9/22/23, 10:35 AM G.R. No.

187378

Today is Friday, September 22, 2023

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 187378 September 30, 2013

RAMONITO O. ACAAC, PETALFOUNDATION, INC., APOLINARIO M. ELORDE, HECTOR ACAAC, and ROMEO
BULAWIN, Petitioners,
vs.
MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor, and MARIETES B. BONALOS, in her capacity as
Municipal Engineer and Building Official-Designate, both of Lopez Jaena Municipality, Misamis Occidental,
Respondents.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated September 30, 2008 and Resolution3 dated
March 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 00284-MIN which reversed and set aside the
Decision4 dated November 26, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Branch 2 (RTC) in Civil Case No.
4684 for injunction.

The Facts

Petitioner People’s Eco-Tourism and Livelihood Foundation, Inc.(PETAL) is a non-governmental organization,

founded by petitioner Ramonito O. Acaac, which is engaged in the protection and conservation of ecology, tourism,
and livelihood projects within Misamis Occidental.5 In line with its objectives, PETAL built some cottages made of
indigenous materials on Capayas Island (a 1,605 square meter islet) in 1995 as well as a seminar cottage in 20016
which it rented out to the public and became the source of livelihood of its beneficiaries,7 among whom are
petitioners Hector Acaac and Romeo Bulawin.

On April 11 and May 20, 2002, however, respondents Mayor Melquiades D. Azcuna, Jr. (Azcuna) and Building
Official Marietes B. Bonalos issued separate Notices of Illegal Construction against PETAL for its failure to apply for
a building permit prior to the construction of its buildings in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1096,8 otherwise
known as the "National Building Code of the Philippines," ordering it to stop all illegal building activities on Capayas
Island. When PETAL failed to comply with the requirements for the issuance of a building permit, a Third and Final
Notice of Illegal Construction was issued by respondents against it on July 8, 2002,9 but still the same remained
unheeded.

It was also on July 8, 2002 that the Sangguniang Bayan of Lopez Jaena (SB) adopted Municipal Ordinance No. 02,
Series of 200210 (subject ordinance) which prohibited, among others: (a) the entry of any entity, association,
corporation or organization inside the sanctuaries;11 and (b) the construction of any structures, permanent or
temporary, on the premises, except if authorized by the local government.12 On July 12, 2002, Azcuna approved the
subject ordinance; hence, the same was submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Misamis Occidental (SP),
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.13

On August 23, 2002, a Notice of Voluntary Demolition was served upon PETAL directing it to remove the structures
it built on Capayas Island. Among the reasons cited was its violation of the subject ordinance. A similar notice was
also served against individual petitioners on October 25, 2002.

On October 29, 2002, petitioners filed an action praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order, injunction
and damages15 against respondents before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 4684, alleging that they have prior
vested rights to occupy and utilize Capayas Island. PETAL claimed that its predecessors-in-interest have been in
possession thereof since 1961, with whom it entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for the operation of the said
island as a camping, tourism, and recreational resort; thus, the issuance of the subject ordinance was prejudicial to
their interest as they were deprived of their livelihood. Moreover, PETAL assailed the validity of the subject
ordinance 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 Republic Act No.7160,16 otherwise known as "The

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_187378_2013.html 1/6
9/22/23, 10:35 AM G.R. No. 187378
Local Government Code of 1991" (LGC);and (c) it was not approved by the SP. Therefore, its implementation should
be enjoined.17

In their Answer,18 respondents averred that petitioners have no cause of action against them since they are not the
lawful owners or lessees of Capayas Island, which was classified as timberland and property belonging to the public
domain. Further, they maintained that they have complied with all the publication and hearing requirements for the
passage of the subject ordinance, which 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.

The RTC Ruling

On November 26, 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision19 declaring the subject ordinance as invalid/void based on
the following grounds: (a) PETAL’s protest has not been resolved and that the subject ordinance was not duly
approved by the SP; (b) the said ordinance was not published in a newspaper of general circulation nor was it
posted in public places; (c) Capayas Island is classified as timberland, hence, not suited to be a bird or fish
sanctuary; and (d) the authority and control over timberlands belong to the national government, through the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).20 Based on the foregoing, respondents were ordered,
among others, to desist from closing Capayas Island to the public.21 However, the petitioners were ordered to
remove the structures they built thereon without valid building permits22 since they were found to have no title over
the disputed property.23

Aggrieved, respondents appealed the foregoing pronouncement before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
00284-MIN.

The Proceedings Before the CA

On September 30, 2008, the CA rendered a Decision24 granting respondents’ appeal.

Contrary to the RTC’s ruling, it held that the subject ordinance was deemed approved upon failure of the SP to
declare the same invalid within30 days after its submission in accordance with Section 56 of the LGC.25 It also gave
credence to Azcuna’s testimony that the subject ordinance was posted and published in conspicuous places in their
municipality, and in the bulletin board.26 Moreover, public consultations were conducted with various groups before
the subject ordinance was passed.27 The CA further ruled that the Municipality of Lopez Jaena was vested with
sufficient power and authority to pass and adopt the subject ordinance under Section 447 in relation to Section 16 of
the LGC.28 Therefore, it is not only the DENR that could create and administer sanctuaries.29 Having enacted the
subject ordinance within its powers as a municipality and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, the
CA pronounced that the subject ordinance is valid.30

On the other hand, the CA upheld the RTC’s finding that petitioner shave no proprietary rights over the Capayas
Island, thereby rendering their action for injunction improper.31

Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration32 therefrom was denied by the CA in a Resolution33 dated March 9, 2009.
Hence, the instant petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue in this case is whether or not the subject ordinance is valid and enforceable against
petitioners.34

The Court’s Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

Section 56 of the LGC provides:

SEC. 56. Review of Component City and Municipal Ordinances or Resolutions by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. –
(a) Within three (3) days after approval, the secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan shall
forward to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for review, copies of approved ordinances and the resolutions approving
the local development plans and public investment programs formulated by the local development councils.

(b) Within thirty (30) days after receipt of copies of such ordinances and resolutions, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan shall examine the documents or transmit them to the provincial attorney, or if there be none, to
the provincial prosecutor for prompt examination. The provincial attorney or provincial prosecutor shall, within
a period of ten (10) days from receipt of the documents, inform the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in writing his
comments or recommendations, which may be considered by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in making its
decision.

(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.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_187378_2013.html 2/6
9/22/23, 10:35 AM G.R. No. 187378
(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.35 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;36 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.

This construction would be more in consonance with the rule of statutory construction that the parts of a statute
must be read together in such a manner as to give effect to all of them and that such parts shall not be construed as
contradicting each other. x x x laws are given a reasonable construction such that apparently conflicting provisions
are allowed to stand and given effect by reconciling them, reference being had to the moving spirit behind the
enactment of the statute.37

Neither can the Court give credence to petitioners’ contentions that the subject ordinance was not published nor
posted in accordance with the provisions of the LGC.38 It is noteworthy that petitioners’ own evidence reveals that a
public hearing39 was conducted prior to the promulgation of the subject ordinance. Moreover, other than their bare
allegations, petitioners failed to present any evidence to show that no publication or posting of the subject ordinance
was made. In contrast, Azcuna had testified that they have complied with the publication and posting
requirements.40 While it is true that he likewise failed to submit any other evidence thereon, still, in accordance with
the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance, its constitutionality or legality should be upheld in the absence of
any controverting evidence that the procedure prescribed by law was not observed in its enactment. Likewise,
petitioners had the burden of proving their own allegation, which they, however, failed to do. In the similar case of
Figuerres v. CA,41 citing United States v. Cristobal,42 the Court upheld the presumptive validity of the ordinance
therein despite the lack of controverting evidence on the part of the local government to show that public hearings
were conducted in light of: (a) the oppositor’s equal lack of controverting evidence to demonstrate the local
government’s non-compliance with the said public hearing; and (b) the fact that the local government’s non-
compliance was a negative allegation essential to the oppositor’s cause of action:

However, it is noteworthy that apart from her bare assertions, petitioner Figuerres has not presented any evidence
to show that no public hearings were conducted prior to the enactment of the ordinances in question. On the other
hand, the Municipality of Mandaluyong claims that public hearings were indeed conducted before the subject
ordinances were adopted, although it likewise failed to submit any evidence to establish this allegation. However, in
accordance with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance, their constitutionality or legality should be
upheld in the absence of evidence showing that the procedure prescribed by law was not observed in their
enactment. In an analogous case, United States v. Cristobal, it was alleged that the ordinance making it a crime for
anyone to obstruct waterways had not been submitted by the provincial board as required by §§2232-2233 of the
Administrative Code. In rejecting this contention, the Court held:

From the judgment of the Court of First Instance the defendant appealed to this court upon the theory that the
ordinance in question was adopted without authority on the part of the municipality and was therefore
unconstitutional. The appellant argues that there was no proof adduced during the trial of the cause showing that
said ordinance had been approved by the provincial board. Considering the provisions of law that it is the duty of the
provincial board to approve or disapprove ordinances adopted by the municipal councils of the different
municipalities, we will assume, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the law has been complied with.

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.

Furthermore, 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.43 (Emphases supplied, citation omitted)

All told, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the CA in upholding the validity of the subject ordinance.

In any event, petitioners have not shown any valid title44 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 30, 2008 and Resolution dated March 9,
2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00284-MIN are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_187378_2013.html 3/6
9/22/23, 10:35 AM G.R. No. 187378
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

ATTE STATI O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

C E RTI F I CATI O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation,

I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 9-22.

2
Id. at 31-46. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson, with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and
Michael P. Elbinias, concurring.

3 Id. at 25-29.

4 Id. at 55-71. Penned by Judge Bernadette S. Paredes-Encinareal.

5
Id. at 32.
6 Id. at 11.

7 Id. at 32-33.

8
"ADOPTING A NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (NBCP) THEREBY REVISING
REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED SIXTY-FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-ONE (R.A. NO. 6541)."

9 Rollo , p. 34.

10 Records, pp. 28-29. Entitled "AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CAPAYAS ISLAND AND ITS
SURROUNDINGS, MANSABAY BAJO AND SIBULA AS BIRDS, FISH AND SHELLS SANCTUARY
LOCATED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL WATERS OF LOPEZ JAENA WITH A TOTAL AREA OF SIXTY THREE
POINT ONE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN (63.197) HECTARES, THREE (3) HECTARES AND THREE (3)
HECTARES RESPECTIVELY."
11
Rollo, pp. 33-34.
12 Records, p. 28. See subject ordinance.

13 Rollo, pp. 34-35.

14
Id. at 35.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_187378_2013.html 4/6
9/22/23, 10:35 AM G.R. No. 187378
15 Id. at 36.

16
"AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991."
17 Records, p. 5.

18 Id. at 76-81.

19
Rollo , pp. 55-71.
20 Id. at 67-68.

21 Id. at 71.

22
Id.
23 Id. at 70.

24 Id. at 31-46.

25
Id. at 39-40.
26 Id. at 40-41.

27 Id. at 43.

28
Id. at 42.
29 Id. at 43.

30 Id. at 42-43.

31
Id. at 45.
32 Id. at 47-53.

33
Id. at 25-29.
34 Id. at 13.

35 See id. at 14-15.

36
Id. at 14.
37 Id. at 38-39.

38 SEC. 511. Posting and Publication of Ordinances with Penal Sanctions. – (a) ordinances with penal
sanctions shall be posted at prominent places in the provincial capitol, city, municipal or Barangay hall, as the
case may be, for a minimum period of three (3) consecutive weeks. Such ordinances shall also be published
in a newspaper of general circulation, where available, within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government
unit concerned, except in the case of Barangay ordinances. Unless otherwise provided therein, said
ordinances shall take effect on the day following its publication, or at the end of the period of posting,
whichever occurs later.

xxxx
39
Records, p. 60. A "dialogue-consultation" was conducted by the SB on June 13, 2002.
40 Rollo, pp. 40-41.

41 364 Phil. 683(1999).

42
34 Phil. 825 (1916).
43 Figuerres v. CA, supra note 41, at 692-693.

44 Rollo, p. 70.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_187378_2013.html 5/6
9/22/23, 10:35 AM G.R. No. 187378

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/sep2013/gr_187378_2013.html 6/6