THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 97882. August 28, 1996]

THE CITY OF ANGELES, Hon. ANTONIO AA! SANTOS, "n #"s
$%&%$"t' %s (AYOR o) Ang*+*s C"t', %n, t#*
SANGG-NIANG .ANL-NGSO! OF THE CITY OF
ANGELES,petitioners, vs. CO-RT OF A..EALS %n, TI(OG
SILANGAN !E/ELO.(ENT COR.ORATION, respondents.
! E C I S I O N
.ANGANIAN, J.0
In resolving this petition, the Court addressed the questions of whether a
donor of open spaces in a residential sudivision can validl! i"pose conditions
on the said donation# whether the cit! govern"ent as donee can uild and
operate a drug rehailitation center on the donated land intended for open space#
and whether the said donation "a! e validl! rescinded ! the donor$
%etitioners clai" the! have the right to construct and operate a drug
rehailitation center on the donated land in question, contrar! to the provisions
stated in the a"ended Deed of Donation$
On the other hand, private respondent, owner&developer of the Ti"og %ar'
residential sudivision in (ngeles Cit!, opposed the construction and now, the
operation of the said center on the donated land, which is located within said
residential sudivision$
)efore us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision
*+,
of the
Court of (ppeals
*-,
dated Octoer .+, +//0, which affir"ed the decision
*.,
of the
Regional Trial Court of (ngeles Cit! )ranch 12,
*3,
dated 4eruar! +1, +/5/$
T#* Ant*$*,*nts
In a Deed of Donation dated 6arch /, +/53, susequentl! superseded ! a
Deed of Donation dated Septe"er -7, +/53, which in turn was superseded !
an ("ended Deed of Donation dated Nove"er -2, +/53, private respondent
donated to the Cit! of (ngeles, 1+ parcels of land situated in )arrio %a"pang,
Cit! of (ngeles, with an aggregate area of 10,272 square "eters, "ore or less,
part of a igger area also elonging to private respondent$ The a"ended
deed
*1,
provided, a"ong others, that8
2. The properties donated shall be devoted and utilized solely for the site
of the Angeles City Sports Center (which excludes cocfighting! pursuant to
the plans to be sub"itted within six (#! "onths by the $%&'' to the $%&%(
for the latter)s approval* which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld as
long as entire properties donated are developed as a Sports Co"plex. Any
change or "odification in the basic design or concept of said Sports Center
"ust have the prior written consent of the $%&%(.
+. &o co""ercial building* co""ercial co"plex* "aret or any other
si"ilar co"plex* "ass or tena"ent (sic! housing,buildings(s! shall be
constructed in the properties donated nor shall cocfighting* be allowed in the
pre"ises.
-. The construction of the Sports Center shall co""ence within a period of
one (.! year fro" /0 1arch .02- and shall be co"pleted within a period of
five (3! years fro" /0 1arch .02-.
999 999 999
#. The properties donated (which is "ore than five (3! percent of the total
land area of the $%&%()s subdivision! shall constitute the entire open space
for $%&%()s subdivision and all other lands or areas previously reserved or
designated* including 4ot . and 4ot 2A of 5loc 62 and the whole 5loc 20 are
dispensed with* and rendered free* as open spaces* and the $%&'' hereby
agrees to execute and deliver all necessary consents* approvals* endorse"ents*
and authorizations to effect the foregoing.
6. The properties donated are devoted and described as 7open spaces) of the
$%&%()s subdivision* and to this effect* the $%&''* upon acceptance of this
donation* releases the $%&%( and,or assu"es any and all obligations and
liabilities appertaining to the properties donated.
2. Any substantial breach of the foregoing provisos shall entitle the
$%&%( to revoe or rescind this $eed of $onation* and in such eventuality*
the $%&'' agrees to vacate and return the pre"ises* together with all
i"prove"ents* to the $%&%( peacefully without necessity of 8udicial action.9
On :ul! +/, +/55, petitioners started the construction of a drug rehailitation
center on a portion of the donated land$ ;pon learning thereof, private
respondent protested such action for eing violative of the ter"s and conditions
of the a"ended deed and pre<udicial to its interest and to those of its clients and
residents$ %rivate respondent also offered another site for the rehailitation
center$ However, petitioners ignored the protest, "aintaining that the
construction was not violative of the ter"s of the donation$ The alternative site
was re<ected ecause, according to petitioners, the site was too isolated and had
no electric and water facilities$
On (ugust 5, +/55, private respondent filed a co"plaint with the Regional
Trial Court, )ranch 12, in (ngeles Cit! against the petitioners, alleging reach of
the conditions i"posed in the a"ended deed of donation and see'ing the
revocation of the donation and da"ages, with preli"inar! in<unction and&or
te"porar! restraining order to halt the construction of the said center$
On (ugust +0, +/55, the trial court issued a te"porar! restraining order to
en<oin the petitioners fro" further proceeding with the construction of the center,
which at that ti"e was alread! 30= co"plete$
However, the trial court denied the pra!er for preli"inar! in<unction ased on
the prohiition in %residential Decree No$ +5+5$
In their (nswer with counterclai", petitioners ad"itted the co""ence"ent of
the construction ut alleged inter alia that the conditions i"posed in the a"ended
deed were contrar! to 6unicipal Ordinance No$ +, Series of +/2-, otherwise
'nown as the Sudivision Ordinance of the 6unicipalit! of (ngeles$
*2,
On Octoer +1, +/55, private respondent filed a 6otion for %artial Su""ar!
:udg"ent on the ground that the "ain defense of the petitioners was anchored
on a pure question of law and that their legal position was untenale$
The petitioners opposed, contending that the! had a "eritorious defense as
>+? private respondents had no right to dictate upon petitioners what to do with
the donated land and how to do it so long as the purpose re"ains for pulic use#
and >-? the cause of action of the private respondent eca"e "oot and
acade"ic when the (ngeles Cit! Council repealed the resolution providing for the
construction of said drug rehailitation center and adopted a new resolution
changing the purpose and usage of said center to a @sports develop"ent and
!outh centerA in order to confor" with the sports co"ple9 pro<ect constructed on
the donated land$
On 4eruar! +1, +/5/, the trial court rendered its decision, in relevant part
reading as follows8
x x x the Court finds no inconsistency between the conditions i"posed in the
$eeds of $onation and the provision of the Subdivision %rdinance of the City
of Angeles re:uiring subdivisions in Angeles City to reserve at least one (.!
hectare in the subdivision as suitable sites nown as open spaces for pars*
playgrounds* playlots and,or other areas to be dedicated to public use. %n the
contrary* the condition re:uiring the defendant city of Angeles to devote and
utilize the properties donated to it by the plaintiff for the site of the Angeles
City Sports Center confor"s with the re:uire"ent in the Subdivision %rdinance
that the subdivision of the plaintiff shall be provided with a playground or
playlot* a"ong others.
%n the other hand the ter" public use9 in the Subdivision %rdinance should
not be construed to include a $rug (ehabilitation Center as that would be
contrary to the pri"ary purpose of the Subdivision %rdinance re:uiring the
setting aside of a portion nown as %pen Space9 for par* playground and
playlots* since these are intended pri"arily for the benefit of the residents of the
subdivision. ;hile laudable to the general public* a $rug (ehabilitation Center
in a subdivision will be a cause of concern and constant worry to its residents.
As to the third issue in paragraph (+!* the passage of the %rdinance changing
the purpose of the building constructed in the donated properties fro" a $rug
(ehabilitation Center to a Sports Center co"es too late. <t should have been
passed upon the de"and of the plaintiff to the defendant City of Angeles to stop
the construction of the $rug (ehabilitation Center* not after the co"plaint was
filed.
5esides* in seeing the revocation of the A"ended $eed of $onation* plaintiff
also relies on the failure of the defendant City of Angeles to sub"it the plan of
the proposed Sports Center within six (#! "onths and construction of the sa"e
within five years fro" 1arch 0* .02-* which are substantial violations of the
conditions i"posed in the A"ended $eed of $onation.9
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads8
;='('>%('* 8udg"ent is hereby rendered?
(.! 'n8oining defendants* its officers* e"ployees and all persons
acting on their behalf to perpetually cease and desist fro" constructing a $rug
(ehabilitation Center or any other building or i"prove"ent on the $onated
4and.
(2! $eclaring the a"ended $eed of $onation revoed and rescinded
and ordering defendants to peacefully vacate and return the $onated 4and to
plaintiff* together with all the i"prove"ents existing thereon. And*
(+! $enying the award of co"pensatory or actual and exe"plary
da"ages including attorney)s fees.
&% @(%&%A&C'1'&T AS T% C%ST.9
In 6arch +/5/, petitioners filed their Notice of (ppeal$ On (pril +1, +/5/,
while the appeal was pending, petitioners inaugurated the Drug Rehailitation
Center$
*7,
On (pril -2, +//+, the respondent Court rendered the assailed Decision
affir"ing the ruling of the trial court$ Susequentl!, the petitionersA "otion for
reconsideration was also denied for lac' of "erit$
Consequentl!, this %etition for Review$
T#* Issu*s
The 'e! issues
*5,
raised ! petitioners "a! e restated as follows8
<. ;hether a subdivision owner,developer is legally bound under
@residential $ecree &o. .2.# to donate to the city or "unicipality the open
space9 allocated exclusively for pars* playground and recreational use.
<<. ;hether the percentage of the open space9 allocated exclusively for
pars* playgrounds and recreational use is to be based on the gross area9 of the
subdivision or on the total area reserved for open space.9
<<<. ;hether private respondent as subdivision owner,developer "ay
validly i"pose conditions in the A"ended $eed of $onation regarding the use
of the open space9 allocated exclusively for pars and playgrounds.
<B. ;hether or not the construction of the $rug (ehabilitation Center on the
donated open space9 "ay be en8oined.
B. ;hether the donation by respondent as subdivision owner,developer of
the open space9 of its subdivision in favor of petitioner City of Angeles "ay
be revoed for alleged violation of the A"ended $eed of $onation.
Central to this entire controvers! is the question of whether the donation of
the open space "a! e revo'ed at all$
F"1st Issu*0 Developer Legally Bound to Donate Open Space
The law involved in the instant case is %residential Decree No$ +-+2, dated
Octoer +3, +/77,
*/,
which reads8
@('S<$'&T<A4 $'C('' &%. .2.#
$efining 7%pen Space) <n (esidential Subdivisions And A"ending Section +.
%f @residential $ecree &o. 036 (e:uiring Subdivision %wners To @rovide
(oads* Alleys* Sidewals And (eserve %pen Space >or @ars %r (ecreational
Ase.
;='('AS* there is a co"pelling need to create and "aintain a healthy
environ"ent in hu"an settle"ents by providing open spaces* roads* alleys and
sidewals as "ay be dee"ed suitable to enhance the :uality of life of the
residents thereinC
;='('AS* such open spaces* roads* alleys and sidewals in residential
subdivisions are for public use and are* therefore* beyond the co""erce of
"enC
;='('AS* pursuant to @residential $ecree &o. 03+ at least thirty per cent
(+/D! of the total area of a subdivision "ust be reserved* developed and
"aintained as open space for pars and recreational areas* the cost of which
will ulti"ately be borne by the lot buyers which thereby increase the
ac:uisition price of subdivision lots beyond the reach of the co""on "assC
;='('AS* thirty percent (+/D! re:uired open space can be reduced to a level
that will "ae the subdivision industry viable and the price of residential lots
within the "eans of the low inco"e group at the sa"e ti"e preserve the
environ"ental and ecological balance through rational control of land use and
proper design of space and facilitiesC
;='('AS* pursuant to @residential $ecree &o. 636* govern"ent efforts in
housing* including resources* functions and activities to "axi"ize results have
been concentrated into one single agency* na"ely* the &ational =ousing
AuthorityC
&%;* T='('>%('* <* >'($<&A&$ '. 1A(C%S* @resident of the
@hilippines* by virtue of the powers vested in "e by the Constitution* do hereby
order and decree?
S'CT<%& .. >or purposes of this $ecree* the ter" 7open space) shall "ean an
area reserved exclusively for pars* playgrounds* recreational uses* schools*
roads* places of worship* hospitals* health centers* barangay centers and other
si"ilar facilities and a"enities.
S'CT<%& 2. Section +. of @residential $ecree &o. 036 is hereby a"ended to
read as follows?
7Section +.. (oads* Alleys* Sidewals and %pen Spaces E The owner as
developer of a subdivision shall provide ade:uate roads* alleys and
sidewals. >or subdivision pro8ects one (.! hectare or "ore* the owner or
developer shall reserve thirty per cent (+/D! of the gross area for open
space. Such open space shall have the following standards allocated
exclusively for pars* playgrounds and recreational use?
a. 0D of gross area for high density or social housing (## to .// fa"ily
lots per gross hectare!.
b. 6D of gross area for "ediu"Fdensity or econo"ic housing (2. to #3
fa"ily lots per gross hectare!.
c. +.3D of gross area for lowFdensity or open "aret housing (2/ fa"ily
lots and below per gross hectare!.
These areas reserved for pars* playgrounds and recreational use shall be nonF
alienable public lands* and nonFbuildable. The plans of the subdivision pro8ect
shall include tree planting on such parts of the subdivision as "ay be
designated by the Authority.
Apon their co"pletion certified to by the Authority* the roads* alleys* sidewals
and playgrounds shall be donated by the owner or developer to the city or
"unicipality and it shall be "andatory for the local govern"ents to accept
provided* however* that the pars and playgrounds "ay be donated to the
=o"eowners Association of the pro8ect with the consent of the city or
"unicipality concerned. &o portion of the pars and playgrounds donated
thereafter shall be converted to any other purpose or purposes.)
S'CT<%& +. Sections 2 and 3 of @residential $ecree &o. 03+ are hereby
repealed and other laws* decrees* executive orders* institutions* rules and
regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with these provisions are also repealed
or a"ended accordingly.
S'CT<%& -. This $ecree shall tae effect i""ediately.9
%ursuant to the wording of Sec$ .+ of %$D$ /17 as aove a"ended ! the
aforequoted %$D$ No$ +-+2, private respondent is under legal oligation to donate
the open space e9clusivel! allocated for par's, pla!grounds and recreational use
to the petitioner$
This can e clearl! estalished ! referring to the original provision of Sec$
.+ of %$D$ /17, which reads as follows8
S'CT<%& +.. $onation of roads and open spaces to local govern"ent. E The
registered owner or developer of the subdivision or condo"iniu" pro8ect* upon
co"pletion of the develop"ent of said pro8ect may, at his option, convey by
way of donation the roads and open spaces found within the pro8ect to the city
or "unicipality wherein the pro8ect is located. Apon acceptance of the
donation by the city or "unicipality concerned* no portion of the area donated
shall thereafter be converted to any other purpose or purposes unless after
hearing* the proposed conversion is approved by the Authority.9 (<talics
supplied!
It will e noted that under the aforequoted original provision, it
was optional on the part of the owner or developer to donate the roads and open
spaces found within the pro<ect to the cit! or "unicipalit! where the pro<ect is
located$ Blsewise stated, there was no legal oligation to "a'e the donation$
However, said Sec$ .+ as a"ended now states in its last paragraph8
Apon their co"pletion x x x* the roads* alleys* sidewals and
playgrounds shall be donated by the owner or developer to the city or
"unicipality and it shall be "andatory for the local govern"ent to acceptC
provided* however* that the pars and playgrounds "ay be donated to the
=o"eowners Association of the pro8ect with the consent of the city or
"unicipality concerned. x x x.9
It is clear fro" the aforequoted a"end"ent that it is no longer optional on the
part of the sudivision owner&developer to donate the open space for par's and
pla!grounds# rather there is now a legal oligation to donate the sa"e$ (lthough
there is a proviso that the donation of the par's and pla!grounds "a! e "ade to
the ho"eowners association of the pro<ect with the consent of the cit! of
"unicipalit! concerned, nonetheless, the owner&developer is still oligated under
the law to donate$ Such option does not change the "andator! character of the
provision$ The donation has to e "ade regardless of which donee is pic'ed !
the owner&developer$ The consent require"ent efore the sa"e can e donated
to the ho"eownersA association e"phasiCes this point$
S*$on, Issu*0 Percentage of Area for Parks and Playgrounds
%etitioners contend that the .$1= to /= allotted ! Sec$ .+ for par's,
pla!grounds and recreational uses should e ased on the gross area of the
entire subdivision, and not "erel! on the area of the open space alone, as
contended ! private respondent and as decided ! the respondent Court$
*+0,
The petitioners are correct$ The language of Section .+ of %$D$ /17 as
a"ended ! Section - of %$D$ +-+2 is wanting in clarit! and e9actitude, ut it can
e easil! inferred that the phrase Dgross areaE refers to the entiresudivision
area$ The said phrase was used four ti"es in the sa"e section in two
sentences, the first of which reads8
x x x >or subdivision pro8ects one (.! hectare or "ore* the owner or developer
shall reserve thirty per cent (+/D! of the gross area for open space. x x x.9
Here, the phrase D.0= of the gross areaE refers to the total area of the
sudivision, not of the open space$ Otherwise, the definition of Dopen spaceE
would e circular$ Thus, logic dictates that the sa"e asis e applied in the
succeeding instances where the phrase Dopen spaceE is used, i.e$, D/= of gross
area $ $ $ 7= of gross area $ $ $ .$1= of gross area $ $ $E 6oreover, we agree with
petitioners that construing the .$1= to /= as appl!ing to the totalit! of the open
space would result in far too s"all an area eing devoted for par's, pla!grounds,
etc$, thus rendering "eaningless and defeating the purpose of the statute$ This
eco"es clear when viewed in the light of the original require"ent of %$D$ /1.
>DRequiring the %lanting of Trees in Certain %laces, etc$E?, Section - of which
reads8
Sec. 2. 'very owner of land subdivided into residential,co""ercial,industrial
lots after the effectivity of this $ecree shall reserve* develop and "aintain not
less than thirty percent (+/D! of the total area of the subdivision* exclusive of
roads* service streets and alleys* as open space for pars and recreational areas.
&o plan for a subdivision shall be approved by the 4and (egistration
Co""ission or any office or agency of the govern"ent unless at least thirty
percent (+/D! of the total area of the subdivision* exclusive of roads* service
streets and alleys* is reserved as open space for pars and recreational areas x x
x.9
To our "ind, it is clear that %$D$ +-+2 was an atte"pt to achieve a happ!
co"pro"ise and a realistic alance etween the i"peratives of environ"ental
planning and the need to "aintain econo"ic feasiilit! in sudivision and
housing develop"ent, ! reducing the required area for par's, pla!grounds and
recreational uses fro" thirt! percent >.0=? to onl! .$1= F /= of the entire area
of the subdivision.
T#"1, Issu*0 Imposition of Conditions in Donation of Open Space
%etitioners argue that since the private respondent is required ! law to
donate the par's and pla!grounds, it has no right to i"pose the condition in the
("ended Deed of Donation that Dthe properties donated shall e devoted and
utiliCed solel! for the site of the (ngeles Cit! Sports Center$E It cannot prescrie
an! condition as to the use of the area donated ecause the use of the open
spaces is alread! governed ! %$D$ +-+2$ In other words, the donation should e
asolute$ Consequentl!, the conditions in the a"ended deed which were
allegedl! violated are deemed not written$ Such eing the case, petitioners
cannot e considered to have co""itted an! violation of the ter"s and
conditions of the said a"ended deed, as the donation is dee"ed unconditional,
and it follows that there is no asis for revocation of the donation$
However, the general law on donations does not prohiit the i"position of
conditions on a donation so long as the conditions are not illegal or i"possile$
*++,
In regard to donations of open spaces, %$D$ +-+2 itself requires a"ong other
things that the recreational areas to e donated e ased, as afore"entioned, on
a percentage >.$1=, 7=, or /=? of the total area of the sudivision depending on
whether the sudivision is low F, "ediu" F, or highFdensit!$ It further declares
that such open space devoted to par's, pla!grounds and recreational areas are
nonFalienale pulic land and nonFuildale$ However, there is no prohibition in
either %$D$ /17 or %$D$ +-+2 against i"posing conditions on such donation$
Ge hold that an! condition "a! e i"posed in the donation, so long as the
sa"e is not contrar! to law, "orals, good custo"s, pulic order or pulic
polic!$ The contention of petitioners that the donation should e unconditional
ecause it is "andator! has no asis in law$ %$D$ +-+2 does not provide that the
donation of the open space for par's and pla!grounds should e
unconditional$ To rule that it should e so is tanta"ount to unlawfull! e9panding
the provisions of the decree$
*+-,
In the case at ar, one of the conditions i"posed in the ("ended Deed of
Donation is that the donee should uild a sports co"ple9 on the donated
land$ Since %$D$ +-+2 clearl! requires that the .$1= to /= of the gross area
allotted for par's and pla!grounds is DnonFuildale,E then the ovious question
arises whether or not such condition was validl! i"posed and is inding on the
donee$ It is clear that the DnonFuildaleE character applies onl! to the .$1= to
/= area set ! law$ If there is an! e9cess land over and aove the .$1= to /=
required ! the decree, which is also used or allocated for par's, pla!grounds
and recreational purposes, it is ovious that such e9cess area is not covered !
the nonFuildailit! restriction$ In the instant case, if there e an e9cess, then the
donee would not e arred fro" developing and operating a sports co"ple9
thereon, and the condition in the a"ended deed would then e considered valid
and inding$
To deter"ine if the over 10,000 square "eter area donated pursuant to the
a"ended deed would !ield an e9cess over the area required ! the decree, it is
necessar! to deter"ine under which densit! categor! the Ti"og %ar' sudivision
falls$
If the sudivision falls under the low density or open "ar'et housing
categor!, with -0 fa"il! lots or elow per gross hectare, the developer will need
to allot onl! .$1= of gross area for par's and pla!grounds, and since the donated
land constitutes D"ore than five >1? percent of the total land area of the
sudivision,
*+.,
there would therefore e an e9cess of over +$1= of gross area
which would not e nonFuildale$ %etitioners, on the other hand, alleged >and
private respondent did not controvert? that the sudivision in question is a
D"ediu"Fdensit! or econo"ic housingE sudivision ased on the siCes of the
fa"il! lots donated in the a"ended deed,
*+3,
for which categor! the decree
"andates that not less than 7= of gross area e set aside$ Since the donated
land constitutes onl! a little "ore than 1= of the gross area of the sudivision,
which is less than the area required to e allocated for nonFuildale open space,
therefore there is no De9cess landE to spea' of$ This then "eans that the
condition to uild a sports co"ple9 on the donated land is contrar! to law and
should e considered as not i"posed$
Fou1t# Issu*0 Inunction vs! Construction of t"e Drug #e"a$ilitation Center
%etitioners argue that the court cannot en<oin the construction of the drug
rehailitation center ecause the decision of the trial court ca"e onl! after the
construction of the center was co"pleted and, ased on <urisprudence, there can
e no in<unction of events that have alread! transpired$
*+1,
%rivate respondent, on the other hand, counters that the operation of the
center is a continuing act which would clearl! cause in<ur! to private respondent,
its clients, and residents of the sudivision, and thus, a proper su<ect of
in<unction$
*+2,
Bquit! should "ove in to warrant the granting of the in<unctive relief if
persistent repetition of the wrong is threatened$
*+7,
In light of Sec$ .+ of %$D$ /17, as a"ended, declaring the open space for
par's, pla!grounds and recreational area as nonFuildale, it appears induitale
that the construction and operation of a drug rehailitation center on the land in
question is a continuing violation of the law and thus should e en<oined$
4urther"ore, the factual ac'ground of this case warrants that this Court rule
against petitioners on this issue$ Ge agree with and affir" the respondent
CourtAs finding that petitioners co""itted acts "oc'ing the <udicial s!ste"$
*+5,
x x x ;hen a writ of preli"inary in8unction was sought for by the appellee
Gprivate respondentH to en8oin the appellants Gpetitioners hereinH fro" further
continuing with the construction of the said center* the latter resisted and too
refuge under the provisions of @residential $ecree &o. .2.2 (which prohibits
writs of preli"inary in8unction! to continue with the construction of the
building. Iet* the appellants also presented 7City Council (esolution &o. 226
which allegedly repealed the previous (esolution authorizing the City
Jovern"ent to construct a $rug (ehabilitation Center on the donated property*
by 7changing the purpose and usage of the $rug (ehabilitation Center to Sports
$evelop"ent and Iouth Center to "ae it confor" to the Sports Co"plex
@ro8ect therein.) Ander this (esolution &o. 226* the appellants clai"ed that
they have abandoned all plans for the construction of the $rug (ehabilitation
Center. &onetheless* when 8udg"ent was finally rendered on >ebruary .3*
.020* the appellants were :uic to state that they have not after all abandoned
their plans for the center as they have in fact inaugurated the sa"e on April .3*
.020. <n plain and si"ple ter"s* this act is a "ocery of our 8udicial syste"
perpetrated by the appellants. >or the" to argue that the court cannot deal on
their $rug (ehabilitation Center is not only preposterous but also ridiculous.
<t is interesting to observe that under the appealed decision the appellants and
their officers* e"ployees and all other persons acting on their behalf were
perpetually en8oined to cease and desist fro" constructing a $rug
(ehabilitation Center on the donated property. Ander Section - of (ule +0 of
the (ules of Court* it is provided that?
Section - E A 8udg"ent in an action for in8unction shall not be stayed after its
rendition and before an appeal is taen or during the pendency of an appeal.9
Accordingly* a 8udg"ent restraining a party fro" doing a certain act is
enforceable and shall re"ain in full force and effect even pending appeal. <n
the case at bar* the cease and desist order therefore still stands. Appellants)
persistence and continued construction and* subse:uent* operation of the $rug
(ehabilitation Center violate the express ter"s of the writ of in8unction
lawfully issued by the lower court.9
This Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the aove "entioned findings of
the respondent court$ The allegation of the petitioners that the construction of
the center was finished efore the <udg"ent of the trial court was rendered
deserves scant consideration ecause it is selfFserving and is co"pletel!
unsupported ! other evidence$
The fact re"ains that the trial court rendered <udg"ent en<oining the
construction of the drug rehailitation center, revo'ing the donation and ordering
the return of the donated land$ In spite of such in<unction, petitioners pulicl!
flaunted their disregard thereof with the susequent inauguration of the center on
(ugust +1, +/5/$ The operation of the center, after inauguration, is even "ore
censurale$
F")t# Issu*0 #evocation of a %andatory Donation Because of &on'
compliance (it" an Illegal Condition
The private respondent contends that the uilding of said drug rehailitation
center is violative of the ("ended Deed of Donation$ Therefore, under (rticle
723 of the New Civil Code and stipulation no$ 5 of the a"ended deed, private
respondent is e"powered to revo'e the donation when the donee has failed to
co"pl! with an! of the conditions i"posed in the deed$
Ge disagree$ (rticle +3+- of the Civil Code which provides that8
<f the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute
a cri"inal offense* the following rules shall be observed?
(.! ;hen the fault is on the part of both contracting parties* neither "ay
recover what he has given by virtue of the contract* or de"and the perfor"ance
of the other)s undertaing9C
co"es into pla! here$ )oth petitioners and private respondents are in violation of
%$D$ /17 as a"ended, for donating and accepting a donation of open space less
than that required ! law, and for agreeing to uild and operate a sports co"ple9
on the nonFuildale open space so donated# and petitioners, for constructing a
drug rehailitation center on the sa"e nonFuildale area$
6oreover, since the condition to construct a sports co"ple9 on the donated
land has previousl! een shown to e contrar! to law, therefore, stipulation No$ 5
of the a"ended deed cannot e i"ple"ented ecause >+? no validstipulation of
the a"ended deed had een reached, and >-? it is highl! i"proale that the
decree would have allowed the return of the donated land for open space under
an! circu"stance, considering the nonFalienale character of such open space,
in the light of the second Ghereas clause of %$D$ +-+2 which declares that D999
such open spaces, roads, alle!s and sidewal's in residential sudivisions are for
pulic use and are, therefore, beyond the commerce of men$E
4urther, as a "atter of pulic polic!, private respondent cannot e allowed to
evade its statutor! oligation to donate the required open space through the
e9pedienc! of invo'ing petitionersA reach of the aforesaid condition$ It is a
fa"iliar principle that the courts will not aid either part! to enforce an illegal
contract, ut will leave the" oth where the! find the"$ Neither part! can
recover da"ages fro" the other arising fro" the act contrar! to law, or plead the
sa"e as a cause of action or as a defense$ Bach "ust ear the consequences
of his own acts$
*+/,
There is therefore no legal asis whatsoever to revo'e the donation of the
su<ect open space and to return the donated land to private respondent$ The
donated land should re"ain with the donee as the law clearl! intended such
open spaces to e perpetuall! part of the pulic do"ain, nonFalienale and
per"anentl! devoted to pulic use as such par's, pla!grounds or recreation
areas$
#emoval)Demolition of Drug #e"a$ilitation Center
Inas"uch as the construction and operation of the drug rehailitation center
has een estalished to e contrar! to law, the said center should e re"oved or
de"olished$ (t this <uncture, we hasten to add that this Court is and has alwa!s
een fourFsquare ehind the govern"entAs efforts to eradicate the drug scourge
in this countr!$ )ut the end never <ustifies the "eans, and however laudale the
purpose of the construction in question, this Court cannot and will not
countenance an outright and continuing violation of the laws of the land,
especiall! when co""itted ! pulic officials$
In theor!, the cost of such de"olition, and the rei"urse"ent of the pulic
funds e9pended in the construction thereof, should e orne ! the officials of
the Cit! of (ngeles who ordered and directed such construction$ This Court has
ti"e and again ruled that pulic officials are not i""une fro" da"ages in their
personal capacities arising fro" acts done in ad faith$ Otherwise stated, a
pulic official "a! e liale in his personal capacit! for whatever da"age he "a!
have caused ! his act done with "alice and in ad faith or e!ond the scope of
his authorit! or <urisdiction$
*-0,
In the instant case, the pulic officials concerned
delieratel! violated the law and persisted in their violations, going so far as
atte"pting to deceive the courts ! their pretended change of purpose and
usage for the center, and D"a'ing a "oc'er! of the <udicial
s!ste"$E Indisputal!, said pulic officials acted e!ond the scope of their
authorit! and <urisdiction and with evident ad faith$ However, as noted ! the
trial court,
*-+,
the petitioners "a!or and "e"ers of the Sangguniang %anlungsod
of (ngeles Cit! were sued onl! in their officialcapacities, hence, the! could not e
held personall! liale without first giving the" their da! in court$ %revailing
<urisprudence
*--,
holding that pulic officials are personall! liale for da"ages
arising fro" illegal acts done in ad faith are pre"ised on said officials having
een sued oth in their official and personal capacities$
(fter due consideration of the circu"stances, we elieve that the fairest and
"ost equitale solution is to have the Cit! of (ngeles, donee of the su<ect open
space and, ostensil!, the "ain eneficiar! of the construction and operation of
the proposed drug rehailitation center, underta'e the de"olition and re"oval of
said center, and if feasile, recover the cost thereof fro" the cit! officials
concerned$
2HEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of (ppeals is
here! MODIFIED as follows8
>+? %etitioners are here! ENOINED perpetuall! fro" operating the
drug rehailitation center or an! other such facilit! on the donated open space$
>-? %etitioner Cit! of (ngeles is O!DE!ED to underta'e the
de"olition and re"oval of said drug rehailitation center within a period of three
>.? "onths fro" finalit! of this Decision, and thereafter, to devote the said open
space for pulic use as a par', pla!ground or other recreational use$
>.? The ("ended Deed of Donation dated Nove"er -2, +/53 is
here! declared valid and susisting, e9cept that the stipulations or conditions
therein concerning the construction of the Sports Center or Co"ple9 are here!
declared void and as if not i"posed, and therefore of no force and effect$
No costs$
SO OR!ERE!.
Narvasa, ".. #"hairman$, Davide, r., Melo, and Francisco, ., concur.
*+,
!ollo, pp$ 3-F10$
*-,
Twelfth Division, :$ )onifacio ($ Cacdac, :r$, ponente, and ::$ Re!nato S$ %uno >chair"an? and
Salo"e ($ 6onto!a, concurring$
*.,
!ollo, pp$ /.F+02$
*3,
:udge Carlos D$ Rustia, presiding$
*1,
!ollo, pp$ 13F2-$
*2,
Section +0 of the said Sudivision Ordinance of the 6unicipalit! of (ngeles reads8
HOpen %paces Dedicated to &ublic 'se(%ubdivisions in the Municipality containing an area of at
least one >+? hectare shall be provided with suitale sites 'nown as open spaces for par)s,
playgrounds, playlots and&or other areas to e dedicated to pulic use, which areas shall
co"prise at least five >1? per cent of the gross area of the sudivision$ Open spaces so
dedicated for pulic use shall e consolidated as "uch as possile and not ro'en into s"all
oddFshaped parcels of land, and shall e convenientl! located for "a9i"u" utilit!$ %hould the
subdivision so elect, he may turn over and transfer free of charge the title to said open space to
the Municipal *overnment after which the government shall assume the responsibility of
maintaining the said areas$ %rovided, that the govern"ent reserves the right to re<ect the transfer
of an! area specified in this section if in its opinion the site has not een developed in such
"anner as to "a'e the sa"e suitale for the use it is intended$H >Italics supplied?
*7,
Court of (ppealsI Decision, p$ 1# !ollo, p$ 32$
*5,
!ollo, pp$ -0F-+$