ACAAC vs AZCUNA,JR.

, 2013

Statement of Facts:

 The petitioner Ramonito O. Acaac, was the founder of the NGO called
People’s Eco-Tourism and Livelihood Foundation, Inc. (PETAL). PETAL built
cottages on Capayas Island which it rented out to the public and became the
source of livelihood of its beneficiaries.
 On April 11 and May 20, 2002 respondents Mayor Melquiades D. Azcuna, Jr.
And Building Official Marietes B. Bonalos issued separate Notices of Illegal
Construction against PETAL ordering it to stop all illegal activities on the
island due to the absence of a building permit. There was a third and final
notice sent on July 8, 2002 but the same remained unheeded.
 On the same date the Sangguniang Bayan of Lopez Jaena adopted a
subject ordinance which prohibited the entry of any entity, association,
corporation or organization inside the sanctuaries and the construction of
any structures, permanent or temporary, on the premises of Capayas Island
which Mayor Azcuna Jr. Adopted on July 12, 2002. On August 23, 2002 a
Notice of Voluntary Demolition was served upon PETAL directiong it to
remove the structures it built since it is a violation of the subject of the
ordinance.
 On october 29, 2002, petitioners filed an action against the respondents
before the RTC alleging that they have prior vested rights to occupy and
utilize Capayas Island while also assailing the validity of the subject
ordinance on the following grounds: it was adopted without public
consultation, it was not published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province as required by the Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The
Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC) and it was not approved by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan

Statement of the Case:

On November 26, 2004 the RTC rendered a Decision declaring the subject
ordinance as invalid or void based on the the follwoing grounds: PETAL’s protest
has not been resolved and that the subject ordinance was not duly approved by
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, the said ordinance was not published in a
newspaper of general circylation norwas it posted in public places, Capayas
Island is classified as timberland, hence not suited to be a bird or fish sanctuary
and the authority and control over timberlands belong to the national government
through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Based
on the foregoing, repondents were ordered among others, to desist from closing
Capayas Island to the public. However, the petitioners were ordered to remove
the structures they built thereon without valid building permits since they were
found to have no title over the disputed property.
On the contrary, according to the CA the subject ordinance was deemed
approved upon failure of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to declare the same
invalid within 30 days. It also gave credence to the repondent that the subject
ordinance was posted and published and that public consulatation were
conducted before the subject ordinance was passed. The CA further ruled that
the Municipality of Lopez Jaena was vested with sufficient power and authority to
pass and adopt the subject ordiance under Section 447 in relation to Sectio 16 of
the LGC. Therefore, it is not only the DENR that could create and administer
sanctuaries. Having enacted the subject ordinance within its powers as a
municipality and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, the CA
pronounced thet the subject ordiance is valid.
The CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on March 9, 2009.
Thus, the petitioners filed an action praying for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order injunction and damages against the respondents alleging that
they have prior vested rights to occupy and utilize Capayas Island, while also
assailing the validity of the subject ordinance.
Issues:

Whether or not the subject ordinance is valid and enforceable against

petitioners.

Ruling:

Yes, Section 56 of the LGC provides that, if no action has been taken by the SP
within 30 days after submission of such an ordinance or resolution, the same
shall be presumed consistent with the law and therefore valid. In this case,
petitioners maintain the subject ordinance cannot be deemed approved through
the mere passage of time. It, however, bears to note that more than 30 days
have already elapsed from the time the subject ordiance was submitted to the
SP for review by the Sangguniang Bayan. Hence, it should be deemed approved
and valid pursuant to Section 56 (d) of the Local Government Code.

While Section 59 of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Governmen Code
required the main features of ordinances duly enacted or adopted be published
in a newspaper of general circulation. Petitioners failed to present any evidnece
to show that no publication of the subject ordinance was made. In accordance
with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinace, their constitutionality or
legality should beupheld in the absence or evidence showing that the procedure
prescribed by law was not observed in their enactment. Likewise, petitioners had
the bruden of providing their own allegation, which they, however, failed to do.
All told, ther Court finds no rversible error commited by the CA in upholding the
vaildity of the subject ordinance.

The petition lacks merit. In any event, petitioners have not shown any valid title
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 Cayapas
Island without building permits was not appealed. As such, the same should be
deemed as final and conclusive upon them.

The petition is DENIED. The decision dated Septemder 30, 2006 and Resolution
dated March 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00284-MN are
hereby AAFIRMED.

Doctrines/Principles:

In accordnace with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinace, their

constitutuionality or legality should be upheld in the absence of evidence
showing that the procedure prescribed by law was not observed in their
enactment. The SC has the right to assume that officials have done that which
the law requires them to do, in the absence of positive proof to the contrary.

Manuel, Chasteen Margaux Nibaten