120. Greater Balanga v. Mun.

of Balanga
TITLE GREATER BALANGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF BALANGA, BATAAN; SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF
BALANGA, BATAAN; HON. MELANIO S. BANZON, JR.; HON. DOMINGO
D. DIZON; HON. AGRIPINO C. BANZON; HON. EDUARDO P. TUAZON;
HON. GABRIEL J. NISAY; HON. LORENZO P. TAPAN; HON. FEDERICO
S. BUSTAMANTE; HON. ROLANDO H. DAVID; HON. EDILBERTO Q. DE
GUZMAN; HON. ALFREDO C. GUILA; and HON. GAVINO S. SANTIAGO,
respondents.

GR # 83987

DATE December 27, 1994

PONENTE QUIASON, J.

NATURE/ Rights prior to expropriation

KEYWORDS

FACTS This case involves a parcel of land, situated in Barrio San Jose, Municipality
of Balanga, Province of Bataan. Petitioner is a domestic corporation owned
and controlled by the Camacho family, which donated the present site of
Balanga Public Market to the Municipality. The lot in dispute is behind the
said market.

Petitioner discovered portions of the property had been “unlawfully usurped

and invaded” by the Municipality, which “allowed/tolerated/abetted”
construction of shanties and market stalls, while charging market fees and
entrance fees from occupant and users of the area.

Petitioner applied for a permit to operate a business, which was revoked

soon by the Sangguniang Bayan of Balanga. Petitioner then filed a case,
praying for the reinstatement of the permit, or a prohibitory injunction on
the revoking of the said permit.

Respondents argued that the Mayor may issue, deny or revoke municipal
licenses and permits. The revoking of the permit was a legitimate xcercise
of local legislative authority, therefore making it not tainted with any grave
abuse of discretion.

Petitioner argued that since it had not violated any law or ordinance, there
was no reason to revoke the Mayor’s permit. Petitioner alleged that the
respondent violated due process in revoking the permit, and challenged the
legality of the collection of market and entrance fees.

The revoking of the permit was based on a Civil Case, pertaining to the
subdivision of the property into nine lots. The property was originally
owned by Camacho, donated the land to her daughter Aurora, which
donation was canceled and was transferred to the petitioner.

ISSUE(S) Whether or not petitioner is the owner of the property;

RULING(S) The case involving ownership of the property had already been settled with
finality by the Supreme Court. When the Mayor’s permit was revoked, five
years had elapsed since the case was decided. Petition was able to survey
the land and have the survey approved. Petitioner even obtained a title in
its name for the property. Clearly, for all intents and purposes, petitioner
appeared to be the true owned of the property when respondents revoked
its permit to engage business in its own land.

Until expropriation proceedings are instituted in court, the landowner

cannot be deprived of its right over the land. Of course, the Sangguniang
Bayan has the duty in the exercise of its police powers to regulate any
business subject to municipal license fees and prescribe the conditions
under which a municipal license already issued may be revoked.

But the "anxiety, uncertainty, restiveness" among the stallholders and

traders cannot be a valid ground for revoking the permit of petitioner. After
all, the stallholders and traders were doing business on property not
belonging to the Municipal government. Indeed, the claim that the
executive order and resolution were measures "designed to promote peace
and order and protect the general welfare of the people of Balanga" is too
amorphous and convenient an excuse to justify respondents' acts.

Since respondent Municipality is not the owner of the disputed property,

there is no legal basis for it to impose and collect market fees and market
entrance fees. Only the owner as the right to do so.