Aquino V Municipality of Malay Aklan

2/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
G.R. No. 211356. September 29, 2014.*

CRISOSTOMO B. AQUINO, petitioner, vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN, represented by
HON. MAYOR JOHN P. YAP, SANGGUNIANG BAYAN
OF MALAY, AKLAN, represented by HON. EZEL
FLORES, DANTE PASUGUIRON, ROWEN AGUIRRE,
WILBEC GELITO, JUPITER GALLENERO, OFFICE OF
THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE
MUNICIPAL TREASURER, BORACAY PNP CHIEF,
BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC., represented by
NENETTE GRAF, MUNICIPAL AUXILIARY POLICE,
and JOHN and JANE DOES, respondents.
Remedial Law; Actions; Special Civil Actions; Declaratory

Relief; An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has
been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of the rights
arising thereunder.—An action for declaratory relief presupposes
that there has been no actual breach of the instruments involved
or of the rights arising thereunder. Since the purpose of an action
for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the
rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, or
contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or
compliance therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an
alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained before the breach or
violation of the statute, deed or contract to which it refers. A
petition for declaratory relief gives a practical remedy for ending
controversies that have not reached the state where another relief
is immediately available; and supplies the need for a form of
action that will set controversies at rest before they lead to a
repudiation of obligations, an invasion of rights, and a commission
of wrongs.
Same; Same; Certiorari; Requisites for Certiorari to Prosper.
—For certiorari to prosper, the petitioner must establish the
concurrence of the following requisites, namely: 1. The writ is
directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions; 2. Such tribunal, board, or officer has
acted with-
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017002ba887dd64200e7003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/30
146
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Aquino vs. Municipality of Malay, Aklan
out or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and 3. There
is no appeal or any plain speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law.
Same; “Judicial Function” and “Quasi-Judicial Function,”
Distinguished.—To contrast, a party is said to be exercising a
judicial function where he 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, whereas quasi-judicial function is “a term
which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public
administrative officers or bodies x x x 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.” 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. Such a finding of illegality
required the respondent mayor’s exercise of quasi-judicial
functions, against which the special writ of certiorari may lie.
Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; It is inadequacy, not
the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of
failure of justice without the writ, that must usually determine the
propriety of certiorari.—In a litany of cases, We have held that it
is inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other legal remedies
and the danger of failure of justice without the writ, that must
usually determine the propriety of certiorari. A remedy is plain,
speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from
the injurious effects of the judgment, order, or resolution of the
lower court or agency. It is understood, then, that a litigant need
not mark time by resorting to the less speedy remedy of appeal in
order to have an order annulled and set aside for being patently
void for failure of the trial court to comply with the Rules of
Court.
Civil Law; Nuisance; Words and Phrases; 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
147
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 147

street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use

of property.—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.
Same; Same; No Build Zones; In establishing a no build zone
through local legislation, the Local Government Unit (LGU)
effectively made a determination that constructions therein,
without first securing exemptions from the local council, qualify as
nuisances for they pose a threat to public safety.—In establishing a
no build zone through local legislation, the LGU effectively made
a determination that constructions therein, without first securing
exemptions from the local council, qualify as nuisances for they
pose a threat to public safety. 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
ever present threat of high rising storm surges also justifies the
ban on permanent constructions near the shoreline. Indeed, the
area’s exposure to potential geo-hazards cannot be ignored and
ample protection to the residents of Malay, Aklan should be
afforded.
Same; Same; Nuisances are of two kinds: nuisance per se and
nuisance per accidens.—As jurisprudence elucidates, nuisances
are of two kinds: nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens. The
first is recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances,
because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or safety,
and, for that reason, may be abated summarily under the
undefined law of necessity. The second is 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.
Same; Same; No Build Zones; Had it not been constructed in
the no build zone, Boracay West Cove could have secured the
necessary permits without issue. As such, petitioner is correct that
the hotel is not a nuisance per se, but to the Court’s mind, it is still
a nuisance per accidens.—In the case at bar, the hotel, in itself,
cannot be con-
148

sidered as a nuisance per se since this type of nuisance is

generally defined as an act, occupation, or structure, which is a
nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless
of location or surrounding. Here, it is merely the hotel’s
particular incident –– its location –– and not its inherent qualities
that rendered it a nuisance. Otherwise stated, had it not been
constructed in the no build zone, Boracay West Cove could have
secured the necessary permits without issue. As such, petitioner
is correct that the hotel is not a nuisance per se, but to Our mind,
it is still a nuisance per accidens.
Same; Same; Same; Despite the hotel’s classification as a
nuisance per accidens, however, the Supreme Court (SC) still finds
in this case that the Local Government Unit (LGU) may
nevertheless properly order the hotel’s demolition. This is because,
in the exercise of police power and the general welfare clause,
property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and
burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government.—
Despite 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, property
rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens
in order to fulfill the objectives of the government. Otherwise
stated, the government may enact legislation that may interfere
with personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations
to promote the general welfare.
Same; Same; 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.—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. Pertinent herein
is Sec. 444(b)(3)(vi) of the LGC, which empowered the mayor to
order the closure and removal of illegally constructed

establishments for failing to secure the necessary permits.
149
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 149

Same; Same; Petitioner admittedly failed to secure the

necessary permits, clearances, and exemptions before the
construction, expansion, and operation of Boracay Wet Cove’s hotel
in Malay, Aklan.—In the case at bar, petitioner admittedly failed
to secure the necessary permits, clearances, and exemptions
before the construction, expansion, and operation of Boracay Wet
Cove’s hotel in Malay, Aklan. To recall, petitioner declared that
the application for zoning compliance was still pending with the
office of the mayor even though construction and operation were
already ongoing at the same time. As such, it could no longer be
denied that petitioner openly violated Municipal Ordinance 2000-
131.
Same; Same; Mandamus; Instead of taking the law into his
own hands, petitioner could have filed, as an alternative, a petition
for mandamus to compel the respondent mayor to exercise
discretion and resolve the controversy pending before his office.—
Instead of taking the law into his own hands, petitioner could
have filed, as an alternative, a petition for mandamus to compel
the respondent mayor to exercise discretion and resolve the
controversy pending before his office. There is indeed an exception
to the rule that matters involving judgment and discretion are
beyond the reach of a writ of mandamus, for such writ may be
issued to compel action in those matters, when refused. Whether
or not the decision would be for or against petitioner would be for
the respondent mayor to decide, for while mandamus may be
invoked to compel the exercise of discretion, it cannot compel such
discretion to be exercised in a particular way. What would have
been important was for the respondent mayor to immediately
resolve the case for petitioner to be able to go through the motions
that the zoning clearance application process entailed.
Same; Same; Illegal Constructions; Under the law, insofar as
illegal constructions are concerned, the mayor can, after satisfying
the requirement of due notice and hearing, order their closure and
demolition.—Petitioner opted to defy the zoning administrator’s
ruling. He consciously chose to violate not only the Ordinance but
also Sec. 301 of PD 1096, laying down the requirement of building
permits, which provides: Section 301. Building Permits.—No
person, firm or corporation, including any agency or
instrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter,
repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or

cause the same to be done
150

without first obtaining a building permit therefor from the

Building Official assigned in the place where the subject building
is located or the building work is to be done. This twin violation of
law and ordinance warranted the LGU’s invocation of Sec. 444(b)
(3)(vi) of the LGC, which power is separate and distinct from the
power to summarily abate nuisances per se. Under the law,
insofar as illegal constructions are concerned, the mayor can,
after satisfying the requirement of due notice and hearing, order
their closure and demolition.
Same; Same; No Build Zones; The hotel’s incident that
qualified it as a nuisance per accidens — its being constructed
within the no build zone — further resulted in the non-issuance of
the necessary permits and clearances, which is a ground for
demolition under the Local Government Code (LGC). Under the
premises, a court order that is required under normal
circumstances is hereby dispensed with.—Given the presence of
the requirements under Sec. 444 (b)(3)(vi) of the LGC, whether
the building constituted a nuisance per se or a nuisance per
accidens becomes immaterial. The hotel was demolished not
exactly because it is a nuisance but because it failed to comply
with the legal requirements prior to construction. It just so
happened that, in the case at bar, the hotel’s incident that
qualified it as a nuisance per accidens –– its being constructed
within the no build zone –– further resulted in the non-issuance of
the necessary permits and clearances, which is a ground for
demolition under the LGC. Under the premises, a court order that
is required under normal circumstances is hereby dispensed with.
Same; Forestlands; Forestlands, although under the
management of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (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.—The rights granted to 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. Furthermore, the conditions set forth in the FLAgT
and the limitations circumscribed in the ordinance are not
mutually exclusive and are, in fact, cumulative.
151
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 151

Same; National Building Code; Petitioner has no valid reason

for its failure to secure a building permit pursuant to Sec. 301 of
the National Building Code (NBC).—Aside from complying with
the provisions in the FLAgT granted by the DENR, it was
incumbent on 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 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.
Additionally, the FLAgT does not excuse petitioner from
complying with PD 1096. As correctly pointed out by respondents,
the agreement cannot and will not amend or change the law
because a legislative act cannot be altered by mere contractual
agreement. Hence, petitioner has no valid reason for its failure to
secure a building permit pursuant to Sec. 301 of the National
Building Code.
Same; Demolition; No Build Zones; Based on law and
jurisprudence, the office of the mayor has quasi-judicial powers to
order the closing and demolition of establishments.—Based on law
and jurisprudence, the office of the mayor has quasi-judicial
powers to order the closing and demolition of establishments. This
power granted by the LGC, as earlier explained, We believe, is not
the same power devolved in favor of the LGU under Sec. 17(b)(2)
(ii), as above quoted, which is subject to review by the DENR. 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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Florante C. Roxas for petitioner.
152

VELASCO, JR., J.:

Nature of the Case

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
challenging the Decision1 and the Resolution of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 120042 dated August
13, 2013 and February 3, 2014, respectively. The assailed
rulings denied Crisostomo Aquino’s Petition for Certiorari
for not being the proper remedy to question the issuance
and implementation of Executive Order No. 10, Series of
2011 (EO 10), ordering the demolition of his hotel
establishment.

The Facts

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 petitioner’s
application on the ground that the proposed construction
site was
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 49-60. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-

Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L.
Hernando and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.

2 Id., at p. 65.
153
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 153

within the “no build zone” demarcated in Municipal

Ordinance 2000-131 (Ordinance).3 As provided in the
Ordinance:
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms.—As used in this Ordinance,

the following words, terms and phrases shall mean as follows:
x x x x
(b) No Build Zone — the space twenty-five (25) meters from the
edge of the mean high water mark measured inland;
x x x x
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.

In due time, 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. On April 5, 2011, however, a Notice of
Assessment was sent to petitioner asking for the
settlement of Boracay West Cove’s unpaid taxes and other
liabilities under pain of a recommendation for closure in
view of its continuous commercial operation since 2009
sans the necessary zoning clearance, building permit, and
business and mayor’s permit. In reply, petitioner expressed
willingness to settle the company’s obligations, but the
municipal treasurer refused to accept the tendered
payment. Meanwhile, petitioner continued with the
construction, expansion, and operation of the resort hotel.
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 196-198.
154

Subsequently, on March 28, 2011, a Cease and Desist

Order was issued by the municipal government, enjoining
the expansion of the resort, and on June 7, 2011, the Office
of the Mayor of Malay, Aklan issued the assailed EO 10,
ordering the closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove’s
hotel.
EO 10 was partially implemented on June 10, 2011.
Thereafter, two more instances followed wherein
respondents demolished the improvements introduced by
Boracay West Cove, the most recent of which was made in
February 2014.
Alleging that the order was issued and executed with
grave abuse of discretion, petitioner filed a Petition for
Certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief with the CA. He
argued that judicial proceedings should first be conducted
before the respondent mayor could order the demolition of
the company’s establishment; that Boracay West Cove was
granted a FLAgT by the DENR, which bestowed the
company the right to construct permanent improvements
on the area in question; that since the area is a forestland,
it is the DENR — and not the municipality of Malay, or
any other local government unit for that matter — that has
primary jurisdiction over the area, and that the Regional
Executive Director of DENR-Region 6 had officially issued
an opinion regarding the legal issues involved in the
present case; that the Ordinance admits of exceptions; and
lastly, that it is the mayor who should be blamed for not
issuing the necessary clearances in the company’s favor.
In rebuttal, respondents contended that the FLAgT does
not excuse the company from complying with the
Ordinance and Presidential Decree No. 1096 (PD 1096),
otherwise known as the National Building Code of the
Philippines. Respondents also argued that the demolition
needed no court order because the municipal mayor has the
express power under the Local Government Code (LGC) to
order the removal of illegally constructed buildings.
155
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 155

Ruling of the Court of Appeals


In its assailed Decision dated August 13, 2013, the CA
dismissed the petition solely on procedural ground, i.e., the
special writ of certiorari can only be directed against a
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions and since the issuance of EO 10 was done
in the exercise of executive functions, and not of judicial or
quasi-judicial functions, certiorari will not lie. Instead, the
proper remedy for the petitioner, according to the CA, is to
file a petition for declaratory relief with the Regional Trial
Court.
Petitioner sought reconsideration but this was denied by
the CA on February 3, 2014 through the challenged
Resolution. Hence, the instant petition raising arguments
on both procedure and substance.

The Issues

Stripped to the essentials, the pivotal issues in the
extant case are as follows:
1. The propriety under the premises of the filing
of a petition for certiorari instead of a petition for
declaratory relief;
a. Whether or not declaratory relief is still available to
petitioner;
b. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the
respondent mayor was performing neither a judicial nor
quasi-judicial function when he ordered the closure and
demolition of Boracay West Cove’s hotel.
2. Whether or not respondent mayor committed
grave abuse of discretion when he issued EO 10;
a Whether or not petitioner’s right to due process was
violated when the respondent mayor ordered
156

the closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove’s hotel

without first conducting judicial proceedings;
b. Whether or not the LGU’s refusal to issue petitioner
the necessary building permit and clearances was justified;
c. Whether or not petitioner’s rights under the FLAgT
prevail over the municipal ordinance providing for a no
build zone; and
d. Whether or not the DENR has primary jurisdiction
over the controversy, not the LGU.

The Court’s Ruling

We deny the petition.

Certiorari, not declaratory relief, is the proper
remedy

a. Declaratory relief no longer viable

Resolving first the procedural aspect of the case, We find
merit in petitioner’s contention that the special writ of
certiorari, and not declaratory relief, is the proper remedy
for assailing EO 10. As provided under Sec. 1, Rule 63 of
the Rules of Court:
SECTION 1. Who may file petition.—Any person interested

under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, whose
rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation,
ordinance or any other governmental regulation may, before
breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate
Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or
validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties,
thereunder. x x x (emphasis added)
157
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 157

An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there

has been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of
the rights arising thereunder. Since the purpose of an
action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under
a statute, deed, or contract for their guidance in the
enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not to
settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it may
be entertained before the breach or violation of the statute,
deed or contract to which it refers. A petition for
declaratory relief gives a practical remedy for ending
controversies that have not reached the state where
another relief is immediately available; and supplies the
need for a form of action that will set controversies at rest
before they lead to a repudiation of obligations, an invasion
of rights, and a commission of wrongs.4
In the case at bar, the petition for declaratory relief
became unavailable by EO 10’s enforcement and
implementation. The closure and demolition of the hotel

rendered futile any possible guidelines that may be issued
by the trial court for carrying out the directives in the
challenged EO 10. Indubitably, the CA erred when it ruled
that declaratory relief is the proper remedy given such a
situation.

b. Petitioner correctly resorted to certiorari

On the propriety of filing a petition for certiorari, Sec. 1,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 1. Petition for certiorari.—When any tribunal, board or

officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there
is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary
_______________
4 Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation v. Bonifacio, G.R.

No. 167391, June 8, 2011, 631 SCRA 327, 350-351.
158

course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified

petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. x x x

For certiorari to prosper, the petitioner must establish
the concurrence of the following requisites, namely:
1. The writ is directed against a tribunal, board, or
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
2. Such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
3. There is no appeal or any plain speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.5
Guilty of reiteration, the CA immediately dismissed the
Petition for Certiorari upon determining that the first
element is wanting — that respondent mayor was allegedly
not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions when he

issued EO 10.
We are not persuaded.
The CA fell into a trap when it ruled that a mayor, an
officer from the executive department, exercises an
executive function whenever he issues an Executive Order.
This is tad too presumptive for it is the nature of the act to
be performed, rather than of the office, board, or body
which performs it, that determines whether or not a
particular act is a discharge of judicial or quasi-judicial
functions. The first requirement for certiorari is satisfied if
the officers act judicially in making their decision,
whatever may be their public character.6
_______________
5 Yusay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156684, April 6, 2011, 647 SCRA
269, 276-277.
6 The Municipal Council of Lemery, Batangas v. The Provincial Board
of Batangas, 56 Phil. 260 (1931).
159
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 159

It is not essential that the challenged proceedings

should be strictly and technically judicial, in the sense in
which that word is used when applied to courts of justice,
but it is sufficient if they are quasi-judicial.7 To contrast, a
party is said to be exercising a judicial function where he
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, whereas quasi-judicial function is “a term which
applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public
administrative officers or bodies x x x 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.”8
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. Such a finding of illegality required
the respondent mayor’s exercise of quasi-judicial functions,
against which the special writ of certiorari may lie. Apropos
hereto is Our ruling in City Engineer of Baguio v.

Baniqued:9
There is no gainsaying that a city mayor is an executive official

nor is the matter of issuing demolition notices or orders not a
ministerial one. In determining whether or not a structure is
illegal or it should be demolished, property rights are involved
thereby needing notices and opportunity to be heard as provided
for in the constitutionally guaranteed right of due process. In
pursuit of these functions, the city mayor has to exercise quasi-
judicial powers.
_______________
7 Id.
8 Galicto v. Aquino, G.R. No. 193978, February 28, 2012, 667 SCRA
150, 167.
9 G.R. No. 150270, November 26, 2008, 571 SCRA 617, 633.
160

With the foregoing discussion, the CA erred in ruling

that the respondent mayor was merely exercising his
executive functions, for clearly, the first requisite for the
special writ has been satisfied.
Aside from the first requisite, We likewise hold that the
third element, i.e., the unavailability of a plain, speedy, or
adequate remedy, is also present herein. While it may be
argued that, under the LGC, Executive Orders issued by
mayors are subject to review by provincial governors,10 this
cannot be considered as an adequate remedy given the
exigencies of petitioner’s predicament.
In a litany of cases, We have held that it is inadequacy,
not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the
danger of failure of justice without the writ, that must
usually determine the propriety of certiorari. A remedy is
plain, speedy and adequate if it will promptly relieve the
petitioner from the injurious effects of the judgment, order,
or resolution of the lower court or agency. It is understood,
then, that a litigant need not mark time by resorting to the
less speedy remedy of appeal in order to have an order
annulled and set aside for
_______________
10 Section 30. Review of Executive Orders.—

(a) Except as otherwise provided under the Constitution and special
statutes, the governor shall review all executive orders promulgated by
the component city or municipal mayor within his jurisdiction. The city or
municipal mayor shall review all executive orders promulgated by the
punong barangay within his jurisdiction. Copies of such orders shall be
forwarded to the governor or the city or municipal mayor, as the case may
be, within three (3) days from their issuance. In all instances of review,
the local chief executive concerned shall ensure that such executive orders
are within the powers granted by law and in conformity with provincial,
city, or municipal ordinances.
(b) If the governor or the city or municipal mayor fails to act on said
executive orders within thirty (30) days after their submission, the same
shall be deemed consistent with law and therefore valid.
161
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 161

being patently void for failure of the trial court to

comply with the Rules of Court.11
Before applying this doctrine, it must first be borne in
mind that respondents in this case have already taken
measures towards implementing EO 10. In fact,
substantial segments of the hotel have already been
demolished pursuant to the mayor’s directive. It is then
understandable why petitioner prayed for the issuance of
an injunctive writ –– a provisional remedy that would
otherwise have been unavailable had he sought a reversal
from the office of the provincial governor of Aklan.
Evidently, petitioner correctly saw the urgent need for
judicial intervention via certiorari.
In light of the foregoing, the CA should have proceeded
to grab the bull by its horns and determine the existence of
the second element of certiorari –– whether or not there
was grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondents.
Upon Our finding that a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 is the appropriate remedy, We will proceed to
resolve the core issues in view of the urgency of the reliefs
prayed for in the petition.

Respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion

a. The hotel’s classification as a nuisance

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
_______________
11 Heirs of Spouses Teofilo M. Reterta and Elisa Reterta v. Spouses

Lorenzo Mores and Virginia Lopez, G.R. No. 159941, August 17, 2011, 655
SCRA 580, 594-595, citing Jaca v. Davao Lumber Company, No. L-25771,
March 29, 1982, 113 SCRA 107, 129; Metropolitan Bank and Trust
Company, Inc. v. National Wages and Productivity Commission, G.R. No.
144322, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 346; and Lu Ym v. Nabua, G.R. No.
161309, February 23, 2005, 452 SCRA 298, 311.
162

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.12
In establishing a no build zone through local legislation,
the LGU effectively made a determination that
constructions therein, without first securing exemptions
from the local council, qualify as nuisances for they pose a
threat to public safety. 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 ever present threat of high rising storm surges
also justifies the ban on permanent constructions near the
shoreline. Indeed, the area’s exposure to potential geo-
hazards cannot be ignored and ample protection to the
residents of Malay, Aklan should be afforded.
Challenging the validity of the public respondents’
actuations, petitioner posits that the hotel cannot
summarily be abated because it is not a nuisance per se,
given the hundred million peso-worth of capital infused in
the venture. Citing Asilo, Jr. v. People,13 petitioner also
argues that respondents should have first secured a court
order before proceeding with the demolition.
Preliminarily, We agree with petitioner’s posture that
the property involved cannot be classified as a nuisance per
se, but not for the reason he so offers. Property valuation,
after all, is not the litmus test for such a determination.
More controlling is the property’s nature and conditions,
which should be evaluated to see if it qualifies as a

nuisance as defined under the law.
_______________
12 Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon, G.R. No. 177807, October

11, 2011, 658 SCRA 853, 867.
13 G.R. Nos. 159017-18, 159059, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 41.
163
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 163

As jurisprudence elucidates, nuisances are of two kinds:

nuisance per se and nuisance per accidens. The first is
recognized as a nuisance under any and all circumstances,
because it constitutes a direct menace to public health or
safety, and, for that reason, may be abated summarily
under the undefined law of necessity. The second is 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.14
In the case at bar, the hotel, in itself, cannot be
considered as a nuisance per se since this type of nuisance
is generally defined as an act, occupation, or structure,
which is a nuisance at all times and under any
circumstances, regardless of location or surrounding.15
Here, it is merely the hotel’s particular incident –– its
location –– and not its inherent qualities that rendered it a
nuisance. Otherwise stated, had it not been constructed in
the no build zone, Boracay West Cove could have secured
the necessary permits without issue. As such, petitioner is
correct that the hotel is not a nuisance per se, but to Our
mind, it is still a nuisance per accidens.

b. Respondent mayor has the power to order the
demolition of illegal constructions

Generally, LGUs have no power to declare a particular
thing as a nuisance unless such a thing is a nuisance per
se.16 So it was held in AC Enterprises v. Frabelle Properties
Corp:17

We agree with petitioner’s contention that, under Section

447(a)(3)(i) of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code, the Sangguniang Panglung-
_______________
14 Salao v. Santos, 67 Phil. 550 (1939).

15 2 J.C.S. Sangco, Torts and Damages, p. 893 (1994).
16 AC Enterprises v. Frabelle Properties Corp., G.R. No. 166744,
November 2, 2006, 506 SCRA 625, 660-661.
17 Id.
164

sod is empowered to enact ordinances declaring, preventing or

abating noise and other forms of nuisance. It bears stressing,
however, that the Sangguniang Bayan cannot declare a particular
thing as a nuisance per se and order its condemnation. It does
not have the power to find, as a fact, that a particular
thing is a nuisance when such thing is not a nuisance per
se; nor can it authorize the extrajudicial condemnation
and destruction of that as a nuisance which in its nature,
situation or use is not such. Those things must be
determined and resolved in the ordinary courts of law. If a
thing, be in fact, a nuisance due to the manner of its operation,
that question cannot be determined by a mere resolution of the
Sangguniang Bayan. (emphasis supplied)

Despite 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. Otherwise stated, the
government may enact legislation that may interfere with
personal liberty, property,
_______________
18 Section 16. General Welfare.—Every local government unit shall

exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its
efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial

jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among
other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health
and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant
scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance
economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among
their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.
165
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 165

lawful businesses and occupations to promote the

general welfare.19
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.20 Pertinent herein is
Sec.
444(b)(3)(vi) of the LGC, which empowered the mayor to
order the closure and removal of illegally constructed
establishments for failing to secure the necessary permits,
to wit:
Section 444. The Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, Functions

and Compensation.—
x x x x
(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:
x x x x
(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:
x x x x
_______________
19 Supra note 12 at pp. 864-865.

20 Supra note 9.
166

(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.
(emphasis supplied)

c. Requirements for the exercise of the power are
present

i. Illegality of structures

In the case at bar, petitioner admittedly failed to secure
the necessary permits, clearances, and exemptions before
the construction, expansion, and operation of Boracay Wet
Cove’s hotel in Malay, Aklan. To recall, petitioner declared
that the application for zoning compliance was still pending
with the office of the mayor even though construction and
operation were already ongoing at the same time. As such,
it could no longer be denied that petitioner openly violated
Municipal Ordinance 2000-131, which provides:
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:
167
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 167

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.
x x x x
SECTION 10. Penalties.—
x x x x
(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. (emphasis supplied)
168

Petitioner cannot justify his position by passing the

blame onto the respondent mayor and the latter’s failure to
act on his appeal for this does not, in any way, imply that
petitioner can proceed with his infrastructure projects. On
the contrary, this only means that the decision of the
zoning administrator denying the application still
stands and that petitioner acquired no right to
construct on the no build zone. The illegality of the
construction cannot be cured by merely tendering payment

for the necessary fees and permits since the LGU’s refusal
rests on valid grounds.
Instead of taking the law into his own hands, petitioner
could have filed, as an alternative, a petition for mandamus
to compel the respondent mayor to exercise discretion and
resolve the controversy pending before his office. There is
indeed an exception to the rule that matters involving
judgment and discretion are beyond the reach of a writ of
mandamus, for such writ may be issued to compel action in
those matters, when refused. Whether or not the decision
would be for or against petitioner would be for the
respondent mayor to decide, for while mandamus may be
invoked to compel the exercise of discretion, it cannot
compel such discretion to be exercised in a particular
way.21 What would have been important was for the
respondent mayor to immediately resolve the case for
petitioner to be able to go through the motions that the
zoning clearance application process entailed.
Alas, petitioner opted to defy the zoning administrator’s
ruling. He consciously chose to violate not only the
Ordinance but also Sec. 301 of PD 1096, laying down the
requirement of building permits, which provides:
Section 301. Building Permits.—No person, firm or corporation,

including any agency or instrumentality of the government shall
erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any
building or structure or cause the same to be done without first
obtaining a building
_______________
21 Amante v. Hidalgo, 67 Phil. 338 (1939).
169
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 169

permit therefor from the Building Official assigned in the place

where the subject building is located or the building work is to be
done.

This twin violation of law and ordinance warranted the
LGU’s invocation of Sec. 444(b)(3)(vi) of the LGC, which
power is separate and distinct from the power to
summarily abate nuisances per se. Under the law, insofar
as illegal constructions are concerned, the mayor can, after

satisfying the requirement of due notice and hearing, order
their closure and demolition.

ii. Observance of procedural due process rights

In the case at bench, the due process requirement is
deemed to have been sufficiently complied with. 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,
which documents could have readily shed light on whether
or not petitioner has been accorded the 10-day grace period
provided in Section 10 of the Ordinance. In view of this
fact, the presumption of regularity must be sustained.
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.23 If such was the
case, the grace period can be deemed observed and the
establishment was already ripe for closure and demolition
by the time EO 10 was issued in June. Third, the
observance of the 10-day allowance for the owner to
demolish the
_______________
22 Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3(m).

23 Rollo, p. 88.
170

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. Therefore, it can no
longer be belatedly argued that the 10-day grace period
was not observed because to entertain the same would
result in the violation of the respondents’ own due process

rights.
Given the presence of the requirements under Sec.
444(b)(3)(vi) of the LGC, whether the building constituted a
nuisance per se or a nuisance per accidens becomes
immaterial. The hotel was demolished not exactly because
it is a nuisance but because it failed to comply with the
legal requirements prior to construction. It just so
happened that, in the case at bar, the hotel’s incident that
qualified it as a nuisance per accidens –– its being
constructed within the no build zone –– further resulted in
the non-issuance of the necessary permits and clearances,
which is a ground for demolition under the LGC. Under the
premises, a court order that is required under normal
circumstances is hereby dispensed with.

d. The FLAgT cannot prevail over the municipal
ordinance and PD 1096

Petitioner next directs our attention to the following
FLAgT provision:
VII. The SECOND PARTY may construct permanent and/or

temporary improvements or infrastructure in the FLAgT Area
necessary and appropriate for its development for tourism
purposes pursuant to the approved SMP. “Permanent
Improvements” refer to access roads, and buildings or structures
which adhere to the ground in a fixed and permanent manner. On
the other hand, “Temporary Improvements” include those which
are detachable from the foundation or the ground introduced by
the SECOND PARTY in the FLAgT Area and which the
171
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 171

SECOND PARTY may remove or dismantle upon expiration or

cancellation of this AGREEMENT x x x.24
Taken in conjunction with the exceptions laid down in

Sections 6 and 8 of the Ordinance, petitioner argues that
Boracay West Cove is exempted from securing permits
from the LGU. Said exceptions read:
SECTION 6. No building or structure shall be allowed to be

constructed on a slope Twenty-Five Percent (25%) or higher
unless provided with soil erosion protective structures and
authorized by the Department of Environment and Natural

Resources.
x x x x
SECTION 8. No building or structure shall be allowed to be
constructed on a swamp or other water-clogged areas unless
authorized by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.

According to petitioner, the fact that it was issued a
FLAgT constitutes sufficient authorization from the DENR
to proceed with the construction of the three-storey hotel.
The argument does not persuade.
The rights granted to 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.
Furthermore, the conditions set forth in the FLAgT and
the limitations circumscribed in the ordinance are not
mutually exclusive and are, in fact, cumulative. As sourced
from Sec. 447(a)(5)(i) of the LGC:
_______________
24 Id., at p. 191.
172

Section 447. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation.—

(a) The sangguniang bayan, as the legislative body of the
municipality, shall enact ordinances, approve resolutions and
appropriate funds for the general welfare of the municipality and
its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code and in the
proper exercise of the corporate powers of the municipality as
provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:
x x x x
(5) Approve ordinances which shall ensure the efficient and
effective delivery of the basic services and facilities as provided for
under Section 17 of this Code, and in addition to said services and
facilities, shall:
(i) Provide for the establishment, maintenance,
protection, and conservation of communal forests and
watersheds, tree parks, greenbelts, mangroves, and other

similar forest development projects x x x. (emphasis added)

Thus, aside from complying with the provisions in the
FLAgT granted by the DENR, it was incumbent on
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 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.
Additionally, the FLAgT does not excuse petitioner from
complying with PD 1096. As correctly pointed out by
respondents, the agreement cannot and will not amend or
change the law because a legislative act cannot be altered
by mere

173
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 173

contractual agreement. Hence, petitioner has no valid

reason for its failure to secure a building permit pursuant
to Sec. 301 of the National Building Code.

e. The DENR does not have primary jurisdiction
over the controversy

Lastly, in ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the respondent mayor, petitioner argued that the hotel
site is a forestland under the primary jurisdiction of the
DENR. As such, the merits of the case should have been
passed upon by the agency and not by the LGU. In the
alternative, petitioner explains that even if jurisdiction
over the matter has been devolved in favor of the LGU, the
DENR still has the power of review and supervision over
the former’s rulings. As cited by the petitioner, the LGC
reads:
Section 17. Basic Services and Facilities.

x x x x
(b) Such basic services and facilities include, but are not
limited to, the following:
x x x x
(2) For a Municipality:
x x x x
(ii) Pursuant to national policies and subject to
supervision, control and review of the DENR,
implementation of community-based forestry projects which
include integrated social forestry programs and similar projects;
management and control of communal forests with an area not
exceeding fifty (50) square kilometers; establishment of tree
parks, greenbelts, and similar forest development projects.
(emphasis added)
174

Petitioner has made much of the fact that in line with

this provision, the DENR Region 6 had issued an opinion
favourable to petitioner.25 To petitioner, the adverted
opinion effectively reversed the findings of the respondent
mayor that the structure introduced was illegally
constructed.
We disagree.
In alleging that the case concerns the development and
the proper use of the country’s environment and natural
resources, petitioner is skirting the principal issue, which
is Boracay West Cove’s noncompliance with the permit,
clearance, and zoning requirements for building
constructions under national and municipal laws. He
downplays Boracay West Cove’s omission in a bid to justify
ousting the LGU of jurisdiction over the case and
transferring the same to the DENR. He attempts to blow
the issue out of proportion when it all boils down to
whether or not the construction of the three-storey hotel
was supported by the necessary documentary
requirements.
Based on law and jurisprudence, the office of the mayor
has quasi-judicial powers to order the closing and
demolition of establishments. This power granted by the
LGC, as earlier explained, We believe, is not the same
power devolved in favor of the LGU under Sec. 17(b)(2)(ii),
as above quoted, which is subject to review by the DENR.
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.
_______________
25 Id., at p. 144.
175
VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 175

Ultimately, the purported power of review by a regional

office of the DENR over respondents’ actions exercised
through an instrumentality of an ex parte opinion, in this
case, finds no sufficient basis. At best, the legal opinion
rendered, though perhaps informative, is not conclusive on
the courts and should be taken with a grain of salt.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision and the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
120042 dated August 13, 2013 and February 3, 2014,
respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, Villarama, Jr., Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ.,

concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—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. (Gancayco vs. City Government
of Quezon City, 658 SCRA 853 [2011])
The Building Official has the authority to order the
condemnation and demolition of buildings which are found
to be in a dangerous or ruinous condition. (Hipolito, Jr. vs.
Cinco, 661 SCRA 312 [2011])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Aquino V Municipality of Malay Aklan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aquino V Municipality of Malay Aklan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aquino V Municipality of Malay Aklan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737

G.R. No. 211356. September 29, 2014.*

Remedial Law; Actions; Special Civil Actions; Declaratory

146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

out or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of

VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 147

street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use

148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

sidered as a nuisance per se since this type of nuisance is

order the closure and removal of illegally constructed

VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 149

Same; Same; Petitioner admittedly failed to secure the

repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or

150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

without first obtaining a building permit therefor from the

their powers of government over their defined territorial

VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 151

Same; National Building Code; Petitioner has no valid reason

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VELASCO, JR., J.:

1 Rollo, pp. 49-60. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-

Hernando and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla.

VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 153

within the “no build zone” demarcated in Municipal

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms.—As used in this Ordinance,

3 Id., at pp. 196-198.

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Subsequently, on March 28, 2011, a Cease and Desist

VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 155

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove’s hotel

SECTION 1. Who may file petition.—Any person interested

VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 157

An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there

implementation. The closure and demolition of the hotel

Section 1. Petition for certiorari.—When any tribunal, board or

4 Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation v. Bonifacio, G.R.

158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified

not exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions when he

VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 159

It is not essential that the challenged proceedings

hereto is Our ruling in City Engineer of Baguio v.

There is no gainsaying that a city mayor is an executive official

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

With the foregoing discussion, the CA erred in ruling

10 Section 30. Review of Executive Orders.—

VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 161

being patently void for failure of the trial court to

property, or anything else that (1) injures or endangers the

11 Heirs of Spouses Teofilo M. Reterta and Elisa Reterta v. Spouses

162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

safety of others; (2) annoys or offends the senses; (3)

which should be evaluated to see if it qualifies as a

12 Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon, G.R. No. 177807, October

VOL. 737, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 163

As jurisprudence elucidates, nuisances are of two kinds: