Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

ESTATE OF GREGORIA FRANCISCO v CA [GR No.

95279 (July 25, 1991)] a) Only applies to nuisance per se – affects the immediate safety of persons
Quick facts: Quonset used for copra storage demolished by virtue of Ordinance No. and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of
147 which states that structures that do not conform to the Zoning regulations necessity (Monteverde v Generoso).
should be relocated and failure to do so would entail condemnation or removal at b) Storage of copra in the Quonset is a legitimate business, cannot be said to
owner’s expense. be injurious to rights of property, of health or of comfort of the community.
Nature: Petition to review the judgment of the CA. c) If it is a nuisance per accidens, it must be proven in a hearing conducted
Ponente: J. Melencio-Herrera for that purpose.
Facts: d) Sanguniaang Bayan cannot DECLARE a particular thing as a nuisance per
• A Quonset in Basilan – constructed in 1944 by the American Liberation se – can ONLY BE adjudged by judicial determination.
Forces; purchased by Gregoria Francisco (died in 1976) in 1946; stands on
land owned by the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) – was ordered Judgment set aside. CA (1st decision) reinstated, remanded to RTC to determine just
demolished by the Municipal Mayor, Valencia. compensation for petitioner for the demolished Quonset.
• Proc. No. 83 issued by Pres. Quirino declared land for the exclusive use of ESTATE OF GREGORIA FRANCISCO v CA [GR No. 95279 (July 25, 1991)]
port facilities. Quick facts: Quonset used for copra storage demolished by virtue of Ordinance No.
147 which states that structures that do not conform to the Zoning regulations
• January 10, 1989: PPA issued to Tan Gin San, the husband of deceased
should be relocated and failure to do so would entail condemnation or removal at
Francisco, a permit to occupy the building for a year, until December 31,
owner’s expense.
1989.
• May 8L Mayor notified Tan Gin San by mail to relocate or remove his Nature: Petition to review the judgment of the CA.
Quonset by virtue of Zoning Ord. 147 stressing the “clean-up campaign on Ponente: J. Melencio-Herrera
illegal squatters and unsanitary surroundings along Strong Boulevard.” Facts:
• May 19, another notice was sent. May 24: demolition was ordered by • A Quonset in Basilan – constructed in 1944 by the American Liberation
Mayor. Forces; purchased by Gregoria Francisco (died in 1976) in 1946; stands on
• Petitioner filed with RTC suit for a Writ of Prohibition with Injunction and land owned by the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) – was ordered
damages. demolished by the Municipal Mayor, Valencia.
• RTC: denied writ, upheld power of Mayor to order demolition without • Proc. No. 83 issued by Pres. Quirino declared land for the exclusive use of
judicial authority port facilities.
• Sept. 6: Quonset was completely demolished • January 10, 1989: PPA issued to Tan Gin San, the husband of deceased
• CA (1st decision): reversed TC; Quonset not a nuisance per se; Mayor Francisco, a permit to occupy the building for a year, until December 31,
needed judicial decision 1989.
• May 8L Mayor notified Tan Gin San by mail to relocate or remove his
• CA (2nd decision): reversed itself; deficiency (lack of judicial declaration)
Quonset by virtue of Zoning Ord. 147 stressing the “clean-up campaign on
cured when petitioner filed the petition for prohibition and was heard on
illegal squatters and unsanitary surroundings along Strong Boulevard.”
oral argument.
• May 19, another notice was sent. May 24: demolition was ordered by
Issue: WON Mayor could summarily, without judicial process, order the demolition Mayor.
of petitioner’s Quonset building. • Petitioner filed with RTC suit for a Writ of Prohibition with Injunction and
damages.
Held/Ratio: • RTC: denied writ, upheld power of Mayor to order demolition without
NO. There is no doubt that the Quonset is a non-conforming structure as per the judicial authority
Municipal Ordinance; and that in the event that an immediate relocation of the • Sept. 6: Quonset was completely demolished
building cannot be accomplished, section 16 of the Ordinance provides that “… the • CA (1st decision): reversed TC; Quonset not a nuisance per se; Mayor
non-conforming use may be condemned or removed at the owner’s expense.” needed judicial decision

a. This provision does not empower the Municipal Mayor to order a summary
• CA (2nd decision): reversed itself; deficiency (lack of judicial declaration)
cured when petitioner filed the petition for prohibition and was heard on
removal of the structure. If it does, it must be struck down for being in oral argument.
contravention to the requirements of due process.
b. Violation of the ordinance neither empowers the Municipal Mayor to avail of Issue: WON Mayor could summarily, without judicial process, order the demolition
extra-judicial remedies. of petitioner’s Quonset building.
The Local Government Code imposes upon the Mayor the duty “to cause to be Held/Ratio:
instituted judicial proceedings in connection with the violation of ordinances.” NO. There is no doubt that the Quonset is a non-conforming structure as per the
Municipal Ordinance; and that in the event that an immediate relocation of the
NOT ABATEMENT OF NUISSANCE (police power) without judicial building cannot be accomplished, section 16 of the Ordinance provides that “… the
proceedings. non-conforming use may be condemned or removed at the owner’s expense.”
c. This provision does not empower the Municipal Mayor to order a summary
removal of the structure. If it does, it must be struck down for being in
contravention to the requirements of due process.
d. Violation of the ordinance neither empowers the Municipal Mayor to avail of
extra-judicial remedies.

The Local Government Code imposes upon the Mayor the duty “to cause to be
instituted judicial proceedings in connection with the violation of ordinances.”

NOT ABATEMENT OF NUISSANCE (police power) without judicial


proceedings.
e) Only applies to nuisance per se – affects the immediate safety of persons
and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of
necessity (Monteverde v Generoso).
f) Storage of copra in the Quonset is a legitimate business, cannot be said to
be injurious to rights of property, of health or of comfort of the community.
g) If it is a nuisance per accidens, it must be proven in a hearing conducted
for that purpose.
h) Sanguniaang Bayan cannot DECLARE a particular thing as a nuisance per
se – can ONLY BE adjudged by judicial determination.

Judgment set aside. CA (1st decision) reinstated, remanded to RTC to determine just
compensation for petitioner for the demolished Quonset.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen