1 PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., and LA MALLORCA, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.

MUNICIPALITY OF TARLAC,
PROVINCE OF TARLAC, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. L-15759. December 30, 1961.]

Principle:
Zoning is governmental regulation of the uses of land and buildings according to districts or zones. It is
comprehensive where it is governed by a single plan for the entire municipality and prevails throughout the
municipality in accordance with that plan. It is partial or limited where it is applicable only to a certain part of the
municipality or to certain uses. Fire limits, height districts, and building regulations are forms of partial or limited
zoning or use regulation that are antecedents of modern comprehensive zoning. (pp. 11-12.)

Facts:
On 6 May 1952 Pampanga Bus Company, Inc., a private corporation, and La Mallorca, a partnership, brought an
action in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac against the Municipality of Tarlac, Province of Tarlac, to have
Ordinance No. 1 and Resolution No. 323 passed and adopted by the Municipal Council of the defendant
municipality on 21 January and 27 October 1952 declared null and void. This ordinance prohibited the
establishment of bus or freight terminals from the intersection of F. Tañedo and Zamora streets to the
intersection of F. Tañedo street and the national highway, allowing the owners or operators of bus or freight
terminals already existing and operating in the said area a period of thirty days from the date of the adoption.

Upon the filing of their complaint, the plaintiffs applied for a writ of preliminary injunction. However, on November
9, 1952, the defendant objected to the plaintiff's application for a writ of preliminary injunction contending that
the enforcement of the ordinance in question. would not cause great injury to the plaintiffs because there were
many vacant spaces outside town where they could transfer their bus terminal. However, this was denied by the
defendant contending that the enforcement of the ordinance in question would not cause great or irreparable
injury to the plaintiffs because there were many vacant spaces outside the town where they could transfer their
bus terminal.

Issue:
(1) Whether Ordinance 1 and Resolution No.323 passed and adopted by the Municipality of Tarlac is a valid
exercise of the powers granted to the municipality under the general welfare clause, section 2238 of the Revised
Administrative Code?
(2) Whether the plaintiff’s bus terminal on F. Tañedo Street is a nuisance.

Ruling:
No, it is not. This is because nowhere in the ordinance is any reference made to zoning. It does not appear
whether it creates a residential zone an industrial zone, a fire district, or another kind of zone. The ordinance
simply recites that all bus or freight truck terminals existing and operating at the time of the promulgation of the
ordinance should be removed and transferred to another place within 30 days (6 months as amended by the
Provincial Board). There is, therefore, no rational basis for the said ordinance as a zoning ordinance. The
regulations for the conduct, control, and operation of garages that a Municipal Council may promulgate should
not encroach upon the legitimate and lawful exercise by the citizens of their property rights.

No, it is not. The only and real reason why the defendant intends to prohibit in passing of the ordinance is the
turning of the plaintiff’s buses in going in and out of the said terminal. What caused traffic in the prescribed area
was the U-turns being made by the buses, midget buses, and jeepneys and not the buses of the plaintiff going
inside and outside the terminal. The appellees' bus terminal building is built of strong materials and equipped
with modern facilities; it occupies an area big enough to allow the entry and exit of the vehicles without
maneuvering outside of the premises. It also helps relieve pedestrian congestion on the sidewalks.
2 CRISOSTOMO B. AQUINO, petitioner, vs. MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN, respondents.
[G.R. No. 211356. September 29, 2014.]

Principle:
Article 694 of the Civil Code defines "nuisance" as any act, omission, establishment, business, condition or
property, or anything else that (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; (2) annoys or offends
the senses; (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; (4) obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property.

Facts:
The petitioner is the president and chief executive officer of Boracay Island West Cove Management
Philippines, Inc. (Boracay West Cove). On January 7, 2010, the company applied for a zoning compliance with
the municipal government of Malay, Aklan. 2 While the company was already operating a resort in the area, the
application sought the issuance of a building permit covering the construction of a three-storey hotel over a
parcel of land measuring 998 sq.m. located in Sitio Diniwid, Barangay Balagab, Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan,
which is covered by a Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) issued by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in favor of Boracay West Cove.

Through a Decision on Zoning dated January 20, 2010, the Municipal Zoning Administrator denied the
petitioner's application on the ground that the proposed construction site was within the "no build zone"
demarcated in Municipal Ordinance 2000-131. In due time, the petitioner appealed the denial action to the
Office of the Mayor on February 1, 2010. On May 13, 2010, petitioner followed up his appeal through a letter but
no action was ever taken by the respondent mayor. Meanwhile, the petitioner continued with the construction,
expansion, and operation of the resort hotel despite his non-compliance with the permit, clearance, and
zoning requirements for the building constructions which violated the National Building Code of the
Philippines. Subsequently, on March 28, 2011, a Cease and Desist Order was issued by the municipal
government, enjoining the expansion of the resort Aklan issued the assailed EO 10 on June 7, 2011, ordering the
closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove's hotel.

Issue:
(1) Whether or not the respondent mayor committed grave abuse of discretion when he issued EO 10.
(a) Whether or not the petitioner’s right to due process was violated when the respondent mayor ordered
the closure and demolition of the petitioner’s hotel without first conducting judicial proceedings.
(b) Whether or not the LGU's refusal to issue the petitioner the necessary building permit and clearances
was justified. (Very Important Part of the Case)
(c) Whether or not the petitioner's rights under the FLAgT prevail over the municipal ordinance providing
for a no-build zone.
(d) Whether or not the DENR has primary jurisdiction over the controversy, not the LGU.

Ruling:
(1) No, he did not commit grave abuse of discretion. the office of the mayor has quasi-judicial powers to order
the closing and demolition of establishments. In the case at bench, the assailed EO 10 was issued upon the
respondent mayor's finding that Boracay West Cove's construction, expansion, and operation of its hotel in
Malay, Aklan is illegal. spite the hotel's classification as a nuisance per accidens, however, We still find in this
case that the LGU may nevertheless properly order the hotel's demolition. This is because, in the exercise of
police power and the general welfare clause, 18 property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints
and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government. One such piece of legislation is the LGC, which
authorizes city and municipal governments, acting through their local chief executives, to issue demolition
orders. Under existing laws, the office of the mayor is given powers not only relative to its function as the
executive official of the town; it has also been endowed with authority to hear issues involving property rights
of individuals and to come out with an effective order or resolution thereon.
 (a) The petitioner’s right to due process was not violated. In the case at bench, the due process
requirement is deemed to have been sufficiently complied with.
(i) First, basic is the rule that public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance
of their duties. 22 The burden is on the petitioner herein to prove that Boracay West Cove was
deprived of the opportunity to be heard before EO 10 was issued. Regrettably, copies of the
Cease and Desist Order issued by the LGU and of the assailed EO 10 itself were never attached
to the petition before this Court.
(ii) Second, as quoted by petitioner in his petition before the CA, the assailed EO 10 states that
petitioner received notices from the municipality government on March 7 and 28, 2011, requiring
Boracay West Cove to comply with the zoning ordinance, and yet it failed to do so.
(iii) Third, the observance of the 10-day allowance for the owner to demolish the hotel was never
questioned by petitioner so there is no need to discuss the same. Verily, the only grounds
invoked by petitioner in crying due process violation are (1) the absence of a court order prior to
demolition and (2) the municipal government's exercise of jurisdiction over the controversy
instead of the DENR. The hotel was demolished not exactly because it is a nuisance but because
it failed to comply with the legal requirements prior to construction.

(b) Yes, it was justified. No build zones are intended for the protection of the public because the stability of
the ground's foundation is adversely affected by the nearby body of water. The area's exposure to
potential geo-hazards cannot be ignored and ample protection to the residents of Malay, Aklan should
be afforded. The hotel is classified as a nuisance per accidens due to its location and not its inherent
qualities since it was constructed in a no-build zone. He had no right to build it there.

(c) No, it does not prevail. Aside from complying with the provisions in the FLAgT granted by the DENR, it
was incumbent on the petitioner to likewise comply with the no-build zone restriction under Municipal
Ordinance 2000-131, which was already in force even before the FLAgT was entered into. On this point, it
is well to stress that Sections 6 and 8 of the Ordinance do not exempt the petitioner from complying
with the restrictions since these provisions adverted to grant exemptions from the ban on
constructions on slopes and swamps, not on the no-build zone. The rights granted to the petitioner
under the FLAgT are not unbridled. Forestlands, although under the management of the DENR, are not
exempt from the territorial application of municipal laws, for local government units legitimately
exercise their powers of government over their defined territorial jurisdiction.

(d) No, it does not. The fact that the building to be demolished is located within a forestland under the
administration of the DENR is of no moment, for what is involved herein, strictly speaking, is not an
issue on environmental protection, conservation of natural resources, and the maintenance of
ecological balance, but the legality or illegality of the structure. Rather than treating this as an
environmental issue then, focus should not be diverted from the root cause of this debacle —
compliance.

Legal Jargons and Their Definitions

(b) Nuisance Per Accidens- that which depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its
existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal
authorized to decide whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance.

(c) Writ of Preliminary Injunction- a legal order issued by a court that temporarily prohibits a party from
taking certain actions until a final decision is made in a case. It is typically issued at the beginning of a
lawsuit to maintain the status quo and prevent irreparable harm while the case is being litigated.

(d) Judicial Function- where a party has the power to determine what the law is and what legal rights of
the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of
the parties
 (e) Quasi-Judicial Function- a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public administrative
officers or bodies . . . required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and
draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial
nature.

Relevant Ordinances and Laws Referenced:

(1) Ordinance 2000-131

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Ordinance, the following words shall mean as follows:

(b) No Build Zone — the space twenty-five (25) meters from the edge of the mean high water mark measured
inland;

SECTION 3. No building or structure of any kind whether temporary or permanent shall be allowed to be set up,
erected or constructed on the beaches around the Island of Boracay and in its offshore waters. During the
conduct of special activities or special events, the Sangguniang Bayan may, through a Resolution, authorize
the Office of the Mayor to issue Special Permits for construction of temporary structures on the beach for the
duration of the special activity as embodied in the Resolution.

SECTION 9. Permits and Clearances

(a) No building or structure shall be allowed to start construction unless a Building Permit therefore has been
duly issued by the Office of the Municipal Engineer. Once issued, the building owner or any person in charge of
the construction shall display on the lot or on the building undergoing construction a placard containing the
Building Permit Number and the date of its issue. The office of the Municipal Engineer shall not issue any
building permit unless:

1. The proposed construction has been duly issued a Zoning Clearance by the Office of the Municipal Zoning
Officer; 2. The proposed construction has been duly endorsed by the Sangguniang Bayan through a Letter of
Endorsement.

(b) Only buildings/structures which has complied with all the requirements for its construction as verified to by
the Building Inspector and the Sangguniang Bayan shall be issued a Certificate of Occupancy by the Office of
the Municipal Engineer.

(c) No Business or Mayor's Permit shall be issued to businesses being undertaken on buildings or structures
which were not issued a certificate of Occupancy beginning January 2001 and thereafter.

SECTION 10. Penalties. —

(e) Any building, structure, or contraption erected in any public place within the Municipality of Malay such as
but not limited to streets, thoroughfares, sidewalks, plazas, beaches or in any other public place are hereby
declared as nuisance and illegal structure. Such building structure or contraption shall be demolished by the
owner thereof or any of his authorized representative within ten (10) days from receipt of the notice to
demolish. Failure or refusal on the part of the owner or any of his authorized representative to demolish the
illegal structure within the period herein above specified shall automatically authorize the government of the
Municipality of Malay to demolish the same, gather and keep the construction materials of the demolished
structure.
(2) Sec. 444 (b) (3) (vi) of the LGC (Local Government Code)

(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfare of the
municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the municipal mayor shall:

(3) Initiate and maximize the generation of resources and revenues, and apply the same to the implementation
of development plans, program objectives and priorities as provided for under Section 18 of this Code,
particularly those resources and revenues programmed for agro-industrial development and country-wide
growth and progress, and relative thereto, shall:

(vi) Require owners of illegally constructed houses, buildings or other structures to obtain the necessary
permit, subject to such fines and penalties as may be imposed by law or ordinance, or to make necessary
changes in the construction of the same when said construction violates any law or ordinance, or to order the
demolition or removal of said house, building or structure within the period prescribed by law or ordinance.