Acaac v Azcuna, Jr.

GR No. 187378, September 30, 2013

PETITIONERS: Ramonito O. Acaac, PETAL Foundation, Inc., Apolinario M. Elorde, Hector Acaac,
and Romeo Bulawin
RESPONDENTS:
Melquiades D. Azcuna, Jr., in his capacity as Mayor, and Marietes B. Bonalos,
in her capacity as Municipal Engineer and Building Official-Designate, both of Lopez Jaena
Municipality, Misamis Occidental
J. Perlas-Bernabe | G.R. No. 187378 | When laws take effect (NCC 2)
Kylee Navarro (digest writer)
A petition for review on Certiorari assailing the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The case lasted 11
years.
SUMMARY. 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 adopted by the respondents that prohibits entry and building of structures in the
disputed property. The case was about the validity of the subject ordinance as questioned by the
petitioners, based on grounds of adoption without public consultation, publication, and approval
by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
MAIN DOCTRINE. In accordance with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance, their
constitutionality or legality should be upheld in the absence of evidence showing that the
procedure prescribed by law was not observed in their enactment. We also have a right to
assume that officials have done that which the law requires them to do, in the absence of
positive proof to the contrary.
FACTS
The petitioner, Ramonito O. Acaac, was the founder of the NGO called 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 and the construction of any structures in the area 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 directing it to remove the structures it built since
it was a violation of the subject 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 grounds that it was adopted without public
consultation, it was not published in a newspaper of general circulation, and it was not
approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
On November 26, 2004, the RTC declared the subject ordinance as invalid/void on the same
grounds that the petitioners laid down.
On the contrary, according to the CA, the subject ordinance was deemed approved 1 upon failure
of the SP to declare the same invalid within 30 days. It also gave credence to the respondent

1 Section 56 of the Local Government Code

1 | Block 4

that the subject ordinance was posted and published and that public consultations were
conducted before the subject ordinance was passed.
The CA denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration on March 9, 2009. Thus, the instant
petition.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the subject ordinance is valid and enforceable against petitioners
HELD
Yes. Section 56 of the LGC (d) provides that, if no action has been taken by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan within 30 days after submission of such an ordinance or resolution, the same shall
be presumed consistent with 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 ordinance
was submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan 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 Sec. 59 of Republic Act No. 7160 or The Local Government Code required the main
features of ordinances duly enacted or adopted be published in a newspaper of general
circulation, Petitioners failed to present any evidence to show that no publication of the subject
ordinance was made. In accordance with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance,
their constitutionality or legality should be upheld in the absence of evidence showing that the
procedure prescribed by law was not observed in their enactment. Likewise, petitioners had the
burden of proving their own allegation, which they, however, failed to do. All told, the Court finds
on reversible error committed by the CA in upholding the validity of the subject ordinance.
NOTES
SB forwards the approved ordinance to SP within 3 days after approval
July 8, 2002 SB adopted ordinance; July12, 2002 Azcuna, Jr. adopted ordinance; August
23, 2002 respondents sent Notice of Voluntary Demolition to petitioners (more than 30
days after the adoption of ordinance, no action from SP).
RTC added that the authority and control over Capayas Island belong to the DENR, but the
appellate Court ruled that the Municipality of Lopez Jaena was vested with sufficient power
and authority to pass and adopt the subject ordinance (Sec 447 in relation to Sec. 16 of
the LGC).
All the courts ruled that PETAL have no proprietary rights over the Capayas island due to
absence of building permit and title.
Petitioners had the burden of proving their own allegations.
We have a right to assume that officials have done that which the law requires them to do,
in the absence of positive proof to the contrary.

2 | Block 4