioninthepresentcase.Hence,aspetitioneristhe
partyassertingit,shehastheburdenofproof.Since
petitionerfailedtorebutthepresumptionofvalidity
infavorofthesubjectordinancesandtodischarge
theburdenofprovingthatnopublichearingswere

Acaac v. Azcuna JR., G.R. No. 187378, September 30, 2013

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Acaac v. Azcuna JR., G.R. No. 187378, September 30, 2013

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

RepublicofthePhilippines entryofanyentity,association,corporationor

También podría gustarte