Acaac et al. V Azcuna et al. LGC).
LGC). However, CA upheld the RTC’s finding that petitioners have no proprietary rights over
G.R. No. 187378 (30 Sept 2013)
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
Topic: Part IV.3.b. Law Making Capacity of LGUs
Facts:
PETAL is an NGO, founded by R. Acaac, engaged in the protection and conservation of
ecology, tourism, and livelihood projects in Misamis Occidental. PETAL built some cottages
on Capayas Island (1,605 sqm islet) which it rented out to the public and became the source
of livelihood of its beneficiaries, among whom are Hector Acaac (P) and Romeo Bulawin (P).
In 2002, Mayor Azcuna, Jr. and Bldg Official Bonalos issued Notices of Illegal Construction
against PETAL for its failure to apply for a bldg permit prior to construction of its buildings.
On July 8, 2002 the Sangguniang Bayan of Lopez Jaena adopted Municipal Ordinance No. 02
which prohibited, among others: (a) the entry of any entity, association, corporation or
organization inside the sanctuaries; and (b) the construction of any structures, permanent or
temporary, on the premises, except if authorized by the local government. Azcuna approved
the subject ordinance; hence, the same was submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Misamis Occidental, which in turn, conducted a joint hearing on the matter. Thereafter,
notices were posted at the designated areas, including Capayas Island, declaring the premises
as government property and prohibiting ingress and egress thereto.
On August 23, 2002, a Notice of Voluntary Demolition was served upon PETAL directing it to
remove the structures it built. An action praying for TRO, injunction and damages was filed.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- they have prior vested rights to occupy and utilize Capayas Island. Its predecessors-in-
interest have been in possession thereof since 1961, with whom it entered into a MOA for
the operation of the said island as a camping, tourism, and recreational resort
- the ordinance was prejudicial to their interest as they were deprived of their livelihood.
- the subject ordinance is invalid on the following grounds: (a) it was adopted without public
consultation; (b) it was not published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province
as required by RA 7160 (LGC); and (c) it was not approved by the SP.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- no cause of action since they are not the lawful owners or lessees of Capayas Island
- Capayas Island was classified as timberland and belonging to the public domain
- All publication and hearing requirements for passage of the ordinance was complied with
- ordinance was deemed approved by operation of law for failure of the SP to take any
positive action thereon as provided under the LGC. As such, it is valid and enforceable.
RTC Ruling: Subject ordinance is invalid/void. Respondents were ordered to desist from
closing Capayas Island to the public. However, petitioners were to remove structures they
built thereon without valid bldg permits since they have no title over the disputed property.
CA Ruling: Apeeal by respondents, granted. The subject ordinance was deemed approved
upon failure of the SP to declare the same invalid within 30 days after its submission (Sec. 56
the Capayas Island, thereby rendering their action for injunction improper.
Issue: W/N the subject ordinance is valid and enforceable against petitioners? NO.
Dispositive: Petition is DENIED. CA Decision AFFIRMED.
SC Ruling/HELD: The petition lacks merit.
SEC. 56. Review of Component City and Municipal Ordinances or Resolutions by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan. –
x x x
(c) If the Sangguniang Panlalawigan finds that such an ordinance or resolution is beyond the
power conferred upon the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan concerned, it shall
declare such ordinance or resolution invalid in whole or in part. The Sangguniang
Panlalawigan shall enter its action in the minutes and shall advise the corresponding city or
municipal authorities of the action it has taken.
(d) If no action has been taken by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan within thirty (30) days
after submission of such an ordinance or resolution, the same shall be presumed consistent
with law and therefore valid.
In this case, petitioners maintain that the subject ordinance cannot be deemed approved
through the mere passage of time considering that the same is still pending with the
Committee on Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of the SP. It, however, bears to note that more
than 30 days have already elapsed from the time the said ordinance was submitted to the
latter for review by the SB; hence, it should be deemed approved and valid pursuant to
Section 56 (d) above. As properly observed by the CA:
Par. (d) should be read in conjunction with par. (c), in order to arrive at the meaning of the
disputed word, "action." It is clear, based on the foregoing provision, that the action that
must be entered in the minutes of the sangguniang panlalawigan is the declaration of the
sangguniang panlalawigan that the ordinance is invalid in whole or in part. x x x.
On the Presumption of Validity...
We have a right to assume that officials have done that which the law requires them to do,
in the absence of positive proof to the contrary. The lack of a public hearing is a negative
allegation essential to petitioner's cause of action in the present case. Hence, as petitioner is
the party asserting it, she has the burden of proof. Since petitioner failed to rebut the
presumption of validity in favor of the subject ordinances and to discharge the burden of
proving that no public hearings were conducted prior to the enactment thereof, we are
constrained to uphold their constitutionality or legality.
On Petitioner’s Title and Cause of Action...
Petitioners have not shown any valid title to the property in dispute to be entitled to its
possession. Besides, the RTC’s order directing the removal of the structures built by
petitioners on Capayas Island without building permits was not appealed. As such, the same
should now be deemed as final and conclusive upon them.