You are on page 1of 5

ALVAREZ V GUINGONA the enactment of RA 7720 in compliance with Section 24 of

Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution?)


PETITIONERS: Sen. Heherson T. Alvarez
Sen. Jose D. Lina, Jr.  HELD:
(SIYA BA ‘TO? OMG.) o YES. The bill is considered to have originated in
Mr. Nicasio Bautista the HOR.
Mr. Jesus P. Gonzaga o Although a bill of local application like HB No. 8817
Mr. Solomon D. Maylem should, by constitutional prescription, originate
Leonora C. Medina exclusively in the House of Representatives, the
Casiano S. Alipon claim of petitioners that Republic Act No. 7720 did
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Teofisto Guingona not originate exclusively in the House of
Hon. Rafael Alunan Representatives because a bill of the same import,
Hon. Salvador Enriquez SB No. 1243, was passed in the Senate, is
Commission on Audit untenable because it cannot be denied that HB No.
Hon. Jose Miranda 8817 was filed in the House of Representatives first
Hon. Charito Manubay before SB No. 1243 was filed in the Senate.
Hon. Victorino Miranda, Jr. Petitioners themselves cannot disavow their own
Hon. Artemio Alvarez admission that HB No. 8817 was filed on April 18,
Hon. Danilo Vergara 1993 while SB No. 1243 was filed on May 19, 1993.
Hon. Peter De Jesus The filing of HB No. 8817 was thus precursive not
Hon. Nelia Natividad only of the said Act in question but also of SB No.
Hon. Celso Caleon 1243. Thus, HB No. 8817, was the bill that initiated
Hon. Abel Musngi the legislative process that culminated in the
Mr. Rodrigo L. Santos enactment of Republic Act No. 7720. No violation
Atty. Alfredo S. Dirige of Section 24, Article VI, of the 1987
(Paki-check niyo na lang capacities nila. ) Constitution is perceptible under the
DOCKET NO.: GR No. 118303 circumstances attending the instant
DATE: January 31, 1996 controversy.
PONENTE: Hermosisima, Jr., J. o Furthermore, petitioners themselves acknowledge
that HB No. 8817 was already approved on Third
TOPIC: PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY Reading and duly transmitted to the Senate when
FACTS: the Senate Committee on Local Government
 Of main concern to the petitioners is whether Republic conducted its public hearing on HB No. 8817. HB
Act No. 7720, just recently passed by Congress and No. 8817 was approved on the Third Reading on
signed by the President into law, is constitutionally December 17, 1993 and transmitted to the Senate
infirm. on January 28, 1994; a little less than a month
 April 18, 1993 – HB No. 1887 (An Act Converting the thereafter, or on February 23, 1994, the Senate
Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Committee on Local Government conducted public
hearings on SB No. 1243. Clearly, the Senate held
Component City to be known as the City of Santiago)
in abeyance any action on SB No. 1243 until it
was filed in the House of Representatives with received HB No. 8817, already approved on the
Representative Antonio Abaya as principal author. The bill Third Reading, from the House of Representatives.
was referred to the House Committee on Local Government The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in
and the House Committee on Appropriations on May 5, anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House,
1993. does not contravene the constitutional requirement
that a bill of local application should originate in the
o Public hearings on HB No. 8817 were conducted by House of Representatives, for as long as the
the House Committee on Local Government. The Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the
committee submitted to the House a favorable House bill.
report, with amendments, on December 9, 1993. o DISCUSSION ON PRESUMPTION OF
o On December 13, 1993, HB No. 8817 was passed CONSTITUTIONALITY: It is a well-entrenched
by the House of Representatives on Second jurisprudential rule that on the side of every law lies
Reading. the presumption of constitutionality.19
o Approved on Third Reading on December 17, 1993. Consequently, for RA No. 7720 to be nullified, it
o On January 28, 1994, it was transmitted to the must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal
Senate. breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful
 Meanwhile, a counterpart of HB No. 8817, Senate Bill No. and equivocal one; in other words, the grounds for
1243, entitled, An Act Converting the Municipality of nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt.
Santiago into an Independent Component City to be Those who petition this court to declare a law to be
Known as the City of Santiago, was filed in the Senate. unconstitutional must clearly and fully establish the
Introduced by Sen. Vicente Sotto III. This was just after the basis that will justify such a declaration; otherwise,
House of Representatives had conducted its first public their petition must fail. Taking into consideration the
hearing on HB No. 8817. justification of our stand on the immediately
 A little less than a month after HB No. 8817 was transmitted preceding ground raised by petitioners to challenge
to the Senate, the Senate Committee on Local Government the constitutionality of RA No. 7720, the Court
conducted public hearings on SB No. 1243. stands on the holding that petitioners have failed to
o March 1, 1994 – said committee submitted report overcome the presumption. The dismissal of this
on HB No. 8817, with the recommendation that it be petition is, therefore, inevitable.
approved without amendment, taking into
consideration the reality that H.B. No. 8817 was on
all fours with SB No. 1243. MUN. OF SAN FERNANDO V FIRME
o March 3, 1994 – the report was passed by the
Senate on Second Reading and was approved on PETITIONERS: Mun. of San Fernando, La Union
Third Reading on March 14, 1994. RESPONDENTS: Hon. Judge Romeo N. Firme
o April 12, 1994 – submitted to the President. Juana Rimando-Baniña
o May 5, 1994 – signed into RA 7720. Laureano Baniña, Jr.
o July 13, 1994 – plebiscite. Sor Marieta Baniña
Montano Baniña
 ISSUE: (di ko na isinama ‘yung non-PubCorp issue) Orja Baniña
WON considering that the Senate passed SB No. 1243, its Lydia R. Baniña
own version of HB No. 8817, Republic Act No. 7720 can be DOCKET NO.: GR No. L-52179
said to have originated in the House of Representatives. (Is DATE: April 8, 1991
PONENTE: Medialdea, J.
TOPIC: GOVERNMENTAL POWERS driver of the dump truck was performing duties or
FACTS: tasks pertaining to his office.
 Petitioner Municipality of San Fernando, La Union is a o After a careful examination of existing laws and
municipal corporation existing under and in accordance with jurisprudence, We arrive at the conclusion that
the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Respondent the municipality cannot be held liable for the
Honorable Judge Romeo N. Firme is impleaded in his torts committed by its regular employee, who
official capacity as the presiding judge of the Court of First was then engaged in the discharge of
Instance of La Union, Branch IV, Bauang, La Union. While governmental functions. Hence, the death of the
private respondents Juana Rimando-Baniña, Laureano passenger –– tragic and deplorable though it may
Baniña, Jr., Sor Marietta Baniña, Montano Baniña, Orja be –– imposed on the municipality no duty to pay
Baniña and Lydia R. Baniña are heirs of the deceased monetary compensation.
Laureano Baniña Sr. and plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 107-Bg o All premises considered, the Court is convinced
before the aforesaid court. that the respondent judge's dereliction in failing
 December 16, 1965, 7AM - a collision occurred involving: to resolve the issue of non-suability did not
o a passenger jeepney driven by Bernardo Balagot amount to grave abuse of discretion. But said
and owned by the Estate of Macario Nieveras judge exceeded his jurisdiction when it ruled on
o a gravel and sand truck driven by Jose Manandeg the issue of liability.
and owned by Tanquilino Velasquez o ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the
o and a dump truck of the Municipality of San decision of the respondent court is hereby modified,
Fernando, La Union and driven by Alfredo Bislig. absolving the petitioner municipality of any
Due to the impact, several passengers of the jeepney liability in favor of private respondents.
including Laureano Baniña Sr. died as a result of the injuries
they sustained and four (4) others suffered varying degrees
of physical injuries. CITY OF MANILA V IAC
 December 11, 1966 – private respondents instituted
ACOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES against the Estate of PETITIONERS: City of Manila
Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot, owner and driver, Evangeline Suva
respectively, of the passenger jeepney, before CFI La Union, RESPONDENTS: Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court
Br. 1. However, the aforesaid defendants filed a Third Party Irene Sto. Domingo
Complaint against the petitioner and the driver of a dump DOCKET NO.: GR No. 71159
truck of petitioner. DATE: November 15, 1989
o Thereafter, the case was subsequently transferred PONENTE: Paras, J.
to Branch IV, presided over by respondent judge.
o By virtue of a court order dated May 7, 1975, the TOPIC: PROPRIETY POWERS
private respondents amended the complaint FACTS:
wherein the petitioner and its regular employee,  Vivencio Sto. Domingo, Sr. deceased husband of plaintiff
Alfredo Bislig were impleaded for the first time as Irene Sto. Domingo and father of the litigating minors, died
defendants. on June 4, 1971 and buried on June 6, 1971 in the North
 PETITIONER’S ANSWER: raised affirmative defenses such Cemetery which lot was leased by the city to Irene Sto.
as lack of cause of action, non-suability of the State, Domingo. Full payment of the rental therefor of P50.00 is
prescription of cause of action and the negligence of the evidenced by the said receipt which appears to be regular on
owner and driver of the passenger jeepney as the proximate its face. The burial record for Block No. 194 of Manila North
cause of the collision. Cemeteryin which subject lot is situated does not reflect the
 TRIAL COURT DECISION: term of duration of the lease thereover in favor of the Sto.
o Rendered for the plaintiffs Domingos.
o Defendants Municipality of San Fernando, La Union  Believing in good faith that, in accordance with
and Alfredo Bislig are ordered to pay plaintiffs the Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1975, dated March 6,
sums of P1,500.00 as funeral expenses and 1975, of the City Mayor of Manila prescribing uniform
P24,744.24 as the lost expected earnings of the procedure and guidelines in the processing of documents
late Laureano Baniña Sr., P30,000.00 as moral pertaining to and for the use and disposition of burial lots and
damages, and P2,500.00 as attorney's fees. plots within the North Cemetery, etc., subject Lot No. 159 of
o The Complaint is dismissed as to defendants Block 194 in which the mortal remains of the late Vivencio
Estate of Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot. Sto. Domingo were laid to rest, was leased to the bereaved
 Petitioner filed MR and for new trial – MR denied for having family for five (5) years only, subject lot was certified on
been filed out of time. Finally, the respondent judge issued January 25, 1978 as ready for exhumation.
an order providing that if defendants municipality and Bislig  On the basis of such certification, the authorities of the North
further wish to pursue the matter disposed of in the order of Cemetery then headed by defendant Joseph Helmuth
July 26, 1979, such should be elevated to a higher court in authorized the exhumation and removal from subject burial
accordance with the Rules of Court. Hence, this petition. lot the remains of the late Vivencio Sto. Domingo, Sr., placed
the bones and skull in a bag or sack and kept the same in
 ISSUE: WON the respondent court committed grave abuse the depository or bodega of the cemetery. Subsequently, the
of discretion when it deferred and failed to resolve the same lot in question was rented out to another lessee so that
defense of non-suability of the State amounting to lack of when the plaintiffs herein went to said lot on All Souls Day in
jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss. their shock, consternation and dismay, which the resting
place of their dear departed did not anymore bear the stone
 HELD: Read carefully, two parts ito. marker which they lovingly placed on the tomb. Indignant
o The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse and disgusted over such a sorrowful finding, Irene Sto.
of discretion when in the exercise of its judgment it Domingo lost no time in inquiring from the officer-in-charge
arbitrarily failed to resolve the vital issue of non- of the North Cemetery, defendant Sergio Mallari, and was
suability of the State in the guise of the municipality. told that the remains of her late husband had been taken
o HOWEVER, said judge acted in excess of his from the burial lot in question which was given to another
jurisdiction when in his decision dated October 10, lessee.
1979 he held the municipality liable for the quasi-  Irene Sto. Domingo was also informed that she can look for
delict committed by its regular employee. the bones of her deceased husband in the warehouse of the
o In the case at bar, the driver of the dump truck of cemetery where the exhumed remains from the different
the municipality insists that “he was on his way to burial lots of the North Cemetery are being kept until they are
the Naguilian river to get a load of sand and gravel retrieved by interested parties. But to the bereaved widow,
for the repair of San Fernando's municipal streets.” what she was advised to do was simply unacceptable.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the According to her, it was just impossible to locate the remains
regularity of the performance of official duty is of her late husband in a depository containing thousands
presumed pursuant to Section 3(m) of Rule 131 of upon thousands of sacks of human bones. She did not want
the Revised Rules of Court. Hence, We rule that the to run the risk of claiming for the wrong set of bones. She
was even offered another lot but was never appeased. She
was too aggrieved that she came to court for relief even North Cemetery for 50 years beginning from June
before she could formally present her claims and demands 6, 1971 to June 6, 2021 as clearly stated in the
to the city government and to the other defendants named in receipt duly signed by the deputy treasurer of the
the present complaint. City of Manila and sealed by the city government,
 TRIAL COURT: ruled in favour of the complainant, Irene Sto. there is nothing in the record that justifies the
Domingo. Ordered the defendants to give plaintiffs the right reversal of the conclusion of both the trial court and
to make use of another single lot within the North Cemetery the Intermediate Appellate Court to the effect that
for a period of forty-three (43) years four (4) months and the receipt is in itself a contract of lease.
eleven (11) days, corresponding to the unexpired term of the o Under the doctrine of respondent superior, (Torio v.
fully paid lease sued upon; and to search without let up and Fontanilla, supra), petitioner City of Manila is
with the use of all means humanly possible, for the remains liable for the tortious act committed by its
of the late Vivencio Sto. Domingo, Sr. and thereafter, to bury agents who failed to verify and check the
the same in the substitute lot to be chosen by the plaintiffs duration of the contract of lease. The contention
pursuant to this decision. of the petitioner-city that the lease is covered by
 COURT OF APPEALS: RTC Decision AFFIRMED but Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1975 dated
modified. Added with payment of damages. March 6, 1975 of the City of Manila for five (5) years
 Petitioners’ MR DENIED. only beginning from June 6, 1971 is not meritorious
for the said administrative order covers new leases.
 ISSUE: WON the operations and functions of a public When subject lot was certified on January 25, 1978
cemetery are a governmental, or a corporate or proprietary as ready for exhumation, the lease contract for fifty
function of the City of Manila (50) years was still in full force and effect.

 HELD:
o The pivotal issue of this case is whether or not the DRILON V LIM
operations and functions of a public cemetery are a
governmental, or a corporate or proprietary function PETITIONERS: Hon. Franklin M. Drilon
of the City of Manila. The resolution of this issue is RESPONDENTS: Mayor Alfredo S. Lim
essential to the determination of the liability for VM Jose L. Atienza
damages of the petitioner city. Anthony Avecedo
o Private respondents maintain that the City of Manila DOCKET NO.: GR No. 112497
entered into a contract of lease which involve the DATE: August 4, 1994
exercise of proprietary functions with private PONENTE: Cruz, J.
respondent Irene Sto. Domingo. The city and its
officers therefore can be sued for any-violation of TOPIC: LGU vis-à-vis NATIONAL GOVERNMENT: Power of
the contract of lease. Private respondents’ General Supervision (as stated in the syllabus, but the case
contention is well-taken. says that the principal issue is the constitutionality of
o Under Philippine laws, the City of Manila is a Section 187 of the Local Government Code).
political body corporate and as such endowed with
the faculties of municipal corporations to be FACTS:
exercised by and through its city government in  The principal issue in this case is the constitutionality of
conformity with law, and in its proper corporate Section 187 of the Local Government Code readings as
name. It may sue and be sued, and contract and be follows:
contracted with. Its powers are twofold in character- o Procedure For Approval And Effectivity Of Tax
public, governmental or political on the one hand, Ordinances And Revenue Measures; Mandatory
and corporate, private and proprietary on the other. Public Hearings. — The procedure for approval of
o Governmental powers are those exercised in local tax ordinances and revenue measures shall
administering the powers of the state and be in accordance with the provisions of this Code:
promoting the public welfare and they include the Provided, That public hearings shall be conducted
legislative, judicial, public and political. Municipal for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof;
powers on the one hand are exercised for the Provided, further, That any question on the
special benefit and advantage of the community constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or
and include those which are ministerial, private and revenue measures may be raised on appeal within
corporate. thirty (30) days from the effectivity thereof to the
o In the absence of a special law, the North Cemetery Secretary of Justice who shall render a decision
is a patrimonial property of the City of Manila which within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of the
was created by resolution of the Municipal Board of appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal shall
August 27, 1903 and January 7, 1904. The not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of
administration and government of the cemetery are the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the
under the City Health Officer, the order and police tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally,
of the cemetery, the opening of graves, niches, or That within thirty (30) days after receipt of the
tombs, the exhuming of remains, and the decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without
purification of the same are under the charge and the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal, the
responsibility of the superintendent of the cemetery. aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings
The City of Manila furthermore prescribes the with a court of competent jurisdiction.
procedure and guidelines for the use and
dispositions of burial lots and plots within the North  Pursuant thereto, the Sec of Justice (Drilon) had, on appeal
Cemetery through Administrative Order No. 5, s. to him of four oil companies and a taxpayer, declared
1975. With the acts of dominion, there is, Ordinance No. 7794, otherwise known as the Manila
therefore no doubt that the North Cemetery is Revenue Code, null and void for non-compliance with the
within the class of property which the City of prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and
Manila owns in its proprietary or private for containing certain provisions contrary to law and public
character. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the policy.
burial lot was leased in favor of the private  In a petition for certiorari filed by the City of Manila, the
respondents. Hence, obligations arising from Regional Trial Court of Manila revoked the Secretary's
contracts have the force of law between the resolution and sustained the ordinance, holding inter alia that
contracting parties. Thus a lease contract executed the procedural requirements had been observed. More
by the lessor and lessee remains as the law importantly, it declared Section 187 of the Local
between them. Therefore, a breach of Government Code as unconstitutional because of its
contractual provision entitles the other party to vesture in the Secretary of Justice of the power of
damages even if no penalty for such breach is control over local governments in violation of the policy
prescribed in the contract. of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution and of
o As regards the issue of the validity of the contract the specific provision therein conferring on the
of lease of grave lot No. 159, Block No. 195 of the
President of the Philippines only the power of see to it that the rules are followed. In the opinion
supervision over local governments. of the Court, Secretary Drilon did precisely this, and
no more nor less than this, and so performed an act
 ISSUE: WON Section 187 of the LGC is constitutional not of control but of mere supervision.

 HELD:  The issue of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure


o The Secretary argues that the annulled Section 187 in the enactment of the Manila Revenue Code is another
is constitutional and that the procedural matter.
requirements for the enactment of tax ordinances o In his resolution, Secretary Drilon declared that
as specified in the Local Government Code had there were no written notices of public hearings on
indeed not been observed. the proposed Manila Revenue Code that were sent
o It is emphasized that every court, including this to interested parties as required by Art. 276(b) of
Court, is charged with the duty of a purposeful the Implementing Rules of the Local Government
hesitation before declaring a law unconstitutional, Code nor were copies of the proposed ordinance
on the theory that the measure was first carefully published in three successive issues of a
studied by the executive and the legislative newspaper of general circulation pursuant to Art.
departments and determined by them to be in 276(a). No minutes were submitted to show that the
accordance with the fundamental law before it was obligatory public hearings had been held. Neither
finally approved. To doubt is to sustain. The were copies of the measure as approved posted in
presumption of constitutionality can be overcome prominent places in the city in accordance with Sec.
only by the clearest showing that there was indeed 511(a) of the Local Government Code. Finally, the
an infraction of the Constitution, and only when Manila Revenue Code was not translated into
such a conclusion is reached by the required Pilipino or Tagalog and disseminated among the
majority may the Court pronounce, in the discharge people for their information and guidance,
of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act conformably to Sec. 59(b) of the Code.
must be struck down. o The Court acceded to the motion of the
o In the case before us, Judge Rodolfo C. Palattao respondents and called for the elevation to it of the
declared Section 187 of the Local Government said exhibits. We have carefully examined every
Code unconstitutional insofar as it empowered the one of these exhibits and agree with the trial court
Secretary of Justice to review tax ordinances and, that the procedural requirements have indeed been
inferentially, to annul them. He cited the familiar observed. Notices of the public hearings were sent
distinction between control and supervision, the first to interested parties as evidenced by Exhibits G-1
being "the power of an officer to alter or modify or to 17. The minutes of the hearings are found in
set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the Exhibits M, M-1, M-2, and M-3. Exhibits B and C
performance of his duties and to substitute the show that the proposed ordinances were published
judgment of the former for the latter," while the in the Balita and the Manila Standard on April 21
second is "the power of a superior officer to see to and 25, 1993, respectively, and the approved
it that lower officers perform their functions in ordinance was published in the July 3, 4, 5, 1993
accordance with law." His conclusion was that the issues of the Manila Standard and in the July 6,
challenged section gave to the Secretary the power 1993 issue of Balita, as shown by Exhibits Q, Q-1,
of control and not of supervision only as vested by Q-2, and Q-3.
the Constitution in the President of the Philippines.
This was, in his view, a violation not only of Article The only exceptions are the posting of the
X, specifically Section 4 thereof, and of Section 5 ordinance as approved but this omission does not
on the taxing powers of local governments, and the affect its validity, considering that its publication in
policy of local autonomy in general. We do not three successive issues of a newspaper of general
share that view. The lower court was rather circulation will satisfy due process. It has also not
hasty in invalidating the provision. been shown that the text of the ordinance has been
o Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to translated and disseminated, but this requirement
review only the constitutionality or legality of the tax applies to the approval of local development plans
ordinance and, if warranted, to revoke it on either or and public investment programs of the local
both of these grounds. When he alters or modifies government unit and not to tax ordinances.
or sets aside a tax ordinance, he is not also
permitted to substitute his own judgment for the We make no ruling on the substantive provisions of
judgment of the local government that enacted the the Manila Revenue Code as their validity has not
measure. Secretary Drilon did set aside the Manila been raised in issue in the present petition
Revenue Code, but he did not replace it with his
own version of what the Code should be. He did not o WHEREFORE, the judgment is hereby rendered
pronounce the ordinance unwise or unreasonable REVERSING the challenged decision of the
as a basis for its annulment. He did not say that in Regional Trial Court insofar as it declared
his judgment it was a bad law. What he found only Section 187 of the Local Government Code
was that it was illegal. All he did in reviewing the unconstitutional but AFFIRMING its finding that
said measure was determine if the petitioners were the procedural requirements in the enactment
performing their functions in accordance with law, of the Manila Revenue Code have been
that is, with the prescribed procedure for the observed.
enactment of tax ordinances and the grant of
powers to the city government under the Local
Government Code. As we see it, that was an act not PATALINGHUG V CA
of control but of mere supervision.
PETITIONERS: Alfredo Patalinghug
An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals
of an act. If they are not followed, he may, in his Ricardo Cribillo
discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his Martin Arapol
subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself. Corazon Alcasid
Supervision does not cover such authority. The Primitiva Sedo
supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that DOCKET NO.: GR No. 104786
the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay DATE: January 27, 1994
down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to PONENTE: Romero, J
modify or replace them. If the rules are not
observed, he may order the work done or re-done TOPIC: DECENTRALIZATION
but only to conform to the prescribed rules. He may
not prescribe his own manner for the doing of the
act. He has no judgment on this matter except to
FACTS: respect and are in fact binding on this court, except
 November 17, 1982 - the Sangguniang Panlungsod of only where the case is shown as coming under the
Davao City enacted Ordinance No. 363, series of 1982 accepted exceptions.
otherwise known as the “Expanded Zoning Ordinance of o In the case at bar, the testimony of City Councilor
Davao City,” Section 8 of which states: Vergara shows that Mr. Tepoot's building was used
Sec. 8. USE REGULATIONS IN C-2 for a dual purpose both as a dwelling and as a place
DISTRICTS (Shaded light red in the Expanded where a laundry business was conducted.8 But
Zoning Map) — AC-2 District shall be dominantly while its commercial aspect has been established
for commercial and compatible industrial uses as by the presence of machineries and laundry
provided hereunder: paraphernalia, its use as a residence, other than
being declared for taxation purposes as such, was
xxx xxx xxx not fully substantiated.
o The reversal by the Court of Appeals of the trial
xxx xxx xxx court's decision was based on Tepoot's building
being declared for taxation purposes as residential.
3.1 Funeral Parlors/Memorial Homes with It is our considered view, however, that a tax
adequate off street parking space (see parking declaration is not conclusive of the nature of
standards of P.D. 1096) and provided that they the property for zoning purposes. A property
shall be established not less than 50 meters from may have been declared by its owner as
any residential structures, churches and other residential for real estate taxation purposes but
institutional buildings. (Emphasis provided) it may well be within a commercial zone. A
discrepancy may thus exist in the determination
 Petitioner ALFREDO PATALINGHUG commenced the of the nature of property for real estate taxation
construction of his funeral parlor upon prior approval and purposes vis-a-vis the determination of a
certification of zoning compliance by Zoning Administrator property for zoning purposes.
issued on February 10, 1987 Building Permit No. 870254. o The trial court's determination that Mr. Tepoot's
 However, several residents of complained that the building is commercial and, therefore, Sec. 8 is
construction of petitioner's funeral parlor violated Ordinance inapplicable, is strengthened by the fact that the
No. 363, since it was allegedly situated within a 50-meter Sangguniang Panlungsod has declared the
radius from the Iglesia ni Kristo Chapel and several questioned area as commercial or
residential structures. The Sangguniang Panlungsod o C-2. Consequently, even if Tepoot's building was
conducted an investigation and found that “the nearest declared for taxation purposes as residential, once
residential structure, owned by Wilfred G. Tepoot is only 8 a local government has reclassified an area as
inches to the south…” commercial, which determination for zoning
 Notwithstanding the findings of the Sangguniang purposes must prevail. While the commercial
Panlungsod, petitioner continued to construct his funeral character of the questioned vicinity has been
parlor which was finished on November 3, 1987. declared thru the ordinance, private respondents
 Consequently, private respondents filed on September 6, have failed to present convincing arguments to
1988 a case for the declaration of nullity of a building permit substantiate their claim that Cabaguio Avenue,
with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and/or where the funeral parlor was constructed, was still
restraining order with the trial court. a residential zone. Unquestionably, the operation of
 TRIAL COURT: DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT a funeral parlor constitutes a "commercial purpose,"
o the residential building owned by Cribillo and Iglesia as gleaned from Ordinance No. 363.
ni Kristo chapel are 63.25 meters and 55.95 meters o The declaration of the said area as a commercial
away, respectively from the funeral parlor. zone thru a municipal ordinance is an exercise of
o Although the residential building owned by certain police power to promote the good order and general
Mr. Tepoot is adjacent to the funeral parlor, and is welfare of the people in the locality. Corollary
only separated therefrom by a concrete fence, said thereto, the state, in order to promote the general
residential building is being rented by a certain Mr. welfare, may interfere with personal liberty, with
Asiaten who actually devotes it to his laundry property, and with business and occupations. Thus,
business with machinery thereon persons may be subjected to certain kinds of
o Private respondent’s suit is premature as they failed restraints and burdens in order to secure the
to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by general welfare of the state and to this fundamental
Ordinance No. 363. aim of government, the rights of the individual may
 COURT OF APPEALS: REVERSED THE RTC Decision be subordinated. The ordinance which regulates
o It ruled that although the buildings owned by Cribillo the location of funeral homes has been adopted as
and Iglesia ni Kristo were beyond the 50-meter part of comprehensive zoning plans for the orderly
residential radius prohibited by Ordinance 363, the development of the area covered thereunder.
construction of the funeral parlor was within the 50- o WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals
meter radius measured from the Tepoot's building. dated November 29, 1991 is hereby REVERSED
The Appellate Court disagreed with the lower and the order dated July 6, 1989 of the Regional
court's determination that Tepoot's building was Trial Court of Davao City is REINSTATED.
commercial and ruled that although it was used by
Mr. Tepoot's lessee for laundry business, it was a
residential lot as reflected in the tax declaration,
thus paving the way for the application of Ordinance
No. 363.

 ISSUE: WON petitioner’s operation of a funeral home


constitutes permissible use within a particular district or zone
in Davao City

 HELD: YES.
o We reverse the Appellate Court and reinstate the
ruling of the lower court that petitioner did not
violate Section 8 of Davao City Ordinance No. 363.
It must be emphasized that the question of whether
Mr. Tepoot's building is residential or not is a factual
determination which we should not disturb. As we
have repeatedly enunciated, the resolution of
factual issues is the function of the lower courts
where findings on these matters are received with

You might also like