ALOLINO VS FLORES GR. NO.

198774, APRIL 4, 2016

FACTS:

Alolino is the owner of 2 contiguous parcels of land at No. 47 Gen. Luna St., Barangay Tuktukan, Taguig.
He initially constructed a bungalow-type house on the property. In 1980, he added a second floor to the
structure and extended his two-storey house up to the edge of his property. In 1994, respondent spouses
Flores constructed their house/sari-sari store on the vacant municipal/barrio road immediately adjoining
the rear perimeter wall of Alolino’s house. Since respondent’s house was constructed in a municipal road,
they failed to secure a building permit. The structure is only about 2-3 inches away from the back of
Alolino’s house, covering five windows and the exit door. The respondent’s structure deprived Alolino of
the light and ventilation he had previously enjoyed and prevented his ingress and egress to the municipal
road through the rear door.

Alolino demanded that the respondent remove their structure but the latter refused. Alolino filed a
complaint to the Building Official of the Municipality of Taguig. He also filed a complaint with the Barangay
of Tuktukan. The Building Official issued a notice of illegal construction directing respondents to stop
further construction. Sometime in 2001-2002, the respondent began constructing a second floor, again
without building permit. Alolino filed a complaint again to the Building Official and the latter issued the
second Notice of Illegal construction. Respondents did not comply with the directive from the Building
Official which prompted Alolino to send a demand letter, on January 23, 2003, to respondent to remove
the illegally constructed structure. Despite receipt of the demand letter, respondent still refused to
comply. Alolino then file a complait to the RTC praying for;
1. The removal of the encroaching structure
2. The enforcement of his right of easement of light and view
3. The payment of damages

Respondent claimed that Alolino has no cause of action since they have occupied their lot since 1955.
They also blamed Alolino in constructing his house to the very boundary of his property and not observing
the required setback, thus depriving himself of easement.

RTC rule that Alolino had already acquired the right of easement and was blocked by the respondent
structure. It also held that respondent’s structure is a nuisance because it prevented Alolino the use of
his rear door and also a public nuisance since it was illegally constructed on a barrio road, a government
property, and was obstructing the use public use of the road. CA reversed the decision of RTC due to lack
of merits, citing Section 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act.

ISSUE:
WON the house was constructed illegally on a public property?

RULING:

Yes, the house was constructed illegally on a public property. Artivle 424, NCC states that “Property for
public use, in the provinces, municipalities, consist of the municipal roads, city streets, municipal streets,
the squares, fountains, public water, promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said
provinces, cities, or municipalities”. There’s no merit on the respondent’s contention that the barrio road
was already withdrawn from public use and reclassified it as a residential lot. The Local Government code
authorizes an LGU to withdraw a local road from public use under the following conditions:
 1. Section 21: Closure and Opening of Roads.
“A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or
open any local road, alley, park or square falling within its jurisdiction; Provided, however, that in
case of permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of all
the members of the Sanggunian, and when necessary, an adequate substitute for the public
facility that is subject to closure is provided.

No such way or place or any part thereof shall be permanently closed without making provisions
for the maintenance of public safety therein. A property thus permanently withdrawn from public
use may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the local
government unit concerned may be lawfully used or conveyed.

In this case the Sangunian did not enact an ordinance but merely passed a resolution. Ordinance is a law,
but resolution is only a declaration of sentiment or opinion of the legislative body. Properties of the local
government that are devoted to public service are under the absolute control of Congress. LGU’s can’t
control or regulate the use of these properties unless specifically authorized by Congress. In exercising
this authority, the LGU must comply with the conditions and observe the limitations prescribed by
Congress. The Sanggunian’a failure to comply with Section 21 renders ineffective its reclassification of
the barrio road.

However, there is no provisions that actually create a legal easement of light and view that can be acquired
through prescription or by virtue of a voluntary title.

Petition was granted. Decision of CA was reversed and set aside and decision of RTC was reinstated.
Respondents and all persons claiming rights under them are ordered to remove and demolish all illegal
structure and to pay petitioner P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees. Cost against the respondent.