CASES CITATIONS

PROMULGATION
1. TATEL vs. VIRAC GR 40243 March 11, 1992
2. LIM vs. PACQUING GR 11044 !a"#ar$ 2%, 199
3. LL&A vs. CA GR 120'()%1 &*c*+,*r %,
199
4. VILLACORTA VS -ERNAR&O, GR L)31249 A#.#s/ 19, 19'(
. CRU0 VS PARAS GR L)42%1)%2 !#1$ 2, 19'3
(. QUE0ON CIT2 VS ERICTA GR L)3491 !#"* 24, 19'3
%. ORTIGAS VS 3EATI GR L)24(%0 &*c*+,*r 14, 19%9
'. -ALACUIT VS C3I ) AGUSAN &EL NORTE GR L)3'429 !#"* 30, 19''
9. SANGALANG VS CA GR %11(9 A#.#s/ 2, 19'9
10. PILAPIL VS CA GR 9%(19 N4v*+,*r 2(, 1992
11. MACASIANO VS &IO5NO GR 9%%(4 A#.#s/ 10, 1992
12. CRU0 VS CA GR L)441%' A#.#s/ 21, 19'%
13. AR&ONA VS RE2ES GR L)(049 Oc/4,*r 2(, 19'3
14. C6IONG-IAN vs. OR-OS GR 9(%4 !#"* 22, 199
1. MAGTA!AS vs. PR2CE GR 11109% !#1$ 20, 1994
1(. ALVARE0 vs. GUINGONA, !R GR 11'303 !a"#ar$ 31, 199(
1%. T2 vs. TRAMPE GR 11%%% &*c*+,*r 1, 199
1'. !AVIER vs. CA GR 490( !#"* 1, 1994
19. MARIANO vs. COMELEC GR 11'%% March %, 199
20. LIM-ONA vs. MANGELIN GR '0391 3*,r#ar$ 2', 19'9
21. TAN vs. COMELEC GR %31 !#1$ 11, 19'(
22. 3LORES vs. &RILON GR 104%32 !#"* 22, 1993
23. VILLANUEVA vs. CASTA7E&A, !R. GR L)(1311 S*8/*+,*r 21, 19'%
24. CIT2 O3 MANILA vs. IAC GR %119 N4v*+,*r 1, 19'9
2. CIT2 O3 MANILA vs. TEOTICO GR L)2302 !a"#ar$ 29, 19('
2(. !IMENE0 vs. CIT2 O3 MANILA GR %1049 Ma$ 29, 19'%
2%. GUILATCO vs. CIT2 O3 &AGUPAN GR (11( March 21, 19'9
2'. PARA7AQUE vs. V.M. REALT2 CORPGR 12%'20 !#1$ 20, 199'
29. PROVINCE O3 CAMARINES SUR vs. CA GR 10312 Ma$ 1%, 1993
30. PATALING6UG vs. CA GR 104%'( !a"#ar$ 2%, 1994
31. PILAPIL vs. CA GR 9%(19 N4v*+,*r 2(, 1992
32. 3RIVAL&O vs. COMELEC GR 12029 !#"* 2', 199(
33. GREGO vs. COMELEC GR 129 !#"* 19, 199%
34. &AVI& vs. COMELEC GR 12%11( A8r91 ', 199%
3. 3ARI7AS vs. -AR-A GR 11(%(3 A8r91 19, 199(
3(. -UN2E vs. ESCAREAL GR 11021( S*8/*+,*r 10, 1993
C6IONG-IAN v. OR-OS
G.R. N4. 9(%4 !#"* 22, 199
3ACTS:
Pursuant to Article X, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, Congress passed R.A. 67!
"#rganic Act for the Autono$ous Region in %usli$ %indanao&. #n 'o(e$)er 16, 1989, in the
ple)iscite held, four pro(inces "*anao del Sur, %aguindanao, Sulu, and +a,i-ta,i& (oted in fa(or of
creating an autono$ous region ,hich )eca$e AR%%. .ith respect to pro(inces and cities not
(oting in fa(or of the Autono$ous Region, Article X/X, Section 1 of R.A. 67! states that the0 shall
re$ain in the e1isting ad$inistrati(e regions pro(ided ho,e(er, that the President $a0, )0
ad$inistrati(e deter$ination, $erge the e1isting regions.
21ecuti(e #rder 'o. !39 ,as issued )0 President A4uino 5Pro(iding for the Reorgani6ation
of the Ad$inistrati(e Regions in %indanao.7 petitioners contend that Article X/X, Section 1 of R.A.
67! is unconstitutional )ecause it undul0 delegates legislati(e po,er to the President )0
authori6ing hi$ to 5$erge ")0 ad$inistrati(e deter$ination& the e1isting regions.7
8or its part, the Solicitor 9eneral contended that the reorgani6ation of regions in %indanao
,as $erel0 the e1ercise of a po,er 5traditionall0 lodged in the President7 and as a $ere incident of
his po,er of general super(ision o(er local go(ern$ents and control of e1ecuti(e depart$ents,
)ureaus and offices under Article X, Section 16 and Article :///, Section 17 of the Constitution.
ISSUE: :h*/h*r 4r "4/ Ar/9c1* ;I;, S*c/94" 13 4< R.A. (%34 9s va19=
6EL&> 2ES.
+he creation and su)se4uent reorgani6ation of ad$inistrati(e regions ha(e )een "$ade& )0
the Presiden
As ,hat the Supre$e Court o)ser(ed in Abbas, 5,hile the po,er ,hich has traditionall0
pro(ided for in the Constitution, it is a po,er ,hich has traditionall0 )een lodged ,ith the President
to facilitate the e1ercise of the po,er of general super(ision o(er local go(ern$ents.7
.hile Article X/X, Section 1 pro(ides that 5the pro(inces and cities ,hich do not (ote for
inclusion in the Autono$ous Region shall re$ain in the e1isting ad$inistrati(e regions,7 this
pro(ision is su);ect to the 4ualification that 5the President $a0 )0 ad$inistrati(e deter$ination
$erge the e1isting regions.7
.hile non-assenting pro(inces and cities are to re$ain in the regions as designated upon
the creation of the Autono$ous Region, the0 $a0 ne(ertheless )e regrouped ,ith contiguous
pro(inces for$ing other regions as the e1igenc0 of ad$inistration $a0 re4uire.
+he regrouping in(ol(es no $ore than a redefinition or redra,ing of the lines separating
ad$inistrati(e regions for the purpose of facilitating the ad$inistrati(e super(ision of local
go(ern$ent units )0 the President and insuring the efficient deli(er0 of essential ser(ices.
Ad$inistrati(e regions are $ere groupings of contiguous pro(inces for ad$inistrati(e
purposes, not for political representation. "+he0& are not territorial and political su)di(isions li<e
pro(inces, cities, $unicipalities and )aranga0s.
MAGTA!AS v. PR2CE PROPERTIES
G.R. N4. 11109% !#1$ 20, 1994
3ACTS:
%a0or Pa)lo %agta;as and the cit0 legislators denounced the esta)lish$ent of PA9C#R
,ithin their cit0 through an ordinance prohi)iting the issuance of )usiness per$it and cancelling
e1isting )usiness per$it to an0 esta)lish$ent for using and allo,ing to )e used in its pre$ises or
portion thereof for the operation of casinos. Also, an ordinance ,as passed prohi)iting the
operation of casinos and pro(iding penalt0 for its (iolation. PA9C#R is a corporation created
directl0 )0 P.=. 1869 to help centrali6e and regulate all ga$es of chance, including casinos on land
and sea ,ithin the territorial ;urisdiction of the Philippines and is the third highest re(enue-earner in
the go(ern$ent.
ISSUE> :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* 4r=9"a"c*s ar* va19= as *"ac/*= ,$ /h* Sa"..#"9a".
Pa"1#".s4= 4< Ca.a$a" =* Or4 C9/$
6EL&> NO.
Petition is denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affir$ed.
+2S+ #8 A :A*/= #R=/'A'C2:
%ust not contra(ene the Constitution or an0 statute
%ust not )e unfair or oppressi(e
%ust not )e partial or discri$inator0
%ust not prohi)it )ut $a0 regulate trade
%ust not )e unreasona)le
%ust )e general and consistent ,ith pu)lic polic0
+he apparent fla, in the ordinances in 4uestion is that the0 contra(ene P.=. 1869 and the
pu)lic polic0 e$)odied therein insofar as the0 pre(ent PA9C#R fro$ e1ercising the po,er
conferred on it to operate a casino in Caga0an de #ro Cit0.
Although *9C is per$issi)le to $odif0 P.=. 1869, there is no sufficient indication of an
i$plied repeal )0 the for$er.
*9>s $a0 pre(ent and suppress all <inds of ga$)ling ,ithin their territories e1cept onl0
those allo,ed )0 statutes li<e P.=. 1869.
+his decree has the statutes of a statute that cannot )e a$ended or nullified )0 a $ere
ordinance.
ALVARE0 v. GUINGONA
G.R. N4. 11'303 !a"#ar$ 31, 199(
3ACTS:
Petitioners assail the (alidit0 of R.A. 773?, entitled 5An Act Con(erting the %unicipalit0 of
Santiago, /sa)ela /nto An /ndependent Co$ponent Cit0 +o @e Ano,n As +he Cit0 #f Santiago,7
$ainl0 )ecause the Act allegedl0 did not originate e1clusi(el0 in the Bouse of Representati(es as
$andated )0 Section 3!, Article :/ of the 1987 Constitution.
Also, petitioners clai$ that the %unicipalit0 of Santiago has not $et the $ini$u$ a(erage
annual inco$e re4uired under Section !C? of the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code of 1991 in order to )e
con(erted into a co$ponent cit0.
ISSUE: :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* I"/*r"a1 R*v*"#* A114/+*"/s ?IRAs@ ar* /4 ,* 9"c1#=*= 9"
/h* c4+8#/a/94" 4< /h* av*ra.* a""#a1 9"c4+* 4< a +#"9c98a19/$ <4r 8#r84s*s 4< 9/s
c4"v*rs94" 9"/4 a" 9"=*8*"=*"/ c4+84"*"/ c9/$
6EL&> 2ES.
+he annual inco$e of a local go(ern$ent unit includes the /RAs.
/t is true that for a $unicipalit0 to )e con(erted into a co$ponent cit0, it $ust, a$ong others,
ha(e an a(erage annual inco$e of at least P3?% for the last t,o consecuti(e 0ears )ased on 1991
constant prices. Such inco$e $ust )e dul0 certified )0 the =epart$ent of 8inance.
A local go(ern$ent unit is a political su)di(ision of the State ,hich is constituted )0 la, and
possessed of su)stantial control o(er its o,n affairs. Re$aining to )e an intra sovereign su)di(ision
of one so(ereign nation, )ut not intended, ho,e(er to )e an imperium in imperio, the local
go(ern$ent unit is autono$ous in the sense that it is gi(en $ore po,ers, authorit0, responsi)ilities
and resources.
.ith its )roadened po,ers and increased responsi)ilities, a *9> $ust no, operate on a
$uch ,ider scale. +he (esting of dut0, responsi)ilit0 and accounta)ilit0 in e(er0 *9> is
acco$panied ,ith a pro(ision for reasona)l0 ade4uate resources to discharge its po,ers and
effecti(el0 carr0 out its functions.
A(ail$ent of such resources is affectuated through the (esting in e(er0 *9> of:
1. +he right to create and )roaden its o,n source of re(enue
3. +he right to )e allocated a ;ust share in national ta1es, such share )eing in the for$ of
internal re(enue allot$ents"/RAs&, and
. +he right to )e gi(en its e4uita)le share in the proceeds of the utili6ation and de(elop$ent
of the national ,ealth, if an0, ,ithin its territorial )oundaries.
+he funds generated fro$ local ta1es, /RAs and national ,ealth utili6ation proceeds accrue
to the general fund of the local go(ern$ent and are used to finance its operations su);ect to
specified $odes of spending the sa$e as pro(ided for in the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code and its /RRs.
+he /RAs are ite$s of inco$e )ecause the0 for$ part of the gross accretion of the funds of
the *9>. +he /RAs regularl0 and auto$aticall0 assure to the local treasur0 ,ithout need of an0
further action on the part of the *9>. +he0 thus constitute inco$e ,hich the local go(ern$ent can
in(aria)l0 rel0 upon as the source of $uch needed funds.
Section !C? "c& of the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code pro(ides that 5the a(erage annual inco$e
shall include the inco$e accruing to the general fund, e1clusi(e of special funds, transfers, and
non-accruing inco$e.7
=epart$ent #rder 'o. C-91 correctl0 encapsuli6es the full i$port of the a)o(e
dis4uisition ,hen it defined annual income to )e 5re(enues and receipts reali6ed )0 pro(inces,
cities and $unicipalities fro$ regular sources of the *ocal 9eneral 8und including the internal
re(enue allot$ent and other shares pro(ided for in Sections 38!, 39?, and 391 of the Code, )ut
e1clusi(e of non-recurring receipts, such as other national aids, grants, financial assistance, loan
proceeds, sales of fi1ed assets, and si$ilar others.7
T2 v. TRAMPE
G.R. N4. 11%%% &*c*+,*r 1, 199
3ACTS:
Ale;andro @. +0 is a resident of and registered o,ner of lands and )uildings in the Cit0 of
Pasig, ,hile %:R Picture +u)e, /nc. is a corporation dul0 organi6ed and e1isting under Philippine
la,s and is li<e,ise a registered o,ner of lands and )uildings in said cit0. Aurelio C. +ra$pe is
)eing sued in his capacit0 as presiding ;udge of @ranch 16, R+C of 'ational Capital Dudicial
Region.
Respondent assessor sent a notice of assess$ent respecting certain real propert0 of
petitioners located in Pasig, %etro %anila. Petitioners, through a letter, re4uested the $unicipal
assessor to reconsider the su);ect assess$ents. 'ot satisfied, petitioners filed ,ith the R+C of
'ational Capital Dudicial Region, @ranch 16, presided o(er )0 respondent ;udge a petition for
prohi)ition.
Respondent ;udge denied the petition 5for lac< of $erit,7 also the petitionersE $otion for
reconsideration.
+he court a 4uo ruled that the schedule of $ar<et (alues and the assess$ents )ased
thereon prepared solel0 )0 respondent assessor are (alid and legal, the0 ha(ing )een prepared in
accordance ,ith the pro(isions of the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code of 1991 "R.A. 716?&. /t also held that
said Code had effecti(el0 repealed the pre(ious la, on the $atter, P.=. 931, ,hich re4uired, in the
preparation of said schedule, joint action )0 all the cit0 and $unicipal assessors in the %etropolitan
%anila area.
/n its Septe$)er ?, 199! #rder den0ing the $otion for reconsideration, the court a 4uo
ruled that it is still inclined to sustain the (ie, that P.=. 931 ,as i$pliedl0 repealed )0 R.A. 716?.
ISSUE: :h*/h*r 4r "4/ R.A. %1(0 4r /h* L4ca1 G4v*r"+*"/ C4=* 4< 1991 r*8*a1*= /h*
8r4v9s94"s 4< P.&. 921
6EL&> 2ES.
Section 9 of P.=. 931 states that:
Sec. 9. Preparation of Schedule of Values for Real Property within the Metropolitan
Area. F +he schedule of (alues that ,ill ser(e as the )asis for the appraisal and assess$ent
for ta1ation purposes of real propert0 located ,ithin the %etropolitan area shall )e prepared
;ointl0 )0 the cit0 assessors of the districts created under Section 1 hereof, ,ith the Cit0
Assessor of %anila acting as chair$an in accordance ,ith the pertinent pro(isions of P.=.
!6!, as a$ended, other,ise <no,n as the Real propert0 +a1 Code, and the i$ple$enting
rules and regulations thereof issued )0 the Secretar0 of 8inance.
#n the other hand, Section 313 of R.A. 716? states:
Sec. 313. Preparation of Schedule of 8air %ar<et :alues. F @efore an0 general
re(ision of propert0 assess$ent is $ade pursuant to the pro(isions of this +itle, there shall
)e prepared a schedule of fair $ar<et (alues )0 the pro(incial, cit0 and $unicipal assessors
of the $unicipalities ,ithin the %etropolitan %anila area for the different classes of real
propert0 situated un their respecti(e local go(ern$ents for enact$ent )0 ordinance of the
sanggunian concerned. 1 1 1
R.A. 716? has a repealing pro(ision "section C!& and if the intention of the legislature ,as
to a)rogate P.=. 931, it ,ould ha(e included it in such repealing clause, as it did in e1pressl0
rendering of no force and effect se(eral other presidential decrees. An0 repeal or $odification of
P.=. 931 can onl0 )e possi)le under paragraph "f& of said Section C!.
+he t,o la,s are no co-e1tensi(e and $utuall0 inclusi(e in their scope and purpose. .hile
R.A. 716? co(ers al$ost all go(ern$ental functions delegated to local go(ern$ent units all o(er the
countr0, P.=. 931 e$)races onl0 the %etropolitan %anila area and is li$ited to the ad$inistration of
financial ser(ices therein especiall0 the assess$ent and collection of real estate "and so$e other
local& ta1es.
Section 9 of P.=. 931 re4uires that the schedule of (alues of real propert0 in the
%etropolitan $anila area shall )e prepared ;ointl0 )0 the cit0 assessors in the districts therein, ,hile
Section 313 of R.A. 716? states that the schedule shall )e prepared 5)0 the pro(incial, cit0 and
$unicipal assessors of the $unicipalities ,ithin the %etropolitan %anila area for the different
classes of real propert0 situated un their respecti(e local go(ern$ents for enact$ent )0 ordinance
of the sanggunian concerned.7
Bar$on0 in these pro(isions is not onl0 possi)le, )ut in fact desira)le, necessar0 and
consistent ,ith the legislati(e intent and polic0. @0 this har$oni6ation, )oth the prea$)le of P.=.
931 decreeing that the real estate ta1es shall 5not undul0 )urden the ta1pa0er7 and the 5operati(e
principle of decentrali6ation7 pro(ided under Section of R.A. 716? encouraging local go(ern$ent
units to 5consolidate or coordinate their efforts, ser(ices and resources7 shall )e fulfilled.
+he schedule of (alues prepared solel0 )0 the respondent $unicipal assessor is illegal and
(oid.
!AVIER v. CA
G.R. N4. 490( !#"* 1, 1994
3ACTS:
Pro(incial engineer %a1i$iano Sentina and !? officials and e$plo0ees of the #ffice of the
Pro(incial 2ngineer filed a petition for $anda$us and da$ages against the entire Pro(incial @oard
of Anti4ue. +he0 contended that the a)olition of the #P2 ,as a circu$(ention of the constitutional
$andate on securit0 of tenure and intended onl0 to ,eed out pro(incial officials and e$plo0ees ,ho
opposed the Pro(incial @oardEs candidac0 in the 1971 elections.
Respondents insisted that the a)olition of the #P2 ,as $oti(ated instead )0 a pro(ision of
P.=. 17 ,hich lo,ered the internal re(enue allot$ent to the road and )ridge fund of the pro(ince
fro$ C?G to 17.CG there)0 lea(ing an inade4uate allot$ent for $aterials, salaries and operating
e1penses of the #P2. +he0 a(erred that the po,er of the pro(incial )oard to create an office
carried ,ith it the po,er to a)olish it.
+he lo,er court held that the 5drastic decrease in the a$ount a(aila)le for appropriation7
,as the principal consideration that i$pelled the Pro(incial @oard to a)olish the office. +he Court of
Appeals re(ersed the court a 4uoEs decision and held that 5the passage of Resolution 'o. 3?6 ,as
pro$pted in the $ain )0 reasons other than those stated therein7 and that personal and political
ani$osities on the part of Sentina and respondents caused the respondent Pro(incial @oard to
enact said resolution.
ISSUE: :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* Pr4v9"c9a1 -4ar= ha= /h* a#/h4r9/$ #"=*r /h* /h*" *A9s/9".
1aBs /4 *"ac/ /h* C#*s/94"*= r*s41#/94"
6EL&> 2ES.
Section 9, Article X:// of the 197 Constitution did con(e0 an authorit0 to carr0 out a (alid
reorgani6ation in an0 )ranch or agenc0 of the 9o(ern$ent )ut this general pro(ision could not ha(e
$eant or en(isioned an a)solute proscription on local go(ern$ents, if and ,hen $inded, fro$
the$sel(es creating or a)olishing positions, an authorit0 that the0 theretofore had under the then
e1isting la,s.
#ne such la, ,as Section 18 of R.A. C18C "*ocal Autono$0 Act&, then still in force, ,hich
e$po,ered pro(incial go(ern$ents to create, a$ong other positions, the office of a pro(incial
engineer.
.hile the la, did not e1pressl0 (est on pro(incial go(ern$ents the po,er ot a)olish that
office, a)sent, ho,e(er, an0 contrar0 pro(ision, that authorit0 should )e dee$ed e$)raced )0
i$plication fro$ the po,er to create it.
+he po,er of the Pro(ince of Anti4ue to a)olish the office in 4uestion did e1ist at that ti$e.
MARIANO, !R. v. COMELEC
G.R. N4. 11'%% March %, 199
3ACTS:
Petitioners assail Sections 3, C1 and C3 of R.A. 78C! entitled 5An Act Con(erting the
%unicipalit0 of %a<ati /nto a Bighl0 >r)ani6ed Cit0 to )e <no,n as the Cit0 of %a<ati7 as
unconstitutional on the follo,ing grounds:
a. Section 3 did not properl0 identif0 the land or territorial ;urisdiction of %a<ati )0 $etes and
)ounds, ,ith technical descriptions, in (iolation of Section 1?, Article X of the Constitution, in
relation to Sections 7 and !C? of the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code.
). Section C1 atte$pts to alter or restart the 5three-consecuti(e ter$7 li$it for local electi(e
officials in (iolation of Section 8, Article X and Section 7, Article :/ of the Constitution.
c. Section C3 is unconstitutional for:
1. /t increased the legislati(e district of %a<ati onl0 )0 special la, in (iolation of the
constitutional pro(ision re4uiring a general reapportion$ent la, to )e passed )0
Congress ,ithin three 0ears follo,ing the return of e(er0 census.
3. +he increase in legislati(e district ,as not e1pressed in the title of the )ill
. +he addition of another legislati(e district in %a<ati is not in accord ,ith Section C"&,
Article :/ of the Constitution for as of the latest sur(e0 "199? census&, the propert0 of
%a<ati stands at onl0 !C?,???.
ISSUE> :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* sa9= 8r4v9s94"s 4< R.A. %'4 ar* va19=
6EL&> 2ES.
+he )oundaries $ust )e clear for the0 define the li$its of the territorial ;urisdiction of a local
go(ern$ent unit. /t can legiti$atel0 e1ercise po,ers of go(ern$ent onl0 ,ithin the li$its of its
territorial ;urisdiction. @e0ond these li$its, its acts are ultra vires.
Petitioners ha(e not de$onstrated that the delineation of the land area of the proposed Cit0
of %a<ati ,ill cause confusion as to its )oundaries. Section 3 did not add, su)tract, di(ide or
$ultipl0 the esta)lished land area of %a<ati, it $erel0 stated that the cit0Es land area 5shall co$prise
the present territor0 of the $unicipalit0.7
+he e1istence of a )oundar0 dispute does not per se present an insur$ounta)le difficult0
,hich ,ill pre(ent Congress fro$ defining ,ith reasona)le certitude the territorial ;urisdiction of a
local go(ern$ent unit. Congress $aintained the e1isting )oundaries of the proposed Cit0 of %a<ati
)ut as an act of fairness, $ade the$ su);ect to the ulti$ate resolution )0 the courts.
+he Solicitor 9eneralEs su)$ission ,as sustained. 1 1 1 5the territorial ;urisdiction of ne,l0
created or con(erted cities should )e descri)ed )0 $etes and )ounds, ,ith technical descriptions7 F
,as $ade in order to pro(ide a $eans )0 ,hich the area of said cities $a0 )e reasona)l0
ascertained. +he re4uire$ent on $etes and )ounds ,as $eant $erel0 as a tool in the
esta)lish$ent of local go(ern$ent units. 1 1 1 So long as the territorial ;urisdiction of a cit0 $a0 )e
reasona)l0 ascertained, i.e. )0 referring to co$$on )oundaries ,ith neigh)oring $unicipalities,
then, it $a0 )e concluded that the legislati(e intent )ehind the la, has )een sufficientl0 ser(ed.
Congress did not intend that la,s creating ne, cities $ust contain therein detailed technical
descriptions si$ilar to those appearing in +orrens titles. 1 1 1 +he $anifest intent of the Code is to
e$po,er local go(ern$ent units and to gi(e the$ their rightful due. /t see<s to $a<e local
go(ern$ents $ore responsi(e to the needs of their constituents ,hile at the sa$e ti$e ser(ing as a
(ital cog in national de(elop$ent. 1 1 1
MACASIANO v. &IO5NO
GR 9%%(4 AUGUST 10, 1992
3ACTS:
Respondent $unicipalit0 ParaHa4ue passed #rdinance 'o. 86, series of 199? ,hich
authori6ed the closure of D. 9a)riel, 9.9. Cru6, @a0anihan, *t. 9arcia 21tension and #pena streets
located at @aclaran, ParaHa4ue, %etro %anila and the esta)lish$ent of a flea $ar<et thereon. +he
said ordinance ,as appro(ed )0 the $unicipal council pursuant to %%C #rdinance 'o. 3, Series of
19779, authori6ing and regulating the use of certain cit0 and Ior $unicipal streets, roads, and open
spaces ,ithin %etropolitan %anila as sites for flea $ar<ets andIor (ending areas under certain
ter$s and conditions.
#n Dune 3?, 1999?, the $unicipal council of ParaHa4ue issued a resolution authori6ing
ParaHa4ue %a0or .alfrido '. 8errer to enter into contract ,ith an0 ser(ice cooperati(e for the
esta)lish$ent, operation, $aintenance and $anage$ent of flea $ar<ets andIor (ending areas. #n
Dul0 3?, 199?, the %etropolitan %anila Authorit0 appro(ed #rdinance 'o. 86 of the $unicipal
council of respondent $unicipalit0 su);ect to conditions.
#n August 8, 199?, respondent $unicipalit0 and respondent Palan0ag, a ser(ice
cooperati(e, entered into an agree$ent ,here)0 the latter shall operate, $aintain and $anage the
flea $ar<et in the afore$entioned streets. Conse4uentl0, $ar<et stalls ,ere put up )0 respondent
Palan0ag on the said streets.
#n Septe$)er 1, 199?, petitioner @rig. 9en. %acasiano, P'P Superintendent of the
%etropolitan +raffic Co$$and, ordered the destruction and confiscation of stalls along 9.9. Cru6
and D. 9a)riel St. in @aclaran.
#n =ece$)er 17, 199?, the trial court issued an order upholding the (alidit0 of #rdinance
'o. 86 of the %unicipalit0 of ParaHa4ue and en;oining petitioner %acasiano fro$ enforcing his
letter?order against respondent Palan0ag.
ISSUE: :h*/h*r 4r "4/ a" 4r=9"a"c* 4r r*s41#/94" 9ss#*= ,$ /h* +#"9c98a1 c4#"c91 4<
ParaDaC#* a#/h4r9E9". /h* 1*as* a"= #s* 4< 8#,19c s/r**/s 4r /h4r4#.h<ar*s as s9/*s <4r <1*a
+arF*/s 9s va19=
6EL&> NO.
Properties of the local go(ern$ent ,hich are de(oted to pu)lic ser(ice are dee$ed pu)lic
and are under the a)solute control of Congress. Bence, local go(ern$ents ha(e no authorit0
,hatsoe(er to control or regulate the use of pu)lic propert0 unless specific authorit0 is (ested upon
the$ )0 Congress "e.g. Section 1?, Chapter //, *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code F Closure of Roads&
Bo,e(er, the afore-stated legal pro(ision should )e read and interpreted in accordance ,ith
)asic principles alread0 esta)lished )0 la,.
Article !3! of the Ci(il Code pro(ides that propert0 of pu)lic do$inion de(oted to pu)lic use
and $ade a(aila)le to the pu)lic in general are outside the co$$erce of $an and cannot )e
disposed of or used )0 the local go(ern$ent unit to pri(ate persons.
+he closure of a road, street or par< should )e for the sole purpose of ,ithdra,ing the road
or other pu)lic propert0 fro$ pu)lic use ,hen circu$stances sho, that such propert0 is no longer
intended or necessar0 for pu)lic use or pu)lic ser(ice. .hen it is alread0 ,ithdra,n fro$ pu)lic
use, the propert0 then )eco$es patri$onial propert0 of the local go(ern$ent unit concerned. /t is
onl0 then that the respondent $unicipalit0 can 5use or con(e0 the$ for an0 purpose for ,hich other
real propert0 )elonging to the local unit concerned $ight )e la,full0 used or con(e0ed7 in
accordance ,ith the last sentence of Section 1?, Chapter // of @.P. @lg. 7, <no,n as the *ocal
9o(ern$ent Code.
+hose roads and streets ,hich are a(aila)le to the pu)ic in general and ordinaril0 used for
(ehicular traffic are still considered pu)lic propert0 de(oted to pu)lic use. /n such case, the local
go(ern$ent has no po,er to$ use it for another purpose or to dispose of or lease it to pri(ate
persons.
2(en assu$ing, in gratia argu$ent, that respondent $unicipalit0 has the authorit0 to pass
the disputed ordinance, the sa$e cannot )e (alidl0 i$ple$ented )ecause it cannot )e considered
appro(ed )0 the %%A due to non-co$pliance )0 respondent $unicipalit0 of the conditions i$posed
)0 the for$er for the appro(al of the ordinance. Respondent $unicipalit0 has not sho,n an0 iota of
proof that it has co$plied ,ith the foregoing conditions precedent to the appro(al of the ordinance.
TATEL v. MUNICIPALIT2 O3 VIRAC
G.R. N4. 40243 March 11, 1992
3ACTS:
@ased fro$ the co$plaints recei(ed fro$ the residents of @arrio Sta. 2lena against the
distur)ance caused )0 the operation of the a)aca )oiling $achine inside the ,arehouse of the
petitioner, the %unicipal Council of :irac passed Resolution 'o. 39 declaring the ,arehouse a
pu)lic nuisance ,ithin the pur(ie, of Article 69! of the 'e, Ci(il Code. +he said $achine affects
the peace and tran4uilit0 of the neigh)orhood due to the s$o<e, o)no1ious odor and dust e$itted
)0 the $achine. Respondent $unicipal officials contended that the petitionerEs ,arehouse ,as
constructed in (iolation of #rdinance 'o. 1 ,hich prohi)its the construction of ,arehouses near a
)loc< of houses either in the po)lacion or )arrios ,ithout $aintaining the necessar0 distance of 3??
$eters fro$ said )loc< of houses to a(oid loss of li(es and properties )0 accidental fire.
ISSUES> 1. :h*/h*r 4r "4/ Or=9"a"c* N4. 13 9s a 1*.9/9+a/* a"= va19= *A*rc9s* 4< 8419c*
84B*r 4< /h* +#"9c98a1 c4#"c91
2. :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* /r9a1 c4#r/ .av* Or=9"a"c* N4. 13 a +*a"9". 4/h*r /ha" Bha/
9/ sa$s
6EL&> 1. 2ES.
#rdinance 'o. 1 passed )0 the %unicipal Council of :irac in the e1ercise of its police
po,er. /t is a settled principle of la, that $unicipal corporations are agencies of the State for the
pro$otion and $aintenance of local self-go(ern$ent and as such are endo,ed ,ith police po,ers
in order to effecti(el0 acco$plish and carr0 out the declared o);ects of their creation. /ts authorit0
e$anates fro$ the general ,elfare clause under the Ad$inistrati(e Code. Also, the ordinance
passed according to the procedure prescri)ed )0 la, and in consonance ,ith certain ,ell-
esta)lished and )asic principles of a su)stanti(e nature.
6EL&> 2. NO.
+he trial court did not gi(e the ordinance in 4uestion a $eaning other than ,hat it sa0s.
@asicall0, ,hat is regulated )0 the ordinance is the construction of ,arehouses ,herein
infla$$a)le $aterials are stored ,here such ,arehouses are located at a distance of 3??$ fro$ a
)loc< of houses and not the construction per se of a ,arehouse. +he purpose is to a(oid the loss of
life and propert0 in case of fire ,hich is one of the pri$ordial o)ligations of the go(ern$ent. Clearl0,
it $erel0 stated the purpose of the ordinance and ,hat it intends to prohi)it to acco$plish its
purpose.
TAN v. COMELEC
G.R. N4. %31 !#1$ 11, 19'(
3ACTS:
+his case ,as pro$pted )0 the enact$ent of @atas Pa$)ansa @lg. 88C, An Act Creating a
'e, Pro(ince in the /sland of 'egros to )e <no,n as the Pro(ince of 'egros del 'orte, effecti(e
=ece$)er , 198C "Cities of Sila0, Cadi6 and San Carlos and the $unicipalities of Calatra(a,
+a)oso, 2scalante, Saga0, %anapla, :ictorias, 2.R. %agalona, and Sal(ador @enedicto&.
Pursuant to and in i$ple$entation of this la,, the C#%2*2C scheduled a ple)iscite in
Danuar0 , 1986. Petitioners opposed, filing a case for Prohi)ition and contending that the @.P. @lg.
88C is unconstitutional and not in co$plete accord ,ith the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code )ecause:
1. +he (oters of the parent pro(ince of 'egros #ccidental, other than those li(ing ,ithin the
territor0 of the ne, pro(ince of 'egros del 'orte, ,ere not included / the ple)iscite.
3. +he area ,hich ,ould co$prise the ne, pro(ince of 'egros del 'orte ,ould onl0 )e a)out
3,8C6.C6 s4. <$., ,hich is lesser than the $ini$u$ area prescri)ed )0 the go(erning
statute.
+he Supre$e Court ,as in recess at the ti$e so the petition ,as not ti$el0 considered.
Conse4uentl0, petitioners filed a supple$ental pleading on Danuar0 !, 1986, after the ple)iscite
sought to )e restrained ,as held the pre(ious da0, Danuar0 .
ISSUE: :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* 81*,9sc9/* Bas 1*.a1 a"= c4+819*= B9/h /h* c4"s/9/#/94"a1
r*C#9s9/*s #"=*r Ar/9c1* ;I, S*c. 3 4< /h* C4"s/9/#/94"
6EL&: NO
/n interpreting the a)o(e pro(ision, the Supre$e Court held that ,hether a pro(ince is
created, di(ided, or $erged and there is su)stantial alteration of the )oundaries, 5the appro(al of a
$a;orit0 of (otes in the ple)iscite in the unit or units affected7 $ust first )e o)tained.
+he creation of the proposed ne, pro(ince of 'egros del 'orte ,ill necessaril0 result in the
di(ision and alteration of the e1isting )oundaries of 'egros #ccidental.
5Plain and si$ple logic ,ill de$onstrate that t,o political units ,ould )e affected. +he first
,ould )e the parent pro(ince of 'egros #ccidental )ecause its )oundaries ,ould )e su)stantiall0
altered. +he other affected entit0 ,ould )e co$posed of those in the area su)tracted fro$ the
$other pro(ince to constitute the proposed pro(ince of 'egros del 'orte.7
+he Supre$e Court further held that the case of 9o(ernor Josi$o Paredes (. Bon.
21ecuti(e Secretar0 to the President, et. al. "138 SCRA 6&, ,hich respondents used to support their
case, should not )e ta<en as a doctrinal or co$pelling precedent. Rather, it held that the dissenting
(ie, of Dustice A)ad Santos in the afore$entioned case is the forerunner of the applica)le ruling,
4uoting that: 5K,hen the Constitution spea<s of 5the unit or units affected7, it $eans all of the
people of the $unicipalit0 if the $unicipalit0 is to )e di(ided such as in the case at )ar or of the
people of t,o or $ore $unicipalities if there )e a $erger. / see no a$)iguit0 in the Constitutional
pro(ision.7
/t appeared that ,hen Parlia$entar0 @ill 'o. 6!! ,hich proposed the creation of the ne,
pro(ince of 'egros del 'orte ,as passed for appro(al, it recited therein that 5the ple)iscite shall )e
conducted in the areas affected ,ithin a period of one hundred and t,ent0 da0s fro$ the appro(al
of this Act.7 Bo,e(er, ,hen the )ill ,as enacted into @.P. 88C, there ,as an une1plained change
fro$ 5areas affected7 to 5the proposed ne, pro(ince, ,hich are the areas affected.7 +he Supre$e
Court held that it ,as a self-ser(ing phrase to state that the ne, pro(ince constitutes the area
affected.
5Such additional state$ent ser(es no useful purpose for the sa$e is $isleading, erroneous,
and far fro$ truth. +he re$aining portion of the parent pro(ince is as $uch an area affected. +he
su)stantial alteration of the )oundaries of the parent pro(ince, not to $ention the ad(erse econo$ic
effects it $ight suffer, elo4uentl0 argue the points raised )0 the petitioners.7
Conse4uentl0, the Supre$e Court pronounced that the ple)iscite held on Danuar0 , 1986
has no legal effect for )eing a patent nullit0.
5.herefore, @atas Pa$)ansa @lg. 88C is here)0 declared unconstitutional. +he
procla$ation of the ne, pro(ince of 'egros del 'orte, as ,ell as the appoint$ent of the officials
thereof are also declared null and (oid. S# #R=2R2=.7
CRU0 v. PARAS
GR L)42%1)%2 !UL2 2, 19'3
3ACTS:
+he petitioners are operators of nightclu)s in @ocaue, @ulacan. +he0 filed prohi)ition suits to
stop the $unicipalit0 of @ocaue fro$ enforcing an ordinance prohi)iting the operation of nightclu)s,
ca)arets, and dance halls in that $unicipalit0 or rene,al of licenses to operate the$. +he C8/
upheld the (alidit0 of the ordinance and dis$issed the petition. Bence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE> :h*/h*r 4r "4/ a +#"9c98a1 c4r84ra/94" ca" 8r4h9,9/ /h* 48*ra/94" 4<
"9.h/c1#,s
6EL&> NO
A $unicipal corporation cannot prohi)it the operation of nightclu)s. 'ightclu)s $a0 )e
regulated )ut not pre(ented fro$ carr0ing on their )usiness. R.A. 98, as originall0 enacted,
granted $unicipalities the po,er to regulate the esta)lish$ent, $aintenance and operation of
nightclu)s and the li<e. .hile it is true that on %a0, 31, 19C!, the la, ,as a$ended )0 R.A. 979
,hich purported to gi(e $unicipalities the po,er not onl0 to regulate )ut li<e,ise to prohi)it the
operation of nightclu)s, the fact is that the title of the la, re$ained the sa$e so that the po,er
granted to $unicipalities re$ains that of regulation, not prohi)ition. +o construe the a$endator0 act
as granting $unicipal corporations the po,er to prohi)it the operation of nightclu)s ,ould )e to
construe it in a ,a0 that it (iolates the constitutional pro(ision that 5e(er0 )ill shall e$)race onl0 one
su);ect ,hich shall )e e1pressed in the title thereof.7 %oreo(er, the recentl0-enacted *9C "@.P.
7& spea<s si$pl0 of the po,er to regulate the esta)lish$ent and operation of )illiard pools,
theatrical perfor$ances, circuses and other for$s of entertain$ent.
QUE0ON CIT2 v. ERICTA
GR L)3491 !UNE 24, 19'3
3ACTS:
Lue6on Cit0 Council passed #rdinance 'o. 6118 ,here under Section 9 of ,hich pro(ides
for regulation of pri(ate $e$orial t0pe ce$eter0 and pro(iding penalties for non-co$pliance
thereof. +he said section ordered pri(ate ce$eteries to allot at least si1 "6& percent of the total area
for charit0 )urial of deceased persons ,ho are paupers and ,ho ha(e )een resident of Lue6on Cit0
for at least C 0ears prior to their death. @ut respondent Bi$la0ang Pilipino reacted and alleged the
ordinance to )e contrar0 to the Constitution, the Lue6on Cit0 Charter, the *ocal Autono$0 Act and
the Re(ised Ad$inistrati(e Code. Petitioners argue that the ta<ing of the respondentEs propert0 is a
(alid and reasona)le e1ercise of police lo,er and that land ta<en for a pu)lic use as it is intended
for the )urial ground of paupers.
ISSUE> :h*/h*r S*c/94" 9 4< Or=9"a"c* N4. (11' 9s a va19= *A*rc9s* 4< 8419c* 84B*r
6EL&> NO.
Section 9 of #rdinance 'o. 6118 is not a $ere police regulation )ut an outright confiscation.
/t depri(es a person of his pri(ate propert0 ,ithout due process )0 la, and e(en ,ithout ;ust
co$pensation. Police po,er usuall0 e1ercised in the for$ of $ere regulation or restriction in the
use of li)ert0 or propert0 for the pro$otion of the general ,elfare. /t does not in(ol(e the ta<ing or
confiscation of propert0 ,ith the e1ception of a fe, cases ,here there is a necessit0 to confiscate
pri(ate propert0 in order to destro0 it for the purpose of protecting the peace and order and of
pro$oting the general ,elfare as for instance, the confiscation of an illegall0-possessed article such
as opiu$ and firear$s.
ORTIGAS G CO. LT&. PARTNERS6IP v. 3EATI -AN5 G TRUST CO.
GR L)24(%0 &ECEM-ER 14, 19%9
3ACTS:
#n %arch !, 19C3, #rtigas M Co., a partnership in(ol(ed in real estate particularl0 the
Bigh,a0 Bills su)di(ision along 2=SA in %andalu0ong entered into a contract of sale on
install$ent o(er t,o parcels of land ,ith Augusto and 'ati(idad Angeles ,ho later transferred their
rights and interests to a certain 2$$a Cha(e6. >nder the agree$ent, it ,as stipulated a$ong
others that: 5111 this shall )e used e1clusi(el0 for residential purposes 1117.
2(entuall0, defendant 82A+/ @an< and +rust Co$pan0 ac4uired the lots and started the
construction of a )uilding on the said lot de(oted to )an<ing purposes. #rtigas then filed for a ,rit of
preli$inar0 in;unction to restrain and en;oin the defendant fro$ continuing ,ith the construction of
the co$$ercial )an< in (iolation of the restrictions set in the contract of sale that ,as i$posed )0
the plaintiff as part of its general )uilding sche$e designed for the )eautification and de(elop$ent
of the Bigh,a0 Bills Su)di(ision. =efendant $aintains that the area in 4uestion has )een declared
as a co$$ercial and industrial 6one )0 the Joning Regulation of Resolution 'o. 37 on 8e)ruar0 !,
198? of the %unicipal Council of %andalu0ong, Ri6al.
+he trial court ruled in fa(or of defendant )an< 82A+/ holding that the restrictions set )0
plaintiff #rtigas ,ere su)ordinate to %unicipal Resolution 'o. 37 )ecause of the %unicipalEs (alid
e1ercise of police po,er. /t stressed that the pri(ate interest should 5)o, do,n to the general
interest and ,elfare.7 Plaintiff appealed until it reached the Supre$e Court.
ISSUES: 1. .hether or not Resolution 'o. 37 is a (alid e1ercise of police po,er
3. .hether or not the said resolution can nullif0 or supersede the contractual
o)ligations assu$ed )0 defendants
6EL&: 1. 2ES
Although the (alidit0 of the resolution ,as ne(er 4uestioned in the past proceedings, its
(alidit0 ,as at lest i$pliedl0 ad$itted fro$ the facts. Section of R.A. 336! "*ocal Autono$0 Act&
e$po,ers a $unicipal council 5to adopt 6oning and su)di(ision ordinances or regulations for the
$unicipalit0. /t gi(es $ore po,er to local go(ern$ents in pro$oting the econo$ic conditions, social
,elfare and $aterial progress of the co$$unit0. +he onl0 e1ceptions are a contract )et,een 5a
pro(ince, cit0 or $unicipalit0 on one hand and a third part0 on the other hand,7 in ,hich case the
original ter$s and pro(isions of the contract should go(ern. +he e1ceptions, clearl0, do not appl0 in
the case.
6EL&: 2. 2ES
+he resolution as an e1ercise of police po,er can supersede contractual o)ligations
assu$ed )0 defendants. .hile non-i$pair$ent of contracts is constitutionall0 guaranteed, the rule
is not a)solute, since it has to )e reconciled ,ith the legiti$ate e1ercise of police po,er.
Police po,er is the $ost essential, insistent, and illi$ita)le po,er, the greatest and $ost
illi$ita)le of po,ers. /t is the po,er to prescri)e regulations to pro$ote the health, $orals, peace,
education, good order or safet0, and general ,elfare of the people. /ts e1ercise $a0 )e ;udiciall0
in4uired into and corrected onl0 if it is capricious, ,hi$sical, un;ust or unreasona)le, there ha(ing
)een a denial of due process or a (iolation of an0 other applica)le constitutional guarantee.
Resolution 'o. 37, in declaring that the ,estern part of 2=SA is an industrial and
co$$ercial 6one, ,as o)(iousl0 passed )0 the %unicipal Council of %andalu0ong, Ri6al in the
e1ercise of police po,er to safeguard or pro$ote the health, safet0, peace, good order and general
,elfare of the people in the localit0.
Dudicial notice $a0 )e ta<en of the conditions pre(ailing in the area. /ndustrial and
co$$ercial co$ple1es ha(e flourished a)out the place. 2=SA, a $ain traffic arter0 ,hich runs
through se(eral cities and $unicipalities in the %etro %anila area, supports an endless strea$ of
traffic and the resulting acti(it0, noise and pollution are hardl0 conduci(e to the health, safet0 or
,elfare of the residents in its route. Ba(ing )een e1pressl0 granted the po,er to adopt 6oning and
su)di(ision ordinances and regulations, the $unicipalit0 of %andalu0ong, through its %unicipal
Council, ,as reasona)l0 ;ustified under the circu$stances, in passing the su);ect resolution.
-ALACUIT v. C3I O3 AGUSAN &EL NORTE G -UTUAN CIT2
G.R. N4. L)3'429 !#"* 30, 19''
3ACTS:
+he $unicipal )oard of the Cit0 of @utuan passed #rdinance 'o. 6!? ,hich penali6ed an0
person, entit0, or corporation engaged in the )usiness of selling tic<ets to an0 $o(ie or other pu)lic
e1hi)itions, ,ho shall re4uire to pa0 full pa0$ent of tic<ets intended for adults )ut should charge
onl0 one-half of said tic<et. +he ordinance also pro(ides for a penalt0 )0 fine and i$prison$ent.
Petitioners are the aggrie(ed part0 )0 the effect of the ordinance as the0 ,ere the $anagers of the
different theaters in the cit0.
ISSUE> :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* 8419c* 84B*r /4 r*.#1a/* 9"c1#=* /h* a#/h4r9/$ /4 9"/*r<*r* 9"
/h* <9A9". 4< 8r9c*s 4< a=+9ss94" /4 /h*s* 81ac*s 4< *Ah9,9/94" a"= a+#s*+*"/
6EL&> NO.
.hile it is true that a )usiness $a0 )e regulated, it is e4uall0 true that such regulation $ust
)e ,ithin the )ounds of reason, that is, the regulator0 ordinance $ust )e reasona)le and its
pro(isions cannot )e oppressi(e a$ounting to an ar)itrar0 interference ,ith the )usiness or calling
su);ect of regulation. A la,ful )usiness or calling $a0 not, under the guise of regulation, )e
unreasona)l0 interfered ,ith e(en )0 the e1ercise of police po,er. A police $easure for the
regulation of the conduct, control and operation of a )usiness should not encroach upon the
legiti$ate and la,ful e1ercise )0 the citi6ens of their propert0 rights. Bence, the proprietors of a
theater ha(e a right to $anage their propert0 in their o,n ,a0, to fi1 ,hat prices of ad$ission the0
thin< $ost for their o,n ad(antage, and that an0 person ,ho did not appro(e could sta0 a,a0.
3RIVAL&O v. COMELEC
G.R. N4. 12029 !#"* 2', 199(
3ACTS:
Duan 9. 8ri(aldo filed for candidac0 for go(ernorship. +his ,as contested )0 Raul *ee ,ho
filed a petition ,ith the C#%2*2C pra0ing that 8ri(aldo )e dis4ualified )ecause he ,as not a
8ilipino citi6en. C#%2*2C granted the petition. 8ri(aldo filed for %otion for Reconsideration )ut
,as unacted upon until after the elections. Bis candidac0 continued and he ,as (oted. +hree da0s
after election, the C#%2*2C affir$ed the pre(ious resolution. +he @oard of Can(assers co$pleted
the can(ass of the election and deter$ined that 8ri(aldo garnered the largest nu$)er of (otes,
follo,ed )0 *ee. @ut *ee filed another petition pra0ing for his procla$ation as 9o(ernor. Petition
,as granted. *ee ,as declared 9o(ernor.
8ri(aldo filed a ne, petition alleging that he alread0 too< his oath of allegiance or in the
alternati(e, he a(erred that pursuant to the case of Labo v. !M"L", the :ice-9o(ernor
should occup0 said position of go(ernor.
#n =ece$)er 19, 199C, the C#%2*2C 8irst =i(ision annulled the procla$ation of *ee and
proclai$ed 8ri(aldo as rightful go(ernor. *ee filed a $otion for reconsideration ,hich ,as denied )0
the C#%2*2C.
ISSUE> :h*/h*r 4r "4/ 3r9va1=4Hs r*8a/r9a/94" 9s *"4#.h /4 C#a19<$ h9+ /4 ,*
8r4c1a9+*= .4v*r"4rI S/a/*= 9" /h* a1/*r"a/9v*, Bh*/h*r 4r "4/ c9/9E*"sh98 r*C#9r*+*"/ +#s/
*A9s/ /h* =a/* 4< *1*c/94" 4r <919". 4< ca"=9=ac$I
6EL&> NO.
Section 9 of the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code does not specif0 an0 particular date or ti$e ,hen
the candidate $ust possess citi6enship. Purpose of the citi6enship 4ualification is so that no person
o,ing allegiance to another nation shall go(ern our people. /$pedi$ent no longer e1isted. /t should
)e noted that Section 9 of the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code spea<s of 4ualifications of officials, not of
candidates. Citi6enship is necessar0 at the ti$e he is proclai$ed and at the start of his ter$.
GREGO v. COMELEC
G.R. N4. 129 !#"* 19, 199%
3ACTS:
#n #cto)er 1, 1981, @asco ,as re$o(ed fro$ his position as =eput0 Sheriff )0 the Court
upon a finding of serious $isconduct in an ad$inistrati(e co$plaint lodged )0 'ena +ordesillas.
Su)se4uentl0, @asco ran as a candidate for Councilor in the Second =istrict of the Cit0 of %anila
during the 1988, local elections. Be ,on and, accordingl0, assu$ed office.
After his ter$, he sought reelection in the 1993 election. Be again ,on. Bo,e(er, a case for
4uo ,arranto ,as filed )0 Cenon Ron4uillo "Candidate for councilor&, ,ho alleged @ascoNs
ineligi)ilit0 to )e elected councilor on the )asis of the +ordesillas ruling. #ther co$plaints ,ere filed
)efore the #ffice of the #$)uds$an and in the =/*9. /n 199C, @asco ran again for councilor.
.illia$ 9rego, clai$ing to )e a registered (oter of Precinct 'o. 966, =istrict //, Cit0 of
%anila, filed ,ith the C#%2*2C a petition for dis4ualification, pra0ing for @ascoNs dis4ualification,
for the suspension of his procla$ation, and for the declaration of Ro$ualdo S. %aranan as the si1th
dul0 elected Councilor of %anilaNs Second =istrict. +he %anila @#C ho,e(er proclai$ed @asco as
a dul0 elected councilor of the Second =istrict of %anila.
/n (ie, of the procla$ation, 9rego filed an urgent $otion see<ing to annul the illegal
procla$ation. +he C#%2*2C dis$issed the petition for dis4ualification ruling that the
ad$inistrati(e penalt0 i$posed )0 the SC on @asco ,as ,iped a,a0 and condoned )0 the
electorate ,ho elected hi$.
ISSUE> :h*/h*r 4r "4/ S*c/94" 40 ?,@ 4< R*8#,19c Ac/ N4. %1(0 a881$ r*/r4ac/9v*1$ /4 /h4s*
r*+4v*= <r4+ 4<<9c* ,*<4r* 9/ /44F *<<*c/ 4" !a"#ar$ 1, 1992
6EL&: NO
Petitioner su)$its that although the Code too< effect onl0 on Danuar0 1, 1993, Section !?
")& $ust nonetheless )e gi(en retroacti(e effect and applied to @ascoNs dis$issal fro$ office ,hich
too< place in 1981. /t is stressed that the pro(ision of the la, as ,orded does not $ention or e(en
4ualif0 the date of re$o(al fro$ office of the candidate in order for dis4ualification thereunder to
attach. Bence, petitioner i$presses upon the Court that as long as a candidate ,as once re$o(ed
fro$ office due to an ad$inistrati(e case, regardless of ,hether it too< place during or prior to the
effecti(it0 of the Code, the dis4ualification applies. .e do not, ho,e(er, su)scri)e to petitionerNs
(ie,. #ur refusal to gi(e retroacti(e application to the pro(ision of Section !? ")& is alread0 a settled
issue and there e1ist no co$pelling reasons for us to depart therefro$.
.ell-settled is the principle that ,hile the *egislature has the po,er to pass retroacti(e la,s
,hich do not i$pair the o)ligation of contracts, or affect in;uriousl0 (ested rights, it is e4uall0 true
that statutes are not to )e construed as intended to ha(e a retroacti(e effect so as to affect pending
proceedings, unless such intent is e1pressl0 declared or clearl0 and necessaril0 i$plied fro$ the
language of the enact$ent. +here is no pro(ision in the statute ,hich ,ould clearl0 indicate that the
sa$e operates retroacti(el0. /t, therefore, follo,s that OSectionP !? ")& of the *ocal 9o(ern$ent
Code is not applica)le to the present case.Q
&AVI& v. COMELEC
G.R. N4. 12%11( A8r91 ', 199%
3ACTS:
/n his capacit0 as @aranga0 Chair$an of @aranga0 77, Jone 7, Aaloo<an Cit0 and as
President of the *iga ng $ga @aranga0 sa Pilipinas, Ale1 *. =a(id filed a petition for prohi)ition to
prohi)it the holding of the )aranga0 election scheduled on the second %onda0 of %a0 1997.
Petitioner *iga ng $ga @aranga0 Lue6on Cit0 Chapter represented )0 its president
@onifacio %. Rillon filed a petition Qto see< a ;udicial re(ie, )0 certiorari to declare as
unconstitutional:
1. Section !"c& of R.A. 716? ,hich reads as follo,s: "c& +he ter$ of office of )aranga0
officials and $e$)ers of the sangguniang <a)ataan shall )e for three "& 0ears, ,hich shall )egin
after the regular election of )aranga0 officials on the second %onda0 of %a0 199!R
3. C#%2*2C Resolution 'os. 388? and 3887 fi1ing the date of the holding of the
)aranga0 elections on %a0 13, 1997 and other acti(ities related theretoR
. +he )udgetar0 appropriation of P!?? $illion contained in Repu)lic Act 'o. 83C?
other,ise <no,n as the 9eneral Appropriations Act of 1997 intended to defra0 the costs and
e1penses in holding the 1997 )aranga0 elections
@oth petitions though ,orded differentl0 raise the sa$e ulti$ate issue: Bo, long is the ter$
of office of )aranga0 officialsS Petitioners contend that under Sec. 3 of RA 66C Q"t&he ter$ of office
of )aranga0 officials shall )e for fi(e "C& 0ears . . .Q +his is reiterated in RA 6679. Petitioners further
a(er that although Sec. ! of RA 716? reduced the ter$ of office of all local electi(e officials to
three 0ears, such reduction does not appl0 to )aranga0 officials )ecause "1& RA 6679 is a special
la, applica)le onl0 to )aranga0s ,hile RA 716? is a general la, ,hich applies to all other local
go(ern$ent unitsR "3& RA 716? does not e1pressl0 or i$pliedl0 repeal RA 6679 insofar as the ter$
of )aranga0 officials is concernedR "& ,hile Sec. 8 of Article X of the 1987 constitution fi1es the
ter$ of electi(e local officials at three 0ears, the sa$e pro(ision states that the ter$ of )aranga0
officials Qshall )e deter$ined )0 la,QR and "!& thus, it follo,s that the constitutional intention is to
grant )aranga0 officials an0 ter$, e1cept three 0earsR other,ise, Qthere ,ould )e no rh0$e or
reason for the fra$ers of the Constitution to e1cept )aranga0 officials fro$ the three 0ear ter$
found in Sec. 8 "of& Article X of the Constitution.Q
C#%2*2C $aintains that RA 716? repealed all other special la,s relied upon )0 the
petitioner.
ISSUE> :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* /*r+ 4< /h* ,ara".a$ 4<<9c9a1s sh4#1= ,* 19+9/*= 4"1$ /4 /hr**
$*ars
6EL&> 2ES.
/n light of the )rief historical )ac<ground, the intent and design of the legislature to li$it the
ter$ of )aranga0 officials to onl0 three "& 0ears as pro(ided under the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code
e$erges as )right as the sunlight. +he cardinal rule in the interpretation of all la,s is to ascertain
and gi(e effect to the intent of the la,. And three 0ears is the o)(ious intent.
RA 716?, the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code, ,as enacted later than RA 6679. /t is )asic that in
case of an irreconcilia)le conflict )et,een t,o la,s of different (intages, the later enact$ent
pre(ails. Legis posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. +he rationale is si$ple: a later la, repeals
an earlier one )ecause it is the later legislati(e ,ill. /t is to )e presu$ed that the la,$a<ers <ne,
the older la, and intended to change it. /n enacting the older la,, the legislators could not ha(e
<no,n the ne,er one and hence could not ha(e intended to change ,hat the0 did not <no,.
>nder the Ci(il Code, la,s are repealed onl0 )0 su)se4uent ones and not the other ,a0
around. >nder Sec. !-c of RA 716?, the ter$ of office of )aranga0 officials ,as fi1ed at Qthree "&
0ears ,hich shall )egin after the regular election of )aranga0 officials on the second %onda0 of
%a0 199!.Q
RA. 716? is a codified set of la,s that specificall0 applies to local go(ern$ent units. /t
specificall0 and definiti(el0 pro(ides in its Sec. !-c that Qthe ter$ of office of )aranga0 officials . . .
shall )e for three 0ears.Q /t is a special pro(ision that applies onl0 to the ter$ of )aranga0 officials
,ho ,ere elected on the second %onda0 of %a0 199!. .ith such particularit0, the pro(ision cannot
)e dee$ed a general la,. Petitioner $a0 )e correct in alleging that RA 6679 is a special la,, )ut
the0 are incorrect in stating ",ithout ho,e(er gi(ing the reasons therefor& that RA 716? is
necessaril0 a general la,. /t is a special la, insofar as it go(erns the ter$ of office of )aranga0
officials. /n its repealing clause, RA 716? states that Qall general and special la,s . . . ,hich are
inconsistent ,ith an0 of the pro(isions of this Code are here)0 repealed or $odified accordingl0.Q
+here )eing a clear repugnance and inco$pati)ilit0 )et,een the t,o specific pro(isions, the0
cannot stand together. +he later la,, RA 716?, should thus pre(ail in accordance ,ith its repealing
clause.
.hen a su)se4uent la, enco$passes entirel0 the su);ect $atter of the for$er enact$ents,
the latter is dee$ed repealed.
-UN2E v. ESCARREAL
G.R. N4. 12%11( A8r91 ', 199%
3ACTS:
+he petitioners sought a reconsideration of the order of suspension )0 the Sandigan)a0an.
+he suspension rooted fro$ the enact$ent of Aapasi0ahan @ilang !C )0 herein petitioners, ,hich
forci)l0 too< possession of the 'e, Pu)lic %ar<et in Ala)ang, %untinlupa despite of a (alid and
su)sisting lease contract for a ter$ of 3C 0ears )et,een the $unicipalit0 of %untinlupa represented
)0 for$er %a0or Santiago Carlos, Dr. and the Ailusang %agtitinda.
PetitionersE $ain argu$ent against the pre(enti(e suspension is that nothing can possi)l0
)e co$pro$ised or ha$pered )0 their re$aining in office, since the said proceedings ,ill no longer
)e for the purpose of recei(ing e(idence on factual issues )ut onl0 to hear argu$ents, position
papers on $e$oranda, on the purel0 legal issue of ,hether the rescission of the Cooperati(es
$ar<et contract is a (alid e1ercise of police po,er )0 the $unicipalit0. Another point asserted )0
the petitioners is that their pre(enti(e suspension ,ill paral06ed the local go(ern$ent and the
Sangguniang @a0an ,ill )e ,ithout a 4uoru$ to perfor$ its functions.
ISSUE> :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* Sa"=9.a",a$a" a,#s*= 9/s =9scr*/94" 9" 4r=*r9". /h*
8r*v*"/9v* s#s8*"s94" 4< /h* 8*/9/94"*rs
6EL&> NO.
+he Sandigan)a0an did not a)use its discretion in ordering the pre(enti(e suspension of the
petitioners. #n the first argu$ent, citing the co$$ent of the Solicitor 9eneral, that the prosecution
$ust )e gi(en the opportunit0 to gather and prepare the facts for trial under conditions ,hich ,ould
ensure non-inter(ention and non-interference for 9? straight da0s fro$ petitionersE ca$p.
#n the second assertion )0 the petitioners, there ,ill still re$ain eight "8& councilors ,ho
can $eet as the Sangguniang @a0an. +he President or his alter ego, the =/*9 Secretar0, ,ill surel0
<no, ho, to deal ,ith the pro)le$ of filling up the te$poraril0 (acant positions in accordance ,ith
the pro(isions of the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code.
3LORES v. &RILON
G.R. N4. 104%32 !#"* 22, 1993
3ACTS:
+he constitutionalit0 of Sec. 1, par. "d&, of R.A. 7337, other,ise <no,n as the Q@ases
Con(ersion and =e(elop$ent Act of 1993,Q under ,hich %a0or Richard D. 9ordon of
#longapo Cit0 ,as appointed Chair$an and Chief 21ecuti(e #fficer of the Su)ic @a0 %etropolitan
Authorit0 "S@%A&. >nder said pro(ision, 5for the first 0ear of its operations fro$ the effecti(it0 of this
Act, the $a0or of the Cit0 of #longapo shall )e appointed as the chair$an and chief e1ecuti(e
officer of the Su)ic Authorit0.7
Petitioners, as ta1pa0ers, contend that said pro(ision is unconstitutional as under the
follo,ing constitutional and statutor0 pro(isions: "a& Sec. 7, first par., Art. /X-@, of the
Constitution, ,hich states that QOnPo electi(e official shall )e eligi)le for appoint$ent or
designation in an0 capacit0 to an0 pu)lic officer or position during his tenure,Q )ecause the Cit0
%a0or of #longapo Cit0 is an electi(e official and the su);ect posts are pu)lic officesR ")& Sec. 16,
Art. ://, of the Constitution, ,hich pro(ides that QOtPhe President shall appoint all other officers of the
9o(ern$ent ,hose appoint$ents are not other,ise pro(ided for )0 la,, and those ,ho$ he $a0
)e authori6ed )0 la, to appointQ, since it ,as Congress through the 4uestioned pro(iso and not the
President ,ho appointed the %a0or to the su);ect postsR and, "c& Sec. 361, par. "g&, of the #$ni)us
2lection Code.
ISSUE: :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* 8r4v9s4 9" S*c. 13, 8ar. ?=@, 4< R.A. %22% v941a/*s /h* c4"s/9/#/94"a1
8r4scr98/94" a.a9"s/ a8849"/+*"/ 4r =*s9."a/94" 4< *1*c/9v* 4<<9c9a1s /4 4/h*r .4v*r"+*"/
84s/s
6EL&> 2ES.
+he rule e1presses the polic0 against the concentration of se(eral pu)lic positions in one
person, so that a pu)lic officer or e$plo0ee $a0 ser(e full-ti$e ,ith dedication and thus )e efficient
in the deli(er0 of pu)lic ser(ices. /t is an affir$ation that a pu)lic office is a full-ti$e ;o). Bence, a
pu)lic officer or e$plo0ee, li<e the head of an e1ecuti(e depart$ent descri)ed in Ci(il *i)erties
>nion (. 21ecuti(e Secretar0, and Anti-9raft *eague of the Philippines, /nc. (. Philip 2lla C. Duico,
as Secretar0 of Agrarian Refor$ should )e allo,ed to attend to his duties and responsi)ilities
,ithout the distraction of other go(ern$ental duties or e$plo0$ent. Be should )e precluded fro$
dissipating his efforts, attention and energ0 a$ong too $an0 positions of responsi)ilit0, ,hich $a0
result in hapha6ardness and inefficienc0.
/n this case, the su);ect pro(iso directs the President to appoint an electi(e official, i.e., the
%a0or of #longapo Cit0, to other go(ern$ent posts "as Chair$an of the @oard and Chief 21ecuti(e
#fficer of S@%A&.
/n an0 case, the (ie, that an electi(e official $a0 )e appointed to another post if allo,ed )0
la, or )0 the pri$ar0 functions of his office ignores the clear-cut difference in the ,ording of the
t,o "3& paragraphs of Sec. 7, Art. /X-@, of the Constitution. .hile the second paragraph
authori6es holding of $ultiple offices )0 an appointi(e official ,hen allo,ed )0 la, or )0 the
pri$ar0 functions of his position, the first paragraph appears to )e $ore stringent )0 not pro(iding
an0 e1ception to the rule against appoint$ent or designation of an electi(e official to the
go(ern$ent post, e1cept as are particularl0 recogni6ed in the Constitution itself, e.g., the
President as head of the econo$ic and planning agenc0R the :ice-President, ,ho $a0 )e
appointed %e$)er of the Ca)inetR and, a $e$)er of Congress ,ho $a0 )e designated e1
officio $e$)er of the Dudicial and @ar Council.
/t is further argued that the S@%A posts are $erel0 e1 officio to the position of %a0or of
#longapo Cit0, hence, an e1cepted circu$stance, citing Ci(il *i)erties >nion (. 21ecuti(e
Secretar0. Bo,e(er, the court held that the Congress did not conte$plate $a<ing the su);ect
S@%A posts as e1 officio or auto$aticall0 attached to the #ffice of the %a0or of #longapo Cit0
,ithout need of appoint$ent. +he phrase Qshall )e appointedQ un4uestiona)l0 sho,s the intent to
$a<e the S@%A posts appointi(e and not $erel0 ad;unct to the post of %a0or of #longapo Cit0.
Bad it )een the legislati(e intent to $a<e the su);ect positions e1 officio, Congress ,ould ha(e, at
least, a(oided the ,ord QappointedQ and, instead, Qe1 officioQ ,ould ha(e )een used. 2(en in
the Senate deli)erations, the Senators ,ere full0 a,are that su);ect pro(iso $a0 contra(ene Sec.
7, first par., Art. /X-@, )ut the0 ne(ertheless passed the )ill and decided to ha(e the contro(ers0
resol(ed )0 the courts.
CIT2 O3 MANILA v. IAC
G.R. N4. %119 N4v*+,*r 1, 19'9
3ACTS:
:i(encio Sto. =o$ingo, Sr. died and ,as )uried in 'orth Ce$eter0 ,hich lot ,as leased )0
the cit0 to /rene Sto. =o$ingo for the period fro$ Dune 6, 1971 to Dune 6, 3?31. +he ,ife paid the
full a$ount of the lease. Apart, ho,e(er fro$ the receipt, no other docu$ent e$)odied such lease
o(er the lot. @elie(ing that the lease ,as onl0 for fi(e 0ears, the cit0 certified the lot as read0 for
e1hu$ation. #n the )asis of the certification, Doseph Bel$uth authori6ed the e1hu$ation and
re$o(al of the re$ains of :icencio. Bis )ones ,ere placed in a )ag and <ept in the )odega of the
ce$eter0. +he lot ,as also leased to another lessee. =uring the ne1t all souls da0, the pri(ate
respondents ,ere shoc<ed to find out that :icencioEs re$ains ,ere re$o(ed. +he ce$eter0 told
/rene to loo< for the )ones of the hus)and in the )odega. Aggrie(ed, the ,ido, and the children
)rought an action for da$ages against the Cit0 of %anilaR 2(angeline Su(a of the Cit0 Bealth
#fficeR Sergio %allari, officer-in-charge of the 'orth Ce$eter0R and Doseph Bel$uth, the latterNs
predecessor as officer-in-charge of the said )urial grounds o,ned and operated )0 the Cit0
9o(ern$ent of %anila. +he court ordered defendants to gi(e plaintiffs the right to $a<e use of
another lot. +he CA affir$ed and included the a,ard of da$ages in fa(or of the pri(ate
respondents.
ISSUE: :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* 48*ra/94"s a"= <#"c/94"s 4< a 8#,19c c*+*/*r$ ar* a
.4v*r"+*"/a1, 4r a c4r84ra/* 4r 8r48r9*/ar$ <#"c/94" 4< /h* C9/$ 4< Ma"91a
6EL&> I/ 9s #"=*r /h* 8r48r9*/ar$ <#"c/94"s 4< /h* C9/$ 4< Ma"91a
Petitioners alleged in their petition that the 'orth Ce$eter0 is e1clusi(el0 de(oted for pu)lic
use or purpose as stated in Sec. 16 of the Co$pilation of the #rdinances of the Cit0 of %anila.
+he0 conclude that since the Cit0 is a political su)di(ision in the perfor$ance of its go(ern$ental
function, it is i$$une fro$ tort lia)ilit0 ,hich $a0 )e caused )0 its pu)lic officers and su)ordinate
e$plo0ees. Pri(ate respondents $aintain that the Cit0 of %anila entered into a contract of lease
,hich in(ol(es the e1ercise of proprietar0 functions ,ith /rene Sto. =o$ingo. +he cit0 and its
officers therefore can )e sued for an0-(iolation of the contract of lease.
+he Cit0 of %anila is a political )od0 corporate and as such endo,ed ,ith the faculties of
$unicipal corporations to )e e1ercised )0 and through its cit0 go(ern$ent in confor$it0 ,ith la,,
and in its proper corporate na$e. /t $a0 sue and )e sued, and contract and )e contracted ,ith. /ts
po,ers are t,ofold in character-pu)lic, go(ern$ental or political on the one hand, and corporate,
pri(ate and proprietar0 on the other. 9o(ern$ental po,ers are those e1ercised in ad$inistering the
po,ers of the state and pro$oting the pu)lic ,elfare and the0 include the legislati(e, ;udicial, pu)lic
and political. %unicipal po,ers on the one hand are e1ercised for the special )enefit and ad(antage
of the co$$unit0 and include those ,hich are $inisterial, pri(ate and corporate. /n connection ,ith
the po,ers of a $unicipal corporation, it $a0 ac4uire propert0 in its pu)lic or go(ern$ental
capacit0, and pri(ate or proprietar0 capacit0. +he 'e, Ci(il Code di(ides such properties into
propert0 for pu)lic use and patri$onial properties "Article !3&, and further enu$erates the
properties for pu)lic use as pro(incial roads, cit0 streets, $unicipal streets, the s4uares, fountains,
pu)lic ,aters, pro$enades, and pu)lic ,or<s for pu)lic ser(ice paid for )0 said pro(isions, cities or
$unicipalities, all other propert0 is patri$onial ,ithout pre;udice to the pro(isions of special la,s.
+hus in +orio (. 8ontanilla, the Court declared that ,ith respect to proprietar0 functions the settled
rule is that a $unicipal corporation can )e held lia)le to third persons e1 contractu.
>nder the foregoing considerations and in the a)sence of a special la,, the 'orth Ce$eter0
is a patri$onial propert0 of the Cit0 of %anila. +he ad$inistration and go(ern$ent of the ce$eter0
are under the Cit0 Bealth #fficer, the order and police of the ce$eter0, the opening of gra(es,
niches, or to$)s, the e1hu$ing of re$ains, and the purification of the sa$e are under the charge
and responsi)ilit0 of the superintendent of the ce$eter0. .ith the acts of do$inion, there is no
dou)t that the 'orth Ce$eter0 is ,ithin the class of propert0 ,hich the Cit0 of %anila o,ns in its
proprietar0 or pri(ate character. 8urther$ore, there is no dispute that the )urial lot ,as leased in
fa(or of the pri(ate respondents. Bence, o)ligations arising fro$ contracts ha(e the force of la,
)et,een the contracting parties. +hus a lease contract e1ecuted )0 the lessor and lessee re$ains
as the la, )et,een the$. +herefore, a )reach of contractual pro(ision entitles the other part0 to
da$ages e(en if no penalt0 for such )reach is prescri)ed in the contract.
VILLANUEVA v. CASTA7E&A
G.R. N4. L)(1311 S*8/*+,*r 21, 19'%
3ACTS:
#n 'o(e$)er 7, 1961, the $unicipal council of San 8ernando adopted Resolution 'o. 318
authori6ing so$e 3! $e$)ers of the 8ernandino >nited %erchants and +raders Association to
construct per$anent stags and sell in the said place. A protest ,as filed and the C8/ decided that
the land occupied )0 the petitioners, )eing pu)lic in nature, ,as )e0ond the co$$erce of $an and
therefore could not )e the su);ect of pri(ate occupanc0. +his decision ,as not enforced for the
petitioners ,ere not e(icted. /n fact, the petitioners paid dail0 fees to the $unicipal go(ern$ent. #n
Danuar0 13, 1983, the Association of Concerned Citi6ens and Consu$ers of San 8ernando filed a
petition for the i$$ediate i$ple$entation of Resolution 'o. 39, to restore the su);ect propert0 Qto
its original and custo$ar0 use as a pu)lic pla6a. :icente %acalino "officer in charge in the office of
the $a0or& re4uired the $unicipal treasurer and engineer to de$olish the stalls. Petitioners filed a
prohi)ition ,ith the C8/ clai$ing that the disputed area ,as leased to the$ )0 the $unicipal
go(ern$ent. +he C8/ denied the petition
ISSUE> :h*/h*r 4r "4/ /h* 8*/9/94"*rs hav* a r9.h/ /4 /h* sa9= 1a"=
6EL&> NO
+here is no 4uestion that the place occupied )0 the petitioners and fro$ ,hich the0 are
sought to )e e(icted is a pu)lic pla6a pursuant to the pre(ious case. /t does not appear that the
decision in this case ,as appealed or has )een re(ersed.
A pu)lic pla6a is )e0ond the co$$erce of $an and so cannot )e the su);ect of lease or an0
other contractual underta<ing. +his is ele$entar0. /ndeed, this point ,as settled as earl0 as in
%unicipalit0 of Ca(ite (s. Ro;as, ,here the Court declared as null and (oid the lease of a pu)lic
pla6a of the said $unicipalit0 in fa(or of a pri(ate person. /n %u0ot (s. de la 8uente, it ,as held that
the Cit0 of %anila could not lease a portion of a pu)lic side,al< on Pla6a Sta. Cru6, )eing li<e,ise
)e0ond the co$$erce of $an. .e rule that the petitioners had no right in the first place to occup0
the disputed pre$ises and cannot insist in re$aining there no, on the strength of their alleged
lease contracts. +he0 should ha(e reali6ed and accepted this earlier, considering that e(en )efore
case ,as decided, the $unicipal council alread0 adopted Resolution 'o. 39, declaring the area as
the par<ing place and pu)lic pla6a of the $unicipalit0.
/t is the decision in Ci(il Case 'o. 3?!? and the said resolution of the $unicipal council of
San 8ernando that respondent %acalino ,as see<ing to enforce ,hen he ordered the de$olition of
the stags constructed in the disputed area. As officer-in-charge of the office of the $a0or, he had
the dut0 to clear the area and restore it to its intended use as a par<ing place and pu)lic pla6a of
the $unicipalit0 of San 8ernando, confor$a)l0 to the orders fro$ the court and the council. /t is,
therefore, not correct to sa0 that he had acted ,ithout authorit0 or ta<en the la, into his hands in
issuing his order.
'either can it )e said that he acted ,hi$sicall0 in e1ercising his authorit0 for it has )een
esta)lished that he directed the de$olition of the stalls onl0 after, upon his instructions, the
$unicipal attorne0 had conducted an in(estigation, to loo< into the co$plaint filed )0 the
Association of Concerned Citi6ens and Consu$ers of San 8ernando. +here is e(idence that the
petitioners ,ere notified of this hearing, ,hich the0 chose to disregard. Photographs of the disputed
area, ,hich does loo< congested and ugl0, sho, that the co$plaint ,as (alid and that the area
reall0 needed to )e cleared, as reco$$ended )0 the $unicipal attorne0.
Since the occupation of the place in 4uestion, it has deteriorated increasingl0 to the great
pre;udice of the co$$unit0 in general. +he proliferation of stags therein, $ost of the$ $a<eshift
and of fla$$a)le $aterials, has con(erted it into a (erita)le fire trap, ,hich, added to the fact that it
o)structs access to and fro$ the pu)lic $ar<et itself, has seriousl0 endangered pu)lic safet0. +he
filth0 condition of the talipapa, ,here fish and other ,et ite$s are sold, has aggra(ated health and
sanitation pro)le$s, )esides per(ading the place ,ith a foul odor that has spread into the
surrounding areas. +he entire place is unsightl0, to the dis$a0 and e$)arrass$ent of the
inha)itants, ,ho ,ant it con(erted into a sho,case of the to,n of ,hich the0 can all )e proud. +he
(endors in the talipapa ha(e also spilled into the street and o)struct the flo, of traffic, there)0
i$pairing the con(enience of $otorists and pedestrians ali<e. +he regular stallholders in the pu)lic
$ar<et, ,ho pa0 su)stantial rentals to the $unicipalit0, are depri(ed of a si6a)le (olu$e of
)usiness fro$ prospecti(e custo$ers ,ho are intercepted )0 the talipapa (endors )efore the0 can
reach the $ar<et proper. #n top of all these, the people are denied the proper use of the place as a
pu)lic pla6a, ,here the0 $a0 spend their leisure in a rela1ed and e(en )eautiful en(iron$ent and
ci(ic and other co$$unal acti(ities of the to,n can )e held.
+he pro)le$s caused )0 the usurpation of the place )0 the petitioners are co(ered )0 the
police po,er as delegated to the $unicipalit0 under the general ,elfare clause. +his authori6es the
$unicipal council Qto enact such ordinances and $a<e such regulations, not repugnant to la,, as
$a0 )e necessar0 to carr0 into effect and discharge the po,ers and duties conferred upon it )0 la,
and such as shall see$ necessar0 and proper to pro(ide for the health and safet0, pro$ote the
prosperit0, i$pro(e the $orals, peace, good order, co$fort, and con(enience of the $unicipalit0
and the inha)itants thereof, and for the protection of propert0 therein.Q +his authorit0 ,as (alidl0
e1ercised in this case through the adoption of Resolution 'o. 39, )0 the $unicipal council of San
8ernando.
2(en assu$ing a (alid lease of the propert0 in dispute, the resolution could ha(e effecti(el0
ter$inated the agree$ent for it is settled that the police po,er cannot )e surrendered or )argained
a,a0 through the $ediu$ of a contract. /n fact, e(er0 contract affecting the pu)lic interest suffers a
congenital infir$it0 in that it contains an i$plied reser(ation of the police po,er as a postulate of the
e1isting legal order. +his po,er can )e acti(ated at an0 ti$e to change the pro(isions of the
contract, or e(en a)rogate it entirel0, for the pro$otion or protection of the general ,elfare. Such an
act ,ill not $ilitate against the i$pair$ent clause, ,hich is su);ect to and li$ited )0 the para$ount
police po,er.
CIT2 O3 MANILA v. TEOTICO
G.R. N4. L)2302 !a"#ar$ 29, 19('
3ACTS:
9enaro '. +eotico ,as at the corner of a Qloading and unloadingQ 6one, ,aiting for a
;eepne0 to ta<e hi$ do,n to,n. After ,aiting for a)out fi(e $inutes, he $anaged to hail a ;eepne0
that ca$e along to a stop. As he stepped do,n fro$ the cur) to )oard the ;eepne0, and too< a fe,
steps, he fell inside an unco(ered and unlighted catch )asin or $anhole on P. @urgos A(enue. =ue
to the fall, his head hit the ri$ of the $anhole )rea<ing his e0eglasses and causing )ro<en pieces
thereof to pierce his left e0elid. As )lood flo,ed therefro$, i$pairing his (ision, se(eral persons
ca$e to his assistance and pulled hi$ out of the $anhole. #ne of the$ )rought +eotico to the
P9B. /n addition to the lacerated ,ound in his left upper e0elid, +eotico suffered contusions on the
left thigh, the left upper ar$, the right leg and the upper lip apart fro$ an a)rasion on the right infra-
patella region.
+eotico filed a co$plaint for da$ages against the Cit0 of %anila, its $a0or, cit0 engineer,
cit0 health officer, cit0 treasurer and chief of police. +he trial court dis$issed the co$plaint. +he CA
affir$ed, e1cept insofar as the Cit0 of %anila is concerned, ,hich ,as sentenced to pa0 da$ages
in the aggregate su$ of P6,7C?.??.

ISSUE> :h*/h*r 4r "4/ RA 409 sh4#1= 8r*va91 4v*r Ar/ 21'9 4< /h* C9v91 C4=*
6EL&> NO
RA !?9: +he cit0 shall not )e lia)le or held for da$ages or in;uries to persons or propert0
arising fro$ the failure of the %a0or, the %unicipal @oard, or an0 other cit0 officer, to enforce the
pro(isions of this chapter, or an0 other la, or ordinance, or fro$ negligence of said %a0or,
%unicipal @oard, or other officers ,hile enforcing or atte$pting to enforce said pro(isions.
Art 3189 CC: Pro(inces, cities and $unicipalities shall )e lia)le for da$ages for the death
of, or in;uries suffered )0, an0 person )0 reason of defecti(e conditions of road, streets, )ridges,
pu)lic )uildings, and other pu)lic ,or<s under their control or super(ision.
/t is true that, insofar as its territorial application is concerned, Repu)lic Act 'o. !?9 is a
special la, and the Ci(il Code a general legislationR )ut, as regards the su);ect-$atter of the
pro(isions a)o(e 4uoted, Section ! of Repu)lic Act !?9 esta)lishes a general rule regulating the
lia)ilit0 of the Cit0 of %anila for: Qda$ages or in;ur0 to persons or propert0 arising fro$ the failure ofQ
cit0 officers Qto enforce the pro(isions ofQ said Act Qor an0 other la, or ordinance, or fro$
negligenceQ of the cit0 Q%a0or, %unicipal @oard, or other officers ,hile enforcing or atte$pting to
enforce said pro(isions.Q >pon the other hand, Article 3189 of the Ci(il Code constitutes a particular
prescription $a<ing Qpro(inces, cities and $unicipalities . . . lia)le for da$ages for the death of, or
in;ur0 suffered )0 an0 person )0 reason Qspecificall0Q of the defecti(e condition of roads, streets,
)ridges, pu)lic )uildings, and other-pu)lic ,or<s under their control or super(ision.Q /n other ,ords,
said section ! refers to lia)ilit0 arising fro$ negligence, in general, regardless of the o);ect thereof,
,hereas Article 3189 go(erns lia)ilit0 due to Qdefecti(e streets,Q in particular. Since the present
action is )ased upon the alleged defecti(e condition of a road, said Article 3189 is decisi(e thereon.
/t is urged that the Cit0 of %anila cannot )e held lia)le to +eotico for da$ages: 1& )ecause
the accident in(ol(ing hi$ too< place in a national high,a0R and 3& )ecause the Cit0 of %anila has
not )een negligent in connection there,ith.
As regards the first issue, ,e note that it is )ased upon an allegation of fact not $ade in the
ans,er of the Cit0. %oreo(er, +eotico alleged in his co$plaint, as ,ell as in his a$ended co$plaint,
that his in;uries ,ere due to the defecti(e condition of a street ,hich is Qunder the super(ision and
controlQ of the Cit0. /n its ans,er to the a$ended co$plaint, the Cit0, in turn, alleged that
Qthe streets afore$entioned ,ere and ha(e )een constantl0 <ept in good condition and regularl0
inspected and the stor$ drains and $anholes thereof co(ered )0 the defendant Cit0 and the
officers concernedQ ,ho Qha(e )een e(er (igilant and 6ealous in the perfor$ance of their
respecti(e functions and duties as i$posed upon the$ )0 la,.Q +hus, the Cit0 had, in effect,
ad$itted that P. @urgos A(enue ,as and is under its control and super(ision.
%oreo(er, the assertion to the effect that said A(enue is a national high,a0 ,as $ade, for
the first ti$e, in its $otion for reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Such
assertion raised, therefore, a 4uestion of fact, ,hich had not )een put in issue in the trial court, and
cannot )e set up, for the first ti$e, on appeal, $uch less after the rendition of the decision of the
appellate court, in a $otion for the reconsideration thereof.
At an0 rate, under Article 3189 of the Ci(il Code, it is not necessar0 for the lia)ilit0 therein
esta)lished to attach that the defecti(e roads or streets )elong to the pro(ince, cit0 or $unicipalit0
fro$ ,hich responsi)ilit0 is e1acted. .hat said article re4uires is that the pro(ince, cit0 or
$unicipalit0 ha(e either Qcontrol or super(isionQ o(er said street or road. 2(en if P. @urgos A(enue
,ere, therefore, a national high,a0, this circu$stance ,ould not necessaril0 detract fro$ its
Qcontrol or super(isionQ )0 the Cit0 of %anila, under Repu)lic Act !?9.
+his authorit0 has )een neither ,ithdra,n nor restricted )0 Repu)lic Act 'o. 917 and
21ecuti(e #rder 'o. 11, dated %a0 3, 19CC, upon ,hich the Cit0 relies. Said Act go(erns the
disposition or appropriation of the high,a0 funds and the gi(ing of aid to pro(inces, chartered cities
and $unicipalities in the construction of roads and streets ,ithin their respecti(e )oundaries, and
21ecuti(e #rder 'o. 11 $erel0 i$ple$ents the pro(isions of said Repu)lic Act 'o. 917,
concerning the disposition and appropriation of the high,a0 funds. %oreo(er, it pro(ides that Qthe
construction, $aintenance and i$pro(e$ent of national pri$ar0, national secondar0 and national
aid pro(incial and cit0 roads shall )e acco$plished )0 the Bigh,a0 =istrict 2ngineers and Bigh,a0
Cit0 2ngineers under the super(ision of the Co$$issioner of Pu)lic Bigh,a0s and shall )e
financed fro$ such appropriations as $a0 )e authori6ed )0 the Repu)lic of the Philippines in
annual or special appropriation Acts.Q
P R OV I N C E O3 C AMAR I N E S S U R v . C A
G.R. N4. 10312 Ma$ 1%, 1993
3 AC T S >
/n Danuar0 1, 196? - pri(ate respondent =ato ,as appointed as Pri(ate Agent )0 the
then 9o(. of Ca$arines Sur, Apolonio %aleni6a. #cto)er 13, 1973 - =ato ,as pro$oted and
appointed Assistant Pro(incial .arden )0 then 9o(. 8eli1 Alfelor, Sr.
=ato had no ci(il ser(ice eligi)ilit0 for the position he ,as appointed to, thus, he could
not )e legall0 e1tended a per$anent appoint$ent. Be ,as e1tended a te$porar0
appoint$ent, ,hich ,as rene,ed annuall0. Danuar0 1, 197! F 9o(. Alfelor appro(ed the
change in =atoNs e$plo0$ent status fro$ te$porar0 to per$anent upon the latterNs
representation that he passed the ci(il ser(ice e1a$ination for super(ising securit0 guards.
Said change of status ho,e(er, ,as not fa(ora)l0 acted upon )0 the Ci(il Ser(ice
Co$$ission "CSC& reasoning that =ato did not possess the necessar0 ci(il ser(ice eligi)ilit0
for the office he ,as appointed to. Bis appoint$ent re$ained te$porar0 and no other
appoint$ent ,as e1tended to hi$.
%arch 16, 1976 F =ato ,as indefinitel0 suspended )0 9o(. Alfelor after cri$inal
charges ,ere filed against hi$ and a prison guard for allegedl0 conni(ing andIor consenting
to e(asion of sentence of so$e detention prisoners ,ho escaped fro$ confine$ent.
+,o 0ears after the re4uest for change of status ,as $ade, %r. *ope @. Ra$a, head of
the Ca$arines Sur >nit of the Ci(il Ser(ice Co$$ission, ,rote the 9o(. a letter infor$ing hi$
that the status of pri(ate respondent =ato has )een changed fro$ te$porar0 to per$anent,
the latter ha(ing passed the e1a$ination for Super(ising Securit0 9uard. +he change of
status ,as to )e $ade retroacti(e to Dune 11, 197!, the date of release of said e1a$ination.
Sangguniang Panlala,igan, suppressed the appropriation for the position of Assistant
Pro(incial .arden and deleted pri(ate respondentNs na$e fro$ the petitionerNs plantilla.
=ato ,as su)se4uentl0 ac4uitted of the charges against hi$. Conse4uentl0, he
re4uested the 9o(. for reinstate$ent and )ac<,ages. Bis re4uest ,as not heeded. =ato filed
an action )efore the R+C. R+C ordered the pa0$ent of )ac<,ages of =ato e4ui(alent to fi(e
0ears. Pro(ince of Ca$arines Sur appealed the decision to the CA. Caffir$ed R+CEs
decision. Bence the present petition.
I S S UE > :ON &a/4 Bas a 8*r+a"*"/ *+814$** 4< 8*/9/94"*r Pr4v9"c* 4< Ca+ar9"*s
S#r a/ /h* /9+* h* Bas s#s8*"=*= 4" March 1(, 19%(.
6 E L & > NO
=ato, )eing $erel0 a te$porar0 e$plo0ee, is not entitled to his clai$ for )ac<,ages for
the entire period of his suspension.
At the ti$e =ato ,as appointed Assistant Pro(incial .arden on Danuar0 1, 197!, he
had not 0et 4ualified in an appropriate e1a$ination for the afore$entioned position. Such
lac< of a ci(il ser(ice eligi)ilit0 $ade his appoint$ent te$porar0 and ,ithout a fi1ed and
definite ter$ and is dependent entirel0 upon the pleasure of the appointing po,er. +he fact
that pri(ate respondent o)tained ci(il ser(ice eligi)ilit0 later on is of no $o$ent as his ha(ing
passed the super(ising securit0 guard e1a$ination, did not ipso facto con(ert his te$porar0
appoint$ent into a per$anent one. .hat is re4uired is a ne, appoint$ent since a per$anent
appoint$ent is not a continuation of the te$porar0 appoint$ent T these are t,o distinct acts
of the appointing authorit0 +he letter co$$unicated )0 %r. *ope Ra$a to the 9o(. of
Ca$arines Sur is a clear arrogation of po,er properl0 )elonging to the appointing authorit0.
CSC has the po,er to appro(e or disappro(e an appoint$ent set )efore it. /t does not ha(e
the po,er to $a<e the appoint$ent itself or to direct the appointing authorit0 to change the
e$plo0$ent status of an e$plo0ee. CSC should ha(e ended its participation in the
appoint$ent of pri(ate respondent on Danuar0 1, 197! ,hen it confir$ed the te$porar0 status
of the latter ,ho lac<ed the proper ci(il ser(ice eligi)ilit0. .hen it issued the foregoing
co$$unication on %arch 19, 1976, it stepped on the toes of the appointing authorit0, there)0
encroaching on the discretion (ested solel0 upon the latter.
!IMENE0 v. CIT2 O3 MANILA
G.R. N4. %1049 Ma$ 29, 19'%
3ACTS:
@ernardino Di$ene6 fell in an unco(ered opening o the ground located ,ithin the pre$ises
of the Sta. Ana pu)lic $ar<et. At that ti$e, the $ar<et ,as flooded ,ith an<le-deep rain,ater ,hich
pre(ented the opening for$ )eing seen. Di$ene6, for his part, ,ent to that $ar<et to )u0 )agoong
despite the rains. Be sustained an in;ur0 due to a rust0 !-inch nail ,hich pierced his left leg.
Di$ene6 sued the Asiatic /ntegrated Corporation "A/C& and the Cit0 of %anila for his
$isfortune. +he Sta. Ana %ar<et at that ti$e ,as under the ad$inistration of the A/C )0 (irtue of a
$anage$ent and #perating Contract it had ,ith the Cit0 of %anila. +he trial court held the A/C
responsi)le )ut a)sol(ed the Cit0 of %anila.
ISSUE> :ON /h* C9/$ 4< Ma"91a 9s 9"=**= "4/ 19a,1*I
6EL&> NO
+he Cit0 of %anila is lia)le. Reasons:
1& Again, Art. 3189 co$es into pla0, since the in;ur0 too< place in a pu)lic )uilding.
3& Also, Art. 3189 re4uires that the *9> $ust retain super(ision and control o(er the pu)lic
,or< in 4uestion for it to )e held lia)le. +he e(idence sho,ed that the %anage$ent and #perating
Contract e1plicitl0 stated that the Cit0 of %anila retained super(ision and control o(er the Sta. Ana
%ar<et. Also, in a letter to 8inance Secretar0 Cesar :irata, %a0or Ra0$ond @agatsing ad$itted this
fact of super(ision and control. %oreo(er, Sec. ?"g& of the *ocal +a1 Code sa0s that pu)lic
$ar<ets shall )e under the i$$ediate super(ision, ad$inistration and control of the Cit0 +reasurer.
& Di$ene6 could not )e held for negligence. A custo$er in a store has e(er0 right to
presu$e that the o,ner ,ill co$pl0 ,ith his dut0 to <eep his pre$ises safe for custo$ers. +he
o,ner of the $ar<et, on the other hand, ,as pro(en to ha(e )een negligent in not pro(iding a co(er
for the said opening. +he negligence of the Cit0 of %anila is the pro1i$ate cause of the in;ur0
suffered.
/t is not necessar0 for the *9> to ha(e o,nership o(er the pu)lic ,or< in 4uestionR $ere control
and super(ision is sufficient.
GUILATCO v. CIT2 O3 &AGUPAN
G.R. N4. (11( March 21, 19'9
3ACTS:
8lorentina 9uilatco, a court interpreter, ,as a)out to )oard a tric0cle at a side,al< located at
Pere6 @oule(ard ,hen she accidentall0 fell into a $anhole located in said side ,al<, causing her
right leg to )e fractured. She ,as hospitali6ed and also as a result, suffered loss of inco$e and
$oral da$ages.
9uilatco sued the Cit0 of =agupan. +he Cit0 replied that Pere6 @oule(ard, ,here the deadl0
$anhole ,as located, is a national road not under the control and super(ision of =agupan. /t is
su)$itted that it is actuall0 the %inistr0 of Pu)lic Bigh,a0s that has control and super(ision thru the
Bigh,a0 2ngineer, ,ho )0 $ere coincidence, is also the Cit0 2ngineer of =agupan "$alas na$an
na$in, Cit0 2ngineer&.
ISSUE> :ON /h* C9/$ 4< &a.#8a" 9s 19a,1*I
6EL&> 2ES.
Reasons:
1& .e again appl0 Art. 3189. @ut the )igger 4uestion is , does the Cit0 of =agupan ha(e
control and super(ision o(er Pere6 @oule(ard in order for it to )e held lia)leS +he ans,er is 0es.
.h0S Read on.
3& +he Cit0 of =agupan argued that the super(ision and control o(er Pere6 @oule(ard
)elongs $ore to his function as e1-officio Bigh,a0 2ngineer, thus the %inistr0 of Pu)lic Bigh,a0s
should )e held lia)le. Bo,e(er, the court ga(e this argu$ents: 5Alfredo 9. +angco, in his official
capacit0 as Cit0 2ngineer of =agupan, as 21-#fficio Bigh,a0 2ngineer, as 21-#fficio Cit0 2ngineer
of the @ureau of Pu)lic .or<s, and, last )ut not the least, as @uilding #fficial for =agupan Cit0,
recei(es the follo,ing $onthl0 co$pensation: P1,81?.66 fro$ =agupan Cit0, P3??.?? fro$ the
%inistr0 of Pu)lic Bigh,a0s, P1??.?? fro$ the @ureau of Pu)lic .or<s and PC??.?? )0 (irtue of
PU= 1?96, respecti(el0. +his function of super(ision o(er streets, pu)lic )uildings, and other pu)lic
,or<s pertaining to the Cit0 2ngineer is coursed through %aintenance 8oe$an and a %aintenance
2ngineer. Although these last t,o officials are e$plo0ees of the 'ational 9o(ern$ent, the0 are
detailed ,ith the Cit0 of =agupan and hence recei(e instruction and super(ision fro$ the cit0
through the Cit0 2ngineer. +here is , therefore, no dou)t that the Cit0 2ngineer e1ercises control or
super(ision o(er the pu)lic ,or<s in 4uestion. Bence, the lia)ilit0 of the cit0 to the petitioner under
article 3198 of the Cit0 Code is clear.7
PILAPIL v. CA
G.R. N4. 9%(19 N4v*+,*r 2(, 1992
3ACTS:
Spouses Pilapil o,n a parcel of land in @aha<, Po)lacion, *iloan, Ce)u. Spouses Colo$ida,
on the other hand, )ought a parcel of land located also in @aha<. 'o, this land o,ned )0 the
Colo$idas has for its ingress and egress to the 'ational Road a ca$ino (ecinal ")arrio road&.
Bo,e(er, this ca$ino (ecinal trans(erses the propert0 of the Pilapil, ,hich ,as the root of all their
pro)le$s.
+he Pilapil denied the e1istence of the ca$ino (ecinal. Socrates Pilapil, the hus)and,
presented hi$self as ,itness ",hich ,as lous0& as ,ell as 2ngineer 2pifanio Dordan, %unicipal
Planning and =e(elop$ent Coordinator of *iloan. +he engineer said that ,hile that 6oning $ap of
Po)lacion, *iloan $ade reference to a ca$ino (ecinal, said reference ,as )ut a $ere proposal of
its e1istence to the Sangguniang @a0an of *iloan.
+he Colo$idas, on the other hand, relied on old-ti$ers as ,itnesses F ,itnesses such as
8lorentino Pepito, ,ho attested to the e1istence of the Ca$ino (ecinal and its a(aila)ilit0 to the
general pu)lic since practicall0 ti$e i$$e$orial.
+he trial court ruled in fa(or of the Colo$idas )ecause the 6oning $ap used as e(idence )0
the Pilapil did not specificall0 indicate that the a$ino (ecinal ,as indeed $erel0 5proposed7 since
other roads and streets ,ere classified as such. +he CA upheld that trial court, )asicall0 )ecause it
said that findings of facts )0 the trial court, as a general rule, should )e undistur)ed.
ISSUE> :ON /h* E4"9". 81a" +#s/ .9v* Ba$ /4 /h* c1a9+s 4< /h* a=v*rsar9*sI
6EL&> NO
/n its infinite ,isdo$, the SC said that it didnEt $atter ,hat opinion the Colo$idas or the
engineer ga(e regarding the e1istence of the ca$ino (ecinal. .hat reall0 $attered is the 6oning
plan "the >r)an *and >se Plan& as finall0 appro(ed )0 the Sangguniang @a0an of the %unicipalit0
of *iloan. +he 6oning plan sho,ed that the ca$ino (ecinal ,as declared closed. And itEs )e0ond
dispute that the a)andon$ent, closure or esta)lish$ent of the ca$ino (ecinal is the sole
prerogati(e of the %unicipalit0 of *iloan under the *9> of 198. +he SC re)u<ed the parties for not
ha(ing resorted to a pre-trial conference ,hich ,ould ha(e pre(ented the dragging of a tri(ial case
for si1 0ears.
LIM v. PACQUING
G.R. N4. 11044 !a"#ar$ 2%, 199
3ACTS>
+he issuance of the permit#license to operate the ;ai-alai in fa(or of Associated =e(elop$ent
Corporation "A=C& ,ithin the territorial )oundaries of the Cit0 of %anila ,as the focus of this full
)lo,n litigation that 4uestion, a$ong others, P.=. 771 ,hich re(o<ed all e1isting Dai-Alai franchisers
issued )0 local go(ern$ents as of 3? August 197C.
ISSUE> :ON P.&. %%1 9s #"c4"s/9/#/94"a1.
6EL&> NO. Pr*s9=*"/9a1 &*cr** N4. %%1 va19= a"= c4"s/9/#/94"a1.
+he ti$e-honored doctrine is that all la,s "P= 'o. 771 included& are presu$ed (alid and
constitutional until or unless other,ise ruled )0 this Court. 'ot onl0 thisR Article X:/// Section of
the Constitution states:
Sec. . All e1isting la,s, decrees, e1ecuti(e orders, procla$ations, letters of instructions
and other e1ecuti(e issuances not inconsistent ,ith this Constitution shall re$ain operati(e
until a$ended, repealed or re(o<ed.
+here is nothing on record to sho, or e(en suggest that P= 'o. 771 has )een repealed,
altered or a$ended )0 an0 su)se4uent la, or presidential issuance ",hen the e1ecuti(e still
e1ercised legislati(e po,ers&.
'either can it )e tena)l0 stated that the issue of the continued e1istence of A=CNs franchise
)0 reason of the unconstitutionalit0 of P= 'o. 771 ,as settled in 9.R. 'o. 11C?!!, for the decision
of the CourtNs 8irst =i(ision in said case, aside fro$ not )eing final, cannot ha(e the effect of
nullif0ing P= 'o. 771 as unconstitutional, since onl0 the Court "n $anc has that po,er under Article
:///, Section !"3& of the Constitution.

LL&A v. CA
G.R. N4s. 120'()%1 &*c*+,*r %, 199
3ACTS>
+he Chief 21ecuti(e of *aguna *a<e =e(elop$ent Agenc0 issued 21ecuti(e #rder 'o. 937
further defined and enlarged the functions and po,ers of the Authorit0 and na$ed and enu$erated
the to,ns, cities and pro(inces enco$passed )0 the ter$ Q*aguna de @a0 RegionQ.
Also, pertinent to the issues in this case are pro(isions ,hich include in particular the
sharing of fees, pro$pting the local e1ecuti(es of affected political su)di(isions to 4uestion the
constitutionalit0 of the **=A in (ie, of the appro(al of the Repu)lic Act 'o. 716?, the *ocal
9o(ern$ent Code of 1991. +he $unicipalities in the *aguna *a<e Region interpreted the pro(isions
of this la, to $ean that the ne,l0 passed la, ga(e $unicipal go(ern$ents the e1clusi(e ;urisdiction
to issue fishing pri(ileges ,ithin their $unicipal ,aters )ecause R.A. 716? pro(ides their e1clusi(e
authorit0 to grant fisher0 pri(ileges in the $unicipal ,aters and i$pose rental fees.
2$)oldened )0 RA 716?, $unicipal go(ern$ents thereupon assu$ed the authorit0 to issue
fishing pri(ileges and fishpen per$its. @ig fishpen operators too< ad(antage of the occasion to
esta)lish fishpens and fishcages to the consternation of the Authorit0. >nregulated fishpens and
fishcages, as of Dul0, 199C, occupied al$ost one-third of the entire la<e ,ater surface area,
increasing the occupation drasticall0 fro$ 7,??? hectares in 199? to al$ost 31,??? hectares in
199C. +he %a0orNs per$it to construct fishpens and fishcages ,ere all underta<en in (iolation of the
policies adopted )0 the Authorit0 on fishpen 6oning and the *aguna *a<e carr0ing capacit0.
+he i$ple$entation )0 the la<eshore $unicipalities of separate independent policies in the
operation of fishpens and fishcages ,ithin their clai$ed territorial $unicipal ,aters in the la<e and
their indiscri$inate grant of fishpen per$its ha(e alread0 saturated the la<e area ,ith fishpens,
there)0 aggra(ating the current en(iron$ental pro)le$s and ecological stress of *aguna *a<e.
ISSUE> :h9ch a.*"c$ 4< /h* G4v*r"+*"/ sh4#1= *A*rc9s* J#r9s=9c/94" 4v*r /h* La.#"a LaF*
a"= 9/s *"v9r4"s 9"s4<ar as /h* 9ss#a"c* 4< 8*r+9/s <4r <9sh*r$ 8r9v91*.*s 9s c4"c*r"*=I
6EL&> I/ 9s /h* LL&A
.e hold that the pro(isions of Repu)lic Act 'o. 716? do not necessaril0 repeal the la,s
creating the *aguna *a<e =e(elop$ent Authorit0 and granting the latter ,ater rights authorit0 o(er
*aguna de @a0 and the la<e region.
+he *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code of 1991 does not contain an0 e1press pro(ision ,hich
categoricall0 e1pressl0 repeal the charter of the Authorit0. /t has to )e conceded that there ,as no
intent on the part of the legislature to repeal Repu)lic Act 'o. !8C? and its a$end$ents. +he repeal
of la,s should )e $ade clear and e1pressed.
/t has to )e conceded that the charter of the *aguna *a<e =e(elop$ent Authorit0 constitutes
a special la,. Repu)lic Act 'o. 716?, the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code of 1991, is a general la,. /t is
)asic in statutor0 construction that the enact$ent of a later legislation ,hich is a general la, cannot
)e construed to ha(e repealed a special la,. /t is a ,ell-settled rule in this ;urisdiction that Qa special
statute, pro(ided for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed )0 a su)se4uent statute,
general in its ter$s, pro(isions and application, unless the intent to repeal or alter is $anifest,
although the ter$s of the general la, are )road enough to include the cases e$)raced in the
special la,.Q

.here there is a conflict )et,een a general la, and a special statute, the special statute
should pre(ail since it e(inces the legislati(e intent $ore clearl0 than the general statute. +he
special la, is to )e ta<en as an e1ception to the general la, in the a)sence of special
circu$stances forcing a contrar0 conclusion. +his is )ecause i$plied repeals are not fa(ored and
as $uch as possi)le, effect $ust )e gi(en to all enact$ents of the legislature. A special la, cannot
)e repealed, a$ended or altered )0 a su)se4uent general la, )0 $ere i$plication.

+hus, it has to )e concluded that the charter of the Authorit0 should pre(ail o(er the *ocal
9o(ern$ent Code of 1991.
VILLACORTA v. -ERNAR&O
GR L)31249 AUGUST 19, 19'(
3ACTS>
A petition for certiorari ,as raised against a decision of the Court of 8irst /nstance of
Pangasinan annulling an ordinance adopted )0 the $unicipal )oard of =agupan Cit0.
#rdinance 33, that sought to regulate su)di(ision plans in =agupan Cit0, ordained that
e(er0 proposed su)di(ision plan o(er an0 lot in the Cit0 of =agupan, shall )efore the sa$e is
su)$itted for appro(al andIor (erification )0 the @ureau of *ands andIor the *and Registration
Co$$ission, )e pre(iousl0 su)$itted to the Cit0 2ngineer of the Cit0 ,ho shall see to it that no
encroach$ent is $ade on an0 portion of the pu)lic do$ain, that the 6oning ordinance and all other
pertinent rules and regulations are o)ser(ed, and that su)se4uent fees )e i$posed thereafter.
ISSUE> :ON Or=9"a"c* 22 9s a va19= *A*rc9s* 4< 8419c* 84B*r.
6EL& > NO
/n declaring the said ordinance null and (oid, the court a %uo& and affir$ed )0 the Supre$e
Court, declared:
8ro$ the a)o(e-recited re4uire$ents, there is no sho,ing that ,ould ;ustif0 the enact$ent
of the 4uestioned ordinance. Section 1 of said ordinance clearl0 conflicts ,ith Section !! of
Act !96, )ecause the latter la, does not re4uire su)di(ision plans to )e su)$itted to the
Cit0 2ngineer )efore the sa$e is su)$itted for appro(al to and (erification )0 the 9eneral
*and Registration #ffice or )0 the =irector of *ands as pro(ided for in Section C8 of said
Act. Section 3 of the sa$e ordinance also contra(enes the pro(isions of Section !! of Act
!96, the latter )eing silent on a ser(ice fee of P#.? per s4uare $eter of e(er0 lot su);ect of
such su)di(ision applicationR Section of the ordinance in 4uestion also conflicts ,ith
Section !! of Act !96, )ecause the latter la, does not $ention of a certification to )e $ade
)0 the Cit0 2ngineer )efore the Register of =eeds allo,s registration of the su)di(ision planR
and the last section of said ordinance i$poses a penalt0 for its (iolation, ,hich Section !! of
Act !96 does not i$pose. /n other ,ords, #rdinance 33 of the Cit0 of =agupan i$poses
upon a su)di(ision o,ner additional conditions.
+he Court ta<es note of the lauda)le purpose of the ordinance in )ringing to a halt the
surreptitious registration of lands )elonging to the go(ern$ent. @ut as alread0 inti$idated
a)o(e, the po,ers of the )oard in enacting such a lauda)le ordinance cannot )e held (alid
,hen it shall i$pede the e1ercise of rights granted in a general la, andIor $a<e a general
la, su)ordinated to a local ordinance.
+o sustain the ordinance ,ould )e to open the floodgates to other ordinances a$ending and so
(iolating national la,s in the guise of i$ple$enting the$. +hus, ordinances could )e passed
i$posing additional re4uire$ents for the issuance of $arriage licenses, to pre(ent )iga$0R the
registration of (ehicles, to $ini$i6e carnapingR the e1ecution of contracts, to forestall fraudR the
(alidation of passports, to deter i$postureR the e1ercise of freedo$ of speech, to reduce disorderR
and so on. +he list is endless, )ut the $eans, e(en if the end )e (alid, ,ould )e ultra vires.
.e therefore urge that proper care attend the e1ercise of the police po,er lest it deteriorate into an
unreasona)le intrusion into the purel0 pri(ate affairs of the indi(idual. +he so-called Qgeneral
,elfareQ is too a$orphous and con(enient an e1cuse for official ar)itrariness.
*et it al,a0s )e re$e$)ered that in the trul0 de$ocratic state, protecting the rights of the indi(idual
is as i$portant as, if not $ore so than, protecting the rights of the pu)lic.
+his ad(ice is especiall0 addressed to the local go(ern$ents ,hich e1ercise the police po,er onl0
)0 (irtue of a (alid delegation fro$ the national legislature under the general ,elfare clause. /n the
instant case, #rdinance 'o. 33 suffers fro$ the additional defect of (iolating this authorit0 for
legislation in contra(ention of the national la, )0 adding to its re4uire$ents.
AR&ONA v. RE2ES
GR L)(049 OCTO-ER 2(, 19'3
3ACTS>
+he Philippine +ouris$ Authorit0 "P+A& filed ! co$plaints ,ith the C8/ of Ce)u Cit0 for the
e1propriation of so$e 383 hectares of rolling land situated in @aranga0s %alu)og and @a)ag,
Ce)u Cit0, under P+AEs e1press authorit0, as $andated in its Charter, 5to ac4uire )0 purchase, )0
negotiation or )0 conde$nation proceedings an0 pri(ate land ,ithin and ,ithout the tourist 6ones5
for the de(elop$ent into integrated resort and sport co$ple1es of selected and ,ell- defined
geographic areas ,ith potential touris$ (alue.
+he defendants, nu$)ering !?, filed $otions to dis$iss on the ground that the ta<ing ,as not
for pu)lic use, specificall0 that the there is no constitutional pro(ision authori6ing the ta<ing of
pri(ate propert0 for touris$ purposes. %oreo(er, the defendants clai$ed that the land the0 o,n
su);ect of the e1propriation is actuall0 co(ered )0 certificate of land transfer "C*+& and
e$ancipation patents there)0 $a<ing the lands e1propriated ,ithin the co(erage of the land refor$
area under P.= 'o.3. +he defendants argue that the agrarian refor$ progra$ occupies a higher
le(el in the order of priorities than other state policies li<e those relating to the health and ph0sical
,ell-)eing of the people.
ISSUE > :ON /h* 84s9/94" 4< /h* s4)ca11*= Ar=4"a 34r/$ 9s /*"a,1*
6EL& > NO
+he petition should )e dis$issed. Reasons:
1. +he concept of pu)lic use is not li$ited to traditional purposes li<e the construction of
roads, )ridges, par<s and the li<e. Pu)lic use is not use )0 the pu)lic.7 /t also $ean, pu)lic ,ell-fare
and such a concept are )road, and inclusi(e. +he (alues it represents are spiritual, as ,ell as
ph0sical, aesthetic as ,ell as $onetar0. /t is ,ithin the po,er of the legislature to deter$ine that the
co$$unit0 should )e )eautiful as ,ell as health0, spacious, as ,ell as clean, ,ell )alanced as ,ell
as carefull0 patrolled.
#nce the o);ect is ,ithin the authorit0 of Congress, the right to reali6e it through the
e1ercise of 2$inent =o$ain is clear. As a general rule then, as long as the ta<ing is pu)lic, the
po,er of e$inent do$ain co$es into pa0.
. +he records sho, that the onl0 3 of the !? defendants ha(e C*+Es or e$ancipation patents.
And those C*+Es in their possession co(ers onl0 less than 1 hectare of the 383 hectares
intended fore e1propriation. %oreo(er, the less-than 1?-hectare portion of land is not e(en
part of the resort and sports co$ple1 proper )ut is part of the 3 hectare resettle$ent are for
all persons affected )0 the e1propriation. Certainl0, the hu$an settle$ent needs of the
$an0 )eneficiaries of the 3 hectare resettle$ent area should pre(ail o(er the propert0
rights of t,o of their co$patriots.
SANGALANG v. CA
GR %11(9 AUGUST 2, 19'9
3ACTS>
As far )ac< in 1977, %a<ati, %etro %anila has al,a0s )een plagued )0 traffic. 8or this
reason, during that ti$e, %a0or 'e$esio Va)ut of %a<ati ordered that studies )e $ade on ,a0s on
ho, to alle(iate the traffic pro)le$, particularl0 in the areas along the pu)lic streets ad;acent to @el-
Air :illage. +he studies re(ealed that the su)di(ision plan of @el-Air ,as appro(ed )0 the Court of
8irst /nstance of Ri6al on the condition, a$ong others, that its $a;or thoroughfares connecting to
pu)lic streets and high,a0s shall )e opened to pu)lic traffic. Accordingl0, it ,as dee$ed necessar0
)0 the %unicipalit0 of %a<ati in the interest of the general pu)lic to open to traffic A$apola,
%ercedes, Jodiac, Dupiter, 'eptune, #r)it and Paseo de Ro1as Streets. As a result, the gates
o,ned )0 @A:A at Dupiter and #r)it ,ere ordered de$olished.
%a0or Va)ut ;ustified the opening of the streets on the follo,ing grounds:
1& So$e ti$e ago, A0ala Corporation donated Dupiter and #r)it Streets to @el-Air on the
condition that, under certain reasona)le conditions and restrictions, the general pu)lic shall al,a0s
)e open to the general pu)lic. +hese conditions ,ere e(idenced )0 a deed of donation e1ecuted
)et,een A0ala and @el-Air.
3& +he opening of the streets ,as ;ustified )0 pu)lic necessit0 and the e1ercise of the police
po,er.
& @el-Air :illage AssociationEs "@A:A& articles of incorporation recogni6ed Dupiter Street as
a $ere )oundar0 to the south,est F thus it cannot )e said to )e for the e1clusi(e )enefit of @el-Air
residents.
!& @A:A cannot hide )ehind the non-i$pair$ent clause on the ground that is
constitutionall0 guaranteed. +he reason is that it is not a)solute, since it has to )e reconciled ,ith
the legiti$ate e1ercise of police po,er.
@A:A, on the other hand, contended:
1& Rufino Santos, president of @A:A, ne(er agreed to the opening of the said streets
3& @A:A has al,a0s <ept the streets (oluntaril0 open an0,a0
%oreo(er, @A:A clai$s the de$olition of the gates a)o(e$entioned ,as a depri(ation of
propert0 ,ithout process of la, or e1propriation ,ithout ;ust co$pensation.
ISSUE> :ON /h* C9/$ Ma$4r Bas c4rr*c/ 9" 4r=*r9". /h* 48*"9". 4< -*1)A9r V911a.*Hs s/r**/ /4
/h* 8#,19c
6EL&> 2ES
+he %a0or is correct, for the reasons $entioned a)o(e. Also, the de$olition of the gates is
;ustified under Art. !6 of the Ci(il Code.
5.hen an0 propert0 is conde$ned or sei6ed )0 co$petent authorit0 in the interest of health,
safet0 or securit0, the o,ner thereof shall not )e entitled to co$pensation, unless he can sho, that
such conde$nation or sei6ure is un;ustified.7
/n this case, @A:A has the )urden of sho,ing that the sei6ure of the gates is un;ustified
)ecause police po,er can )e e1ercised ,ithout pro(ision for ;ust co$pensation. +he Court is of the
opinion that the %a0or did not act unreasona)l0 nor ,as the opening of the gates un;ustified. /n
fact, the gates could e(en )e considered pu)lic nuisances, of ,hich su$$ar0 a)ate$ent, as
decreed under Art. 7?1 of the Ci(il Code, $a0 )e carried out )0 the %a0or.
LIM-ONA v. MANGELIN
GR '0391 3E-RUAR2 2', 19'9
3ACTS>
Petitioner, Sultan Ali$)usar *i$)ona, ,as elected Spea<er of the Regional *egislati(e
Asse$)l0 or @atasang Pa$poo< of Central %indanao "Asse$)l0&. #n #cto)er 31, 1987
Congress$an =atu 9ui$id %atala$, Chair$an of the Co$$ittee on %usli$ Affairs of the Bouse of
Representati(es, in(ited petitioner in his capacit0 as Spea<er of the Asse$)l0 of Region X// in a
consultationIdialogue ,ith local go(ern$ent officials. Petitioner accepted the in(itation and infor$ed
the Asse$)l0 $e$)ers through the Asse$)l0 Secretar0 that there shall )e no session in
'o(e$)er as his presence ,as needed in the house co$$ittee hearing of Congress. Bo,e(er, on
'o(e$)er 3, 1987, the Asse$)l0 held a session in defiance of the *i$)onaNs ad(ice, ,here he ,as
unseated fro$ his position. Petitioner pra0s that the sessionNs proceedings )e declared null and
(oid and )e it declared that he ,as still the Spea<er of the Asse$)l0. Pending further proceedings
of the case, the SC recei(ed a resolution fro$ the Asse$)l0 e1pressl0 e1pelling petitionerNs
$e$)ership therefro$. Respondents argue that petitioner had Qfiled a case )efore the Supre$e
Court against so$e $e$)ers of the Asse$)l0 on a 4uestion ,hich should ha(e )een resol(ed
,ithin the confines of the Asse$)l0,Q for ,hich the respondents no, su)$it that the petition had
)eco$e Q$oot and acade$icQ )ecause its resolution.
ISSUE> :ON /h* c4#r/s 4< 1aB hav* J#r9s=9c/94" 4v*r /h* a#/4"4+4#s .4v*r"+*"/s 4r
r*.94"s. :ha/ 9s /h* *A/*"/ 4< s*1<).4v*r"+*"/ .9v*" /4 /h* a#/4"4+4#s .4v*r"+*"/s 4<
R*.94" ;III
6EL&> 2ES
Autono$0 is either decentrali6ation of ad$inistration or decentrali6ation of po,er. +here is
decentrali6ation of ad$inistration ,hen the central go(ern$ent delegates ad$inistrati(e po,ers to
political su)di(isions in order to )roaden the )ase of go(ern$ent po,er and in the process to $a<e
local go(ern$ents Q$ore responsi(e and accounta)leQ. At the sa$e ti$e, it relie(es the central
go(ern$ent of the )urden of $anaging local affairs and ena)les it to concentrate on national
concerns. +he President e1ercises Qgeneral super(isionQ o(er the$, )ut onl0 to Qensure that local
affairs are ad$inistered according to la,.Q Be has no control o(er their acts in the sense that he can
su)stitute their ;udg$ents ,ith his o,n. =ecentrali6ation of po,er, on the other hand, in(ol(es an
a)dication of political po,er in the fa(or of local go(ern$ents units declared to )e autono$ous. /n
that case, the autono$ous go(ern$ent is free to chart its o,n destin0 and shape its future ,ith
$ini$u$ inter(ention fro$ central authorities.
An autono$ous go(ern$ent that en;o0s autono$0 of the latter categor0 OC#'S+. "1987&,
Art. X, Sec. 1C.P is su);ect alone to the decree of the organic act creating it and accepted principles
on the effects and li$its of Qautono$0.Q #n the other hand, an autono$ous go(ern$ent of the
for$er class is, as ,e noted, under the super(ision of the national go(ern$ent acting through the
President "and the =epart$ent of *ocal 9o(ern$ent&. /f the Sangguniang Pa$poo< "of Region X//&,
then, is autono$ous in the latter sense, its acts are, de)ata)l0 )e0ond the do$ain of this Court in
perhaps the sa$e ,a0 that the internal acts, sa0, of the Congress of the Philippines are )e0ond our
;urisdiction. @ut if it is autono$ous in the for$er categor0 onl0, it co$es unargua)l0 under our
;urisdiction. An e1a$ination of the (er0 Presidential =ecree creating the autono$ous go(ern$ents
of %indanao persuades us that the0 ,ere ne(er $eant to e1ercise autono$0 in the second sense
"decentrali6ation of po,er&. P= 'o. 1618, in the first place, $andates that QOtPhe President shall
ha(e the po,er of general super(ision and control o(er Autono$ous Regions.Q Bence, ,e assu$e
;urisdiction. And if ,e can $a<e an in4uir0 in the (alidit0 of the e1pulsion in 4uestion, ,ith $ore
reason can ,e re(ie, the petitionerNs re$o(al as Spea<er.
+his case in(ol(es the application of a $ost i$portant constitutional polic0 and principle, that
of local autono$0. .e ha(e to o)e0 the clear $andate on local autono$0.
>pon the facts presented, ,e hold that the 'o(e$)er 3 and C, 1987 sessions ,ere in(alid. /t is true
that under Section 1 of the Region X// Sanggunian Rules, QOsPessions shall not )e suspended or
ad;ourned e1cept )0 direction of the Sangguniang Pa$poo<Q. @ut ,hile this opinion is in accord
,ith the respondentsN o,n, ,e still in(alidate the t,in sessions in 4uestion, since at the ti$e the
petitioner called the Qrecess,Q it ,as not a settled $atter ,hether or not he could do so. /n the
second place, the in(itation tendered )0 the Co$$ittee on %usli$ Affairs of the Bouse of
Representati(es pro(ided a plausi)le reason for the inter$ission sought. Also, assu$ing that a
(alid recess could not )e called, it does not appear that the respondents called his attention to this
$ista<e. .hat appears is that instead, the0 opened the sessions the$sel(es )ehind his )ac< in an
apparent act of $utin0. >nder the circu$stances, ,e find e4uit0 on his side. 8or this reason, ,e
uphold the QrecessQ called on the ground of good faith.
CRU0 v. CA
GR L)441%' AUGUST 21, 19'%
3ACTS>
+he pri(ate respondents instituted a class suit )efore the then Court of 8irst /nstance of
%anila, @ranch :/// in )ehalf of the (endors and regular stall holders in Padre Rada %ar<et for
annul$ent ,ith preli$inar0 in;unction against the then %anila %a0or Antonio D. :illegas, petitioner
Cru6, and other persons ,hose na$es ,ere un<no,n to the$ after the decision of the Cit0 %a0or
to ,ithdra, Padre Rada %ar<et as a pu)lic $ar<et.
ISSUE> :ON /h* Ma$4r 4< Ma"91a ca" B9/h=raB Pa=r* Ra=a MarF*/ <r4+ .4v*r"+*"/
s#8*rv9s94"
6EL&> NO
@0 the (er0 nature of a $ar<et, its location, opening, operations, and closure $ust )e
regulated )0 go(ern$ent. /t is not a 4uestion of the petitionerNs right to run his $ar<et as he pleases
)ut ,hat agenc0 or office should super(ise its operations.
.e agree ,ith the Court of Appeals that the %a0or had no legal authorit0 to, )0 hi$self,
allo, the petitioner to ,ithdra, the $a;or portion of Padre Rada %ar<et fro$ its use as a pu)lic
$ar<et, there)0 also ,ithdra,ing it fro$ the cit0Ns constant super(ision.
+he esta)lish$ent and $aintenance of pu)lic $ar<ets is )0 la, a$ong the legislati(e
po,ers of the Cit0 of %anila. Since the operation of Padre Rada %ar<et ,as authori6ed )0 a
$unicipal )oard resolution and appro(ed )0 the Cit0 %a0or, as pro(ided )0 la,, it follo,s that a
,ithdra,al of the ,hole or an0 portion fro$ use as a pu)lic $ar<et $ust )e su);ect to the sa$e
;oint action of the @oard and the %a0or. +he %a0or of %anila, )0 hi$self, cannot pro(ide for the
opening, operations, and closure of a pu)lic $ar<et.
+here is no 4uestion that the Padre Rada %ar<et is a pu)lic $ar<et as it ,as authori6ed to
operate and it operates as such.
+he Padre Rada %ar<et is, therefore, a pu)lic $ar<et ,hich happens to )e pri(atel0-o,ned
and pri(atel0 operated. +he Padre Rada %ar<et is a pu)lic $ar<et and as such should )e su);ect to
the local go(ern$entNs super(ision and control. /ts con(ersion into a pri(ate $ar<et or its closure
$ust follo, the procedures laid do,n )0 la,.
PATALING6UG v. CA
GR 104%'( !a"#ar$ 2%, 1994
3ACTS>
#n 'o(e$)er 17, 1983, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of =a(ao Cit0 enacted #rdinance
'o. 6, series of 1983 other,ise <no,n as the Q21panded Joning #rdinance of =a(ao Cit0,Q
declaring AC-3 =istrict to )e do$inantl0 a co$$ercial area co$pati)le for industrial use.
Said #rdinance li<e,ise re4uired that funeral or $e$orial ho$es $ust ha(e ade4uate
par<ing space and that the0 shall )e esta)lished not less than C? $eters fro$ an0 residential
structures, churches and other institutional )uildings. +hereafter, upon prior appro(al and
certification of 6oning co$pliance )0 Joning Ad$inistrator issued on 8e)ruar0 1?, 1987 @uilding
Per$it 'o. 87?3C!, petitioner constructed a funeral parlor na$ed %etropolitan 8uneral Parlor at
Ca)aguio A(enue, Agdao, =a(ao Cit0, ,hich ,as follo,ed )0 co$plaints fro$ residents of the
area.
+he co$plainants attac<ed the (alidit0 of the 6oning ordinance that ,as dee$ed the funeral
parlorEs go signal to esta)lish its )usiness in the residential area occupied )0 the co$plainantsR
ISSUE > :ON /h* C9/$ 4< &ava4 ca" =*c1ar* a r*s9=*"/9a1 ar*a as a c4++*rc9a1 E4"*
6EL& > 2ES
+he declaration of the said area as a co$$ercial 6one thru a $unicipal ordinance is an
e1ercise of police po,er to pro$ote the good order and general ,elfare of the people in the localit0.
Corollar0 thereto, the state, in order to pro$ote the general ,elfare, $a0 interfere ,ith personal
li)ert0, ,ith propert0, and ,ith )usiness and occupations. +hus, persons $a0 )e su);ected to
certain <inds of restraints and )urdens in order to secure the general ,elfare of the state and to this
funda$ental ai$ of go(ern$ent, the rights of the indi(idual $a0 )e su)ordinated. +he ordinance
,hich regulates the location of funeral ho$es has )een adopted as part of co$prehensi(e 6oning
plans for the orderl0 de(elop$ent of the area co(ered thereunder.
3ARI7AS v. -AR-A
G.R. N4. 11(%(3 A8r91 19, 199(
3ACTS>
Carlito @. =o$ingo ,as a $e$)er of the Sangguniang @a0an of San 'icolas, /locos 'orte.
#n %arch 3!, 199!, he resigned after going ,ithout lea(e to the >nited States. +o fill the (acanc0
created )0 his resignation, the $a0or, respondent Angelo %. @ar)a, reco$$ended to the 9o(ernor
of the pro(ince, respondent Rodolfo C. 8ariHas, the appoint$ent of respondent 2d,ard Palafo1. A
si$ilar reco$$endation for the appoint$ent of 2d,ard Palafo1 ,as $ade )0 the Sangguniang
@a0an of San 'icolas )ut the reco$$endation ,as $ade to %a0or @ar)a. +he resolution,
containing the reco$$endation, ,as su)$itted to the Sangguniang Panlala,igan of /locos 'orte in
co$pliance ,ith Section C6 of the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code "R.A. 'o. 716?&.

+he Sangguniang Panlala,igan disappro(ed the resolution Qfor the reason that the authorit0
and po,er to appoint Sangguniang @a0an $e$)ers are lodged in the 9o(ernor, and therefore, the
Resolution should )e addressed to the Pro(incial 9o(ernor.Q Accordingl0, the Sangguniang
Panlala,igan reco$$ended to the 9o(ernor the appoint$ent of petitioner Al 'acino, (ice Carlito
=o$ingo, as $e$)er of the Sangguniang @a0an of San 'icolas. #n Dune 8, 199!, petitioner
9o(ernor appointed petitioner 'acino and s,ore hi$ in office that sa$e da0.
#n the other hand, respondent %a0or @ar)a appointed respondent 2d,ard Palafo1 to the
sa$e position on Dune 8, 199!. +he ne1t da0, Dune 9, 199!, respondent Palafo1 too< his oath as
$e$)er of the Sangguniang @a0an.
ISSUE> :ON a G4v*r"4r ca" a8849"/ a r*81ac*+*"/ <4r a M#"9c98a1 C4#"c914r Bh4 1*</
8*r+a"*"/1$ vaca"/ h9s *1*c/*= 84s9/94"
6EL&> NO
#n Dul0 8, 199! the trial court rendered its decision, upholding the appoint$ent of
respondent Palafo1 )0 respondent %a0or @ar)a. /t held:
>nder the facts and circu$stances as sho,n clearl0 in the case, there is no dou)t
the la, that is applica)le is su)-section QCQ of Section !C of Repu)lic Act 'o. 716?
other,ise <no,n as the *ocal 9o(ern$ent Code of 1991 ,hich pro(ides:
/n case the per$anent (acanc0 is caused )0 a Sanggunian %e$)er
,ho does not )elong to an0 political part0, the *ocal Chief 21ecuti(e
shall upon the reco$$endation of the Sanggunian concerned,
appoint a 4ualified person to fill the (acanc0.
. . . /nas$uch as the per$anent (acanc0 is in the Sanggunian @a0an of San 'icolas,
/locos 'orte, it is the Sanggunian concerned referred to in the la, ,hich
reco$$ends the appoint$ent to fill the (acanc0. . . +his )eing so, the *ocal Chief
21ecuti(e referred to in su)-section QCQ of Section !C of Repu)lic Act 'o. 716? is the
%unicipal %a0or of San 'icolas, /locos 'orte.
Since the (acanc0 in this case ,as created )0 a Sanggunian $e$)er ,ho did not )elong to an0
political part0, the specific pro(ision in(ol(ed is par. "c&, to ,it:
"c& /n case the per$anent (acanc0 is caused )0 a sanggunian $e$)er ,ho does not
)elong to an0 political part0, the local chief e1ecuti(e shall, upon reco$$endation of
the sanggunian concerned, appoint a 4ualified person to fill the (acanc0.
.e thin< that the phrase Qsanggunian concernedQ in Section !C"c& should $ore properl0 )e
understood as referring to the Sanggunian in ,hich the (acanc0 is created. +his is in <eeping ,ith
the polic0 i$plicit in Section !C"a&.
MUNICIPALIT2 O3 PARA7AQUE v. V.M. REALT2 CORPORATION
G.R. N4. 12%'20 !#1$ 20, 199'
3ACTS>
Pursuant to Sangguniang $ayan Resolution 'o. 9-9C, Series of 199, the %unicipalit0 of
ParaHa4ue filed on Septe$)er 3?, 199, a Co$plaint for e1propriation against Pri(ate Respondent
:.%. Realt0 Corporation o(er t,o parcels of land "*ots 3-A-3 and 3-@-1 of Su)di(ision Plan Psd-
17917&, ,ith a co$)ined area of a)out 1?,??? s4uare $eters, located at .a<as, San =ionisio,
ParaHa4ue, %etro %anila, and co(ered )0 +orrens Certificate of +itle 'o. !87??. Allegedl0, the
co$plaint ,as filed Qfor the purpose of alle(iating the li(ing conditions of the underpri(ileged )0
pro(iding ho$es for the ho$eless through a sociali6ed housing pro;ect.Q Parentheticall0, it ,as also
for this stated purpose that petitioner, pursuant to its Sangguniang $ayan Resolution 'o. C77,
Series of 1991, pre(iousl0 $ade an offer to enter into a negotiated sale of the propert0 ,ith pri(ate
respondent, ,hich the latter did not accept.
ISSUE> :ON a 14ca1 .4v*r"+*"/ #"9/ ca" *A*rc9s* /h* 84B*r 4< *+9"*"/ =4+a9" ar+*= 4"1$
B9/h a C4#"c91 R*s41#/94"
6EL&> NO
A local go(ern$ent unit "*9>&, li<e the %unicipalit0 of ParaHa4ue, cannot authori6e an
e1propriation of pri(ate propert0 through a $ere resolution of its la,$a<ing )od0. +he *ocal
9o(ern$ent Code e1pressl0 and clearl0 re4uires an ordinance or a local la, for the purpose. A
resolution that $erel0 e1presses the senti$ent or opinion of the %unicipal Council ,ill not suffice.
+he right of the plaintiff to e1ercise the po,er of e$inent do$ain is not disputed. Bo,e(er,
such right $a0 )e e1ercised onl0 pursuant to an #rdinance "Sec. 19, R.A 'o. 716?&. /n the instant
case, there is no such ordinance passed )0 the %unicipal Council of ParaHa4ue ena)ling the
%unicipalit0, thru its Chief 21ecuti(e, to e1ercise the po,er of e$inent do$ain.
.e are not con(inced )0 petitionerNs insistence that the ter$s QresolutionQ and QordinanceQ
are s0non0$ous. A $unicipal ordinance is different fro$ a resolution. An ordinance is a la,, )ut a
resolution is $erel0 a declaration of the senti$ent or opinion of a la,$a<ing )od0 on a specific
$atter. An ordinance possesses a general and per$anent character, )ut a resolution is te$porar0
in nature. Additionall0, the t,o are enacted differentl0 T a third reading is necessar0 for an
ordinance, )ut not for a resolution, unless decided other,ise )0 a $a;orit0 of all the Sanggunian
$e$)ers.