G.R.No.177807.October11,2011.

EMILIO GANCAYCO, petitioner, vs. CITY GOVERNMENT OF

QUEZON CITY AND METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,respondents.
G.R.No.177933.October11,2011.*

METRO MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs.

JUSTICEEMILIOA.GANCAYCO(Retired),respondent.
Civil Law; Nuisance; Anuisanceperseisthatwhichaffectstheimmediate
safetyofpersonsandpropertyandmaysummarilybeabatedundertheundefined
law of necessity.Article 694 of the Civil Code defines nuisance as any act,
omission,establishment,business,conditionorproperty,oranythingelsethat(1)
injuresorendangersthehealthorsafetyofothers;(2)annoysoroffendsthesenses;
(3)shocks,defiesordisregardsdecencyormorality;(4)obstructsorinterfereswith
thefreepassageofanypublichighwayorstreet,oranybodyofwater;or,(5)hinders
orimpairstheuseofproperty.Anuisancemaybeperseorperaccidens.Anuisance
per seisthatwhichaffectstheimmediatesafetyofpersonsandpropertyandmay
summarilybeabatedundertheundefinedlawofnecessity.
Same;Same;Onlycourtsoflawhavethepowertodeterminewhetherathingis
anuisance.NeitherdoestheMMDAhavethepowertodeclareathinganuisance.
Onlycourtsoflawhavethepowertodeterminewhetherathingisanuisance.InAC
Enterprisesv.FrabellePropertiesCorp.,506SCRA625(2006),weheld:Weagree
with petitioners contention that, under Section 447(a)(3)(i) of R.A. No. 7160,
otherwiseknownastheLocalGovernmentCode,the SangguniangPanglungsod is
empowered to enact ordinances declaring, preventing or abating noise and other
formsofnuisance.Itbearsstressing,however,thatthe SangguniangBayan cannot
declareaparticularthingasanuisanceperseandorderitscondemnation.Itdoesnot
havethepowertofind,asafact,thataparticularthingisanuisancewhensuch
thingisnotanuisance
_______________
*ENBANC.
854

854

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentofQuezonCity

perse;norcanitauthorizetheextrajudicialcondemnationanddestructionof
thatasanuisancewhichinitsnature,situationoruseisnotsuch.Thosethings
mustbedeterminedandresolvedintheordinarycourtsoflaw.Ifathingbein

fact, a nuisance due to the manner of its operation, that question cannot be
determinedbyamereresolutionoftheSangguniangBayan.(Emphasissupplied.)

PETITIONSforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionandresolutionofthe
CourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Gancayco,BalasbasandAssociatesforpetitionerinG.R.No.177807
andrespondentandPabloM.GancaycoinG.R.No.177933.
TheCityAttorneyforrespondentCityGovernmentofQuezonCity.
SERENO,J.:
BeforeusareconsolidatedPetitionsforReviewunderRule45ofthe
RulesofCourtassailingtheDecision 1 promulgatedon18July2006and
theResolution2dated10May2007oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SP
No.84648.
TheFacts
Intheearly1950s,retiredJusticeEmilioA.Gancaycoboughtaparcel
oflandlocatedat746EpifaniodelosSantosAvenue(EDSA), 3 Quezon
Citywithanareaof375square
_______________
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeMagdangalM.deLeon,withAssociateJusticesGodardo
A.JacintoandJuanQ.Enriquez,Jr.,concurring,Rollo(G.R.No.177807),pp.5879.
2Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. de Leon, with Associate Justices
BienvenidoL.ReyesandJuanQ.Enriquez,Jr.,concurring,id.,atpp.8183.
3Formerly808Highway54.
855

VOL.658,
855
OCTOBER11,
2011
Gancaycovs.City
GovernmentofQuezonCity
metersandcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.RT114558.
On27March1956,theQuezonCityCouncilissuedOrdinanceNo.
2904,entitledAnOrdinanceRequiringtheConstructionofArcades,for
CommercialBuildingstobeConstructedinZonesDesignatedasBusiness
Zones in the Zoning Plan of Quezon City, and Providing Penalties in
ViolationThereof.4

Anarcadeisdefinedasanyportionofabuildingabovethefirstfloor
projectingoverthesidewalkbeyondthefirststoreywallusedasprotection
forpedestriansagainstrainorsun.5
OrdinanceNo.2904requiredtherelevantpropertyownertoconstruct
anarcadewithawidthof4.50metersandheightof5.00metersalong
EDSA, from the north side of Santolan Road to one lot after Liberty
Avenue, and from one lot before Central Boulevard to the Botocan
transmissionline.
Attheoutset,itbearsemphasisthatatthetimeOrdinanceNo.2904
waspassedbythecitycouncil,therewasyetnobuildingcodepassedby
the national legislature. Thus, the regulation of the construction of
buildingswaslefttothediscretionoflocalgovernmentunits.Underthis
particular ordinance, the city council required that the arcade is to be
createdbyconstructingthewallofthegroundfloorfacingthesidewalka
fewmetersawayfromthepropertyline.Thus,thebuildingownerisnot
allowedtoconstructhiswalluptotheedgeofthepropertyline,thereby
creatingaspaceorshelterunderthefirstfloor.Ineffect,propertyowners
relinquishtheuseofthespaceforuseasanarcadeforpedestrians,instead
ofusingitfortheirownpurposes.
The ordinance was amended several times. On 8 August 1960,
propertieslocatedattheQuezonCitySanJuanbound
_______________
4Rollo(G.R.No.177933),pp.2931.
5Definitions,AnnexA,NationalBuildingCode,PresidentialDecreeNo.1096.
856

856

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentofQuezonCity
arywereexemptedbyOrdinanceNo.604477fromtheconstructionof
arcades.ThisordinancewasfurtheramendedbyOrdinanceNo.604513,
extendingtheexemptiontocommercialbuildingsfromBaleteStreetto
Seattle Street. Ordinance No. 6603 dated 1 March 1966 meanwhile
reducedthewidthofthearcadestothreemetersforbuildingsalongV.
LunaRoad,CentralDistrict,QuezonCity.
TheordinancecoveredthepropertyofJusticeGancayco.Subsequently,
sometimein1965,JusticeGancaycosoughttheexemptionofatwostorey
building being constructed on his property from the application of

OrdinanceNo.2904thathebeexemptedfromconstructinganarcadeon
hisproperty.
On 2 February 1966, the City Council acted favorably on Justice
GancaycosrequestandissuedResolutionNo.7161,S66,subjecttothe
conditionthatuponnoticebytheCityEngineer,theownershall,within
reasonabletime,demolishtheenclosureofsaidarcadeathisownexpense
whenpublicinterestsodemands.6
Decadesafter,inMarch2003,theMetropolitanManilaDevelopment
Authority(MMDA)conductedoperationstoclearobstructionsalongthe
sidewalkofEDSAinQuezonCitypursuanttoMetroManilaCouncils
(MMC)ResolutionNo.0228,Seriesof2002.7Theresolutionauthorized
theMMDAandlocalgovernmentunitstoclearthesidewalks,streets,
avenues,alleys,bridges,parksandotherpublicplacesinMetroManilaof
allillegalstructuresandobstructions.8
On28April2003,theMMDAsentanoticeofdemolitiontoJustice
Gancayco alleging that a portion of his building violated the National
BuildingCodeofthePhilippines(BuildingCode)9inrelationtoOrdinance
No.2904.TheMMDAgave
_______________
6Rollo(G.R.No.177933),p.32.
7Id.,atp.7.
8Id.,atpp.3337.
9PresidentialDecreeNo.1096.
857

VOL.658,
857
OCTOBER11,
2011
Gancaycovs.City
GovernmentofQuezonCity
JusticeGancaycofifteen(15)daystocleartheportionofthebuildingthat
wassupposedtobeanarcadealongEDSA.10
JusticeGancaycodidnotcomplywiththenotice.Soonafterthelapse
ofthefifteen(15)days,theMMDAproceededtodemolishthepartywall,
orwhatwasreferredtoasthewingwalls,ofthegroundfloorstructure.
Therecordsofthepresentcasearenotentirelyclearontheextentofthe
demolition;nevertheless,thefactofdemolitionwasnotdisputed.Atthe

timeofthedemolition,theaffectedportionofthebuildingwasbeingused
asarestaurant.
On29May2003,JusticeGancaycofiledaPetition11withprayerfora
temporaryrestrainingorderand/orwritofpreliminaryinjunctionbefore
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofQuezonCity,docketedasCivilCase
No.Q0349693,seekingtoprohibittheMMDAandtheCityGovernment
ofQuezonCityfromdemolishinghisproperty.InhisPetition, 12healleged
thattheordinanceauthorizedthetakingofprivatepropertywithoutdue
process of law and just compensation, because the construction of an
arcadewillrequire67.5squaremetersfromthe375squaremeterproperty.
Inaddition,heclaimedthattheordinancewasselectiveanddiscriminatory
initsscopeandapplicationwhenitallowedtheownersofthebuildings
locatedintheQuezonCitySanJuanboundarytoCubaoRotonda,and
BaletetoSeattleStreetstoconstructarcadesattheiroption.Hethussought
the declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 2904 and the payment of
damages. Alternately, he prayed for the payment of just compensation
shouldthecourtholdtheordinancevalid.
TheCityGovernmentofQuezonCityclaimedthattheordinancewasa
validexerciseofpolicepower,regulatingtheuseofpropertyinabusiness
zone.Inaddition,itpointedout
_______________
10Rollo(G.R.No.177933),p.38.
11Id.,atpp.3955.
12Id.,atpp.149165.
858

858

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentofQuezonCity
that Justice Gancayco was already barred by estoppel, laches and
prescription.
Similarly,theMMDAallegedthatJusticeGancaycocouldnotseekthe
nullification of an ordinance that he had already violated, and that the
ordinanceenjoyedthepresumptionofconstitutionality.Itfurtherstated
that the questioned property was a public nuisance impeding the safe
passageofpedestrians.Finally,theMMDAclaimedthatitwasmerely
implementingthelegaleasementestablishedbyOrdinanceNo.2904.13

The RTC rendered its Decision on 30 September 2003 in favor of

Justice Gancayco.14 It held that the questioned ordinance was
unconstitutional,rulingthatitallowedthetakingofprivatepropertyfor
publicusewithoutjustcompensation.TheRTCsaidthatbecause67.5
squaremetersoutofJusticeGancaycos375squaremetersofproperty
were being taken without compensation for the publics benefit, the
ordinance was confiscatory and oppressive. It likewise held that the
ordinance violated owners right to equal protection of laws. The
dispositiveportionthusstates:
WHEREFORE, thepetitionisherebygrantedandtheCourtherebydeclares
QuezonCityOrdinanceNo.2094,15Seriesof1956tobeunconstitutional,invalidand
voidabinitio.Therespondentsareherebypermanentlyenjoinedfromenforcingand
implementingthesaidordinance,andtherespondentMMDAisherebydirectedto
immediatelyrestoretheportionofthepartywallorwingwallofthebuildingofthe
petitioneritdestroyedtoitsoriginalcondition.
ITISSOORDERED.

TheMMDAthereafterappealedfromtheDecisionofthetrialcourt.On
18July2006,theCourtofAppeals(CA)partly
_______________
13Id.,atpp.166173.
14Id.,atpp.7785.
15NotethatthequestionedordinanceisOrdinanceNo.2904.
859

VOL.658,
859
OCTOBER11,
2011
Gancaycovs.City
GovernmentofQuezonCity
grantedtheappeal.16 TheCAupheldthevalidityofOrdinanceNo.2904
andliftedtheinjunctionagainsttheenforcementandimplementationof
theordinance.Insodoing,itheldthattheordinancewasavalidexercise
oftherightofthelocalgovernmentunittopromotethegeneralwelfareof
itsconstituentspursuanttoitspolicepowers.TheCAalsoruledthatthe
ordinanceestablishedavalidclassificationofpropertyownerswithregard
totheconstructionofarcadesintheirrespectivepropertiesdependingon
thelocation.TheCAfurtherstatedthattherewasnotakingofprivate

property, since the owner still enjoyed the beneficial ownership of the
property,towit:
Evenwiththerequirementoftheconstructionofarcadedsidewalkswithinhis
commerciallot,appelleestillretainsthebeneficialownershipofthesaidproperty.
Thus,thereisnotakingforpublicusewhichmustbesubjecttojustcompensation.
Whilethearcadedsidewalkscontributetothepublicgood,forprovidingsafetyand
comforttopassersby,theultimatebenefitfromthesamestillredoundstoappellee,
his commercial establishment being at the forefront of a busy thoroughfare like
EDSA. The arcaded sidewalks, by their nature, assure clients of the commercial
establishments thereat some kindof protection fromaccidents andother hazards.
Withoutdoubt,thissenseofprotectioncanbeaboontothebusinessactivitytherein
engaged.17

Nevertheless,theCAheldthattheMMDAwentbeyonditspowers
whenitdemolishedthesubjectproperty.ItfurtherfoundthatResolution
No.0228onlyreferstosidewalks,streets,avenues,alleys,bridges,parks
and other public places in Metro Manila, thus excluding Justice
Gancaycosprivateproperty.Lastly,theCAstatedthattheMMDAisnot
clothedwiththeauthoritytodeclare,preventorabatenuisances.Thus,the
dispositiveportionstated:
_______________
16Rollo(G.R.No.177933),pp.86107.
17Id.,atp.99.
860

860

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentofQuezonCity

WHEREFORE, the appeals are PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated

September30,2003oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch224,QuezonCity,isMODIFIED,
asfollows:
1)ThevalidityandconstitutionalityofOrdinanceNo.2094,18Seriesof1956,issued
bytheCityCouncilofQuezonCity,isUPHELD;and
2)TheinjunctionagainsttheenforcementandimplementationofthesaidOrdinanceis
LIFTED.
SOORDERED.

ThisrulingpromptedtheMMDAandJusticeGancaycotofiletheir
respectiveMotionsforPartialReconsideration.19

On10May2007,theCAdeniedthemotionsstatingthatthepartiesdid
not present new issues nor offer grounds that would merit the
reconsiderationoftheCourt.20
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the CA, Justice Gancayco and the
MMDAfiledtheirrespectivePetitionsforReviewbeforethisCourt.The
issuesraisedbythepartiesaresummarizedasfollows:
I.WHETHER OR NOT JUSTICE GANCAYCO WAS ESTOPPED FROM
ASSAILINGTHEVALIDITYOFORDINANCENO.2904.
II.WHETHERORNOTORDINANCENO.2904ISCONSTITUTIONAL.
III.WHETHER OR NOT THE WING WALL OF JUSTICE GANCAYCOS
BUILDINGISAPUBLICNUISANCE.
IV.WHETHER OR NOT THE MMDA LEGALLY DEMOLISHED THE
PROPERTYOFJUSTICEGANCAYCO.
_______________
18NotethatthequestionedordinanceisOrdinanceNo.2904.
19Id.,atpp.108116.
20Rollo(G.R.No.177807),pp.8183.
861

VOL.658,
861
OCTOBER11,
2011
Gancaycovs.City
GovernmentofQuezonCity
TheCourtsRuling

Estoppel
TheMMDAandtheCityGovernmentofQuezonCitybothclaimthat
JusticeGancaycowasestoppedfromchallengingtheordinance,because,
in1965,heaskedforanexemptionfromtheapplicationoftheordinance.
Accordingtothem,JusticeGancaycotherebyrecognizedthepowerofthe
citygovernmenttoregulatetheconstructionofbuildings.
To recall, Justice Gancayco questioned the constitutionality of the
ordinance on two grounds: (1) whether the ordinance takes private
property without due process of law and just compensation; and (2)
whethertheordinanceviolatestheequalprotectionofrightsbecauseit
allowedexemptionsfromitsapplication.

Onthefirstground,wefindthatJusticeGancaycomaystillquestion
the constitutionality of the ordinance to determine whether or not the
ordinanceconstitutesatakingofprivatepropertywithoutdueprocessof
lawandjustcompensation.Itwasonlyin2003whenhewasallegedly
deprivedofhispropertywhentheMMDAdemolishedaportionofthe
building. Becausehewas grantedanexemption in1966,therewasno
takingyettospeakof.
Moreover,inAcebedoOpticalCompany,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,21we
held:
Itisthereforedecisivelyclearthatestoppelcannotapplyinthiscase.Thefact
thatpetitioneracquiescedinthespecialconditionsimposedbytheCityMayorin
subjectbusinesspermitdoesnotprecludeitfromchallengingthesaidimposition,
whichisultraviresorbeyondtheambitofauthorityofrespondentCityMayor.Ultra
viresactsoractswhichareclearlybeyondthescopeofonesauthorityarenull
andvoidandcannotbegivenanyeffect.Thedoctrineofestoppelcannotoperate
togiveeffecttoan
_______________
21385Phil.956,978;329SCRA314,335(2000).
862

862

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentofQuezonCity

actwhichisotherwisenullandvoidorultravires.(Emphasissupplied.)

Recently,inBritishAmericanTobaccov.Camacho,22welikewiseheld:
Wefindthatpetitionerwasnotguiltyofestoppel.Whenitmadetheundertaking
tocomplywithallissuancesoftheBIR,whichatthattimeitconsideredasvalid,
petitioner did not commit any false misrepresentation or misleading act. Indeed,
petitionercannotbefaultedforinitiallyundertakingtocomplywith,andsubjecting
itselftotheoperationofSection145(C),andonlylateronfilingthesubjectcase
prayingforthedeclarationofitsunconstitutionalitywhenthecircumstanceschange
andthelawresultsinwhatitperceivestobeunlawfuldiscrimination.Themerefact
that a law has been relied upon in the past and all that time has not been
attackedasunconstitutionalisnotagroundforconsideringpetitionerestopped
fromassailingitsvalidity. Forcourtswillpassuponaconstitutionalquestion
onlywhenpresentedbeforeitinbonafidecasesfordetermination,andthefact
thatthequestionhasnotbeenraisedbeforeisnotavalidreasonforrefusingto
allowittoberaisedlater.(Emphasissupplied.)

Anent the second ground, we find that Justice Gancayco may not
questiontheordinanceonthegroundofequalprotectionwhenhealso
benefited from the exemption. It bears emphasis that Justice Gancayco
himselfrequestedforanexemptionfromtheapplicationoftheordinance
in1965andwaseventuallygrantedone.Moreover,hewasstillenjoying
theexemptionatthetimeofthedemolitionastherewasyetnovalidnotice
fromthecityengineer.Thus,whiletheordinancemaybeattackedwith
regardtoitsdifferenttreatmentofpropertiesthatappearstobesimilarly
situated,JusticeGancaycoisnottheproperpersontodoso.
_______________
22G.R.No.163583,20August2008,562SCRA511,537.
863

VOL.658,
863
OCTOBER11,
2011
Gancaycovs.City
GovernmentofQuezonCity
Zoningandtheregulationofthe
constructionofbuildingsarevalid
exercisesofpolicepower.
InMMDAv.BelAirVillageAssociation,23wediscussedthenatureof
policepowersexercisedbylocalgovernmentunits,towit:
Policepowerisaninherentattributeofsovereignty.Ithasbeendefinedasthe
powervestedbytheConstitutioninthelegislaturetomake,ordain,andestablishall
manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with
penaltiesorwithout,notrepugnanttotheConstitution,astheyshalljudgetobefor
thegoodandwelfareofthecommonwealth,andforthesubjectsofthesame.The
powerisplenaryanditsscopeisvastandpervasive,reachingandjustifyingmeasures
forpublichealth,publicsafety,publicmorals,andthegeneralwelfare.
ItbearsstressingthatpolicepowerislodgedprimarilyintheNationalLegislature.
Itcannotbeexercisedbyanygrouporbodyofindividualsnotpossessinglegislative
power.TheNationalLegislature,however,maydelegatethispowertothePresident
andadministrativeboardsaswellasthelawmakingbodiesofmunicipalcorporations
or local government units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such
legislativepowersasareconferredonthembythenationallawmakingbody.

Toresolvetheissueontheconstitutionalityoftheordinance,wemust
firstdeterminewhethertherewasavaliddelegationofpolicepower.Then
we can determine whether the City Government of Quezon City acted
withinthelimitsofthedelegation.
ItisclearthatCongressexpresslygrantedthecitygovernment,through
thecitycouncil,policepowerbyvirtueofSection12(oo)ofRepublicAct
No.537,ortheRevisedCharterofQuezonCity,24whichstates:
_______________
23385Phil.586,601602;328SCRA836,843844(2000).
24Enactedon16June1950.
864

864

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentofQuezonCity

Tomakesuchfurtherordinancesandregulationsnotrepugnanttolawasmaybe
necessarytocarryintoeffectanddischargethepowersanddutiesconferredbythis
Actandsuchasitshalldeemnecessaryandpropertoprovideforthehealthand
safety,promotetheprosperity,improvethemorals,peace,goodorder,comfort,and
convenienceofthecityandtheinhabitantsthereof,andfortheprotectionofproperty
therein;andenforceobediencetheretowithsuchlawfulfinesorpenaltiesastheCity
Councilmayprescribeundertheprovisionsofsubsection(jj)ofthissection.

Specifically, on the powers of the city government to regulate the

constructionofbuildings,theCharteralsoexpresslyprovidedthatthecity
governmenthadthepowertoregulatethekindsofbuildingsandstructures
thatmaybeerectedwithinfirelimitsandthemannerofconstructingand
repairingthem.25
Withregardmeanwhiletothepowerofthelocalgovernmentunitsto
issuezoningordinances,weapply SocialJusticeSocietyv.Atienza.26 In
that case, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila City enacted an
ordinanceon28November2001reclassifying certainareas ofthecity
fromindustrialtocommercial.Asaresultofthezoningordinance,theoil
terminalslocatedinthoseareaswerenolongerallowed.Thoughtheoil
companiescontendedthattheystoodtolosebillionsofpesos,thisCourt
upheldthepowerofthecitygovernmenttopasstheassailedordinance,
stating:

Intheexerciseofpolicepower,propertyrightsofindividualsmaybesubjected
to restraints and burdens in order to fulfil the objectives of the government.
Otherwisestated, thegovernmentmayenactlegislationthatmayinterferewith
personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations to promote the
general welfare. However, the interference must be reasonable and not
arbitrary.Andtoforestallarbitrariness,themethodsormeansusedtoprotect
publichealth,morals,
_______________
25Sec.12(j).
26G.R.No.156502,13February2008,545SCRA92,139140.
865

VOL.658,OCTOBER
11,2011

865

Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentof
QuezonCity
safetyorwelfaremusthaveareasonablerelationtotheendinview.
ThemeansadoptedbytheSanggunianwastheenactmentofazoningordinance
whichreclassifiedtheareawherethedepotissituatedfromindustrialtocommercial.
A zoning ordinance is defined as a local city or municipal legislation which
logically arranges, prescribes, defines and apportions a given political
subdivisionintospecificlandusesaspresentandfutureprojectionofneeds.Asa
resultofthezoning,thecontinuedoperationofthebusinessesoftheoilcompaniesin
theirpresentlocationwillnolongerbepermitted.Thepowertoestablishzonesfor
industrial, commercial and residential uses is derived from the police power
itselfandisexercisedfortheprotectionandbenefitoftheresidentsofalocality.
Consequently, the enactment of Ordinance No. 8027 is within the power of the
SangguniangPanlungsod oftheCityofManilaandanyresultingburdenonthose
affectedcannotbesaidtobeunjust...(Emphasissupplied)

In Carlos Superdrug v. Department of Social Welfare and

Development,27wealsoheld:
Forthisreason,whentheconditionssodemandasdeterminedbythelegislature,
property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property
rights,thoughshelteredbydueprocess,mustyieldtogeneralwelfare.
Policepowerasanattributetopromotethecommongoodwouldbediluted
considerably if on the mere plea of petitioners that they will suffer loss of
earningsandcapital,thequestionedprovisionisinvalidated.Moreover,inthe

absence of evidence demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect of the

provision in question, there is no basis for its nullification in view of the
presumptionofvaliditywhicheverylawhasinitsfavor.(Emphasissupplied.)

Inthecaseatbar,itisclearthattheprimaryobjectivesofthecity
councilofQuezonCitywhenitissuedthequestionedordinanceordering
theconstructionofarcadeswerethe
_______________
27G.R.No.166494,29June2007,526SCRA130,144.
866

866

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentofQuezonCity
healthandsafetyofthecityanditsinhabitants;thepromotionoftheir
prosperity; and the improvement of their morals, peace, good order,
comfort,andtheconvenience.Thesearcadesprovidesafeandconvenient
passagealongthesidewalkforcommutersandpedestrians,notjustthe
residentsofQuezonCity.Moreespeciallysobecausethecontestedportion
ofthebuildingislocatedonabusysegmentofthecity,inabusinesszone
alongEDSA.
Corollarily,thepolicyoftheBuildingCode,28whichwaspassedafter
the QuezonCity Ordinance, supports the purpose for the enactment of
OrdinanceNo.2904.TheBuildingCodestates:
Section102.DeclarationofPolicy.Itisherebydeclaredtobethepolicyofthe
State to safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare, consistent with the
principlesofsoundenvironmentalmanagementandcontrol;andtothisend,makeit
thepurposeofthisCodetoprovideforallbuildingsandstructures,aframeworkof
minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control their location, site,
designqualityofmaterials,construction,occupancy,andmaintenance.

Section1004likewiserequirestheconstructionofarcadeswhenever
existingorzoningordinancesrequireit.Apparently,thelawallowsthe
localgovernmentunitstodeterminewhetherarcadesarenecessarywithin
theirrespectivejurisdictions.
JusticeGancaycoarguesthatthereisathreemetersidewalkinfrontof
hispropertyline,andthearcadeshouldbeconstructedabovethatsidewalk
rather than within his property line. We do not need to address this
argument inasmuch as it raises the issue of the wisdom of the city
ordinance,amatterwewillnotandneednotdelveinto.

Toreiterate,atthetimethattheordinancewaspassed,therewasno
nationalbuildingcodeenforcedtoguidethecity
_______________
28PresidentialDecreeNo.1096.
867

VOL.658,
867
OCTOBER11,
2011
Gancaycovs.City
GovernmentofQuezonCity
council;thus,therewasnolawofnationalapplicationthatprohibitedthe
city council from regulating the construction of buildings, arcades and
sidewalksintheirjurisdiction.
Thewingwallsofthebuildingarenot
nuisancesperse.
TheMMDAclaimsthattheportionofthebuildinginquestionisa
nuisanceperse.
Wedisagree.
The fact that in 1966 the City Council gave Justice Gancayco an
exemptionfromconstructinganarcadeisanindicationthatthewingwalls
ofthebuildingarenotnuisances perse.Thewingwallsdonot perse
immediatelyandadverselyaffectthesafetyofpersonsandproperty.The
factthatanordinancemaydeclareastructureillegaldoesnotnecessarily
makethatstructureanuisance.
Article694oftheCivilCodedefinesnuisanceasanyact,omission,
establishment,business,conditionorproperty,oranythingelsethat(1)
injuresorendangersthehealthorsafetyofothers;(2)annoysoroffends
the senses; (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; (4)
obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or
street,oranybodyofwater;or,(5)hindersorimpairstheuseofproperty.
Anuisancemaybeperseorperaccidens.Anuisanceperseisthatwhich
affectstheimmediatesafetyofpersonsandpropertyandmaysummarily
beabatedundertheundefinedlawofnecessity.29
Clearly,whenJusticeGancaycowasgivenapermittoconstructthe
building,thecitycouncilorthecityengineerdidnotconsiderthebuilding,

or its demolished portion, to be a threat to the safety of persons and

property.Thisfactalone
_______________
29Telmov.Bustamante,G.R.No.182567,13July2009,592SCRA552citingTayaban
v.People,G.R.No.150194,6March2007,517SCRA488,507.
868

868

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentofQuezonCity
should have warned the MMDA against summarily demolishing the
structure.
NeitherdoestheMMDAhavethepowertodeclareathinganuisance.
Only courts of law have the power to determine whether a thing is a
nuisance.InACEnterprisesv.FrabellePropertiesCorp.,30weheld:
Weagreewithpetitionerscontentionthat,underSection447(a)(3)(i)ofR.A.
No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang
Panglungsod is empowered to enact ordinances declaring, preventing or abating
noiseandotherformsofnuisance.Itbearsstressing,however,thattheSangguniang
Bayan cannot declare a particular thing as a nuisance per se and order its
condemnation. Itdoesnothavethepowertofind,asafact,thataparticular
thingisanuisancewhensuchthingisnotanuisanceperse;norcanitauthorize
theextrajudicialcondemnationanddestructionofthatasanuisancewhichinits
nature, situation or use is not such. Those things must be determined and
resolvedintheordinarycourtsoflaw.Ifathingbeinfact,anuisanceduetothe
mannerofitsoperation,thatquestioncannotbedeterminedbyamereresolutionof
theSangguniangBayan.(Emphasissupplied.)

MMDAillegallydemolished
thepropertyofJusticeGancayco.
MMDAallegesthatbyvirtueofMMDAResolutionNo.0228,Series
of 2002, it is empowered to demolish Justice Gancaycos property. It
insiststhattheMetroManilaCouncilauthorizedtheMMDAandthelocal
governmentunitstoclearthesidewalks,streets,avenues,alleys,bridges,
parksandotherpublicplacesinMetroManilaofallillegalstructuresand
obstructions.Itfurtherallegesthatitdemolishedthepropertypursuantto
theBuildingCodeinrelationtoOrdinanceNo.2904asamended.
_______________

30G.R.No.166744,2November2006,506SCRA625,660661.
869

VOL.658,
869
OCTOBER11,
2011
Gancaycovs.City
GovernmentofQuezonCity
However,theBuildingCodeclearlyprovidestheprocessbywhicha
buildingmaybedemolished.Theauthoritytoorderthedemolitionofany
structurelieswiththeBuildingOfficial.Thepertinentprovisionsofthe
BuildingCodeprovide:
SECTION205.Building Officials.Except as otherwise provided herein, the
BuildingOfficialshallberesponsibleforcarryingouttheprovisionsofthisCodein
thefieldaswellastheenforcementofordersanddecisionsmadepursuantthereto.
Duetotheexigenciesoftheservice,theSecretarymaydesignateincumbentPublic
WorksDistrictEngineers,CityEngineersandMunicipalEngineersactasBuilding
Officials in their respective areas of jurisdiction. The designation made by the
SecretaryunderthisSectionshallcontinueuntilregularpositionsofBuildingOfficial
areprovidedorunlesssoonerterminatedforcausesprovidedbylawordecree.
xxxxxxxxx
SECTION207.Duties of a Building Official.In his respective territorial
jurisdiction,theBuildingOfficialshallbeprimarilyresponsiblefortheenforcement
oftheprovisionsofthisCodeaswellasoftheimplementingrulesandregulations
issuedtherefor.Heistheofficialchargedwiththedutiesofissuingbuildingpermits.
Intheperformanceofhisduties,aBuildingOfficialmayenteranybuildingorits
premises at all reasonable times to inspect and determine compliance with the
requirementsofthisCode,andthetermsandconditionsprovidedforinthebuilding
permitasissued.
WhenanybuildingworkisfoundtobecontrarytotheprovisionsofthisCode,
the Building Official may order the work stopped and prescribe the terms
and/or conditions when the work will be allowed to resume. Likewise, the
BuildingOfficialisauthorizedtoorderthediscontinuanceoftheoccupancyor
useofanybuildingorstructureorportionthereoffoundtobeoccupiedorused
contrarytotheprovisionsofthisCode.
xxxxxxxxx

870

870

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentofQuezonCity

SECTION215.Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.When any building or

structureisfoundordeclaredtobedangerousorruinous,theBuildingOfficial
shall order its repair, vacation or demolition depending upon the degree of
dangertolife,health,orsafety.Thisiswithoutprejudicetofurtheractionthat
maybetakenundertheprovisionsofArticles482and694to707oftheCivil
CodeofthePhilippines.(Emphasissupplied.)

MMDA v. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending and

Promotions,Inc.31 isapplicabletothecaseatbar.Inthatcase,MMDA,
invoking its charter and the Building Code, summarily dismantled the
advertisingmediainstalledontheMetroRailTransit(MRT)3.ThisCourt
held:
It is futile for MMDA to simply invoke its legal mandate to justify the
dismantling of Trackworks billboards, signages and other advertising media.
MMDA simply had no power on its own to dismantle, remove, or destroy the
billboards,signagesandotheradvertisingmediainstalledontheMRT3structureby
Trackworks. In Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. BelAir Village
Association, Inc., Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Viron
TransportationCo.,Inc.,andMetropolitanManilaDevelopmentAuthorityv.Garin,
theCourthadtheoccasiontorulethatMMDAspowerswerelimitedtothe
formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation,
management, monitoring, setting of policies, installing a system, and
administration.NothinginRepublicActNo.7924grantedMMDApolicepower,
letalonelegislativepower.
ClarifyingtherealnatureofMMDA,theCourtheld:
...TheMMDAis,astermedinthecharteritself,adevelopmentauthority.
Itisanagencycreatedforthepurposeoflayingdownpoliciesandcoordinating
with the various national government agencies, peoples organizations, non
governmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and
expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. All its
functionsareadministrativein
_______________
31G.R.No.179554,16December2009,608SCRA325,332334.

871

VOL.658,OCTOBER
11,2011

871

Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentof
QuezonCity
natureandtheseareactuallysummedupinthecharteritself,viz.:
Sec.2.CreationoftheMetropolitanManilaDevelopmentAuthority.xxx.
TheMMDAshallperformplanning,monitoringandcoordinativefunctions,
and in the process exercise regulatory and supervisory authority over the
deliveryofmetrowideserviceswithinMetroManila,withoutdiminutionof
theautonomyoflocalgovernmentunitsconcerningpurelylocalmatters.
TheCourtalsoagreeswiththeCAsrulingthatMMDARegulationNo.96009
andMMCMemorandumCircularNo.8809didnotapplytoTrackworksbillboards,
signagesandotheradvertisingmedia.Theprohibitionagainstposting,installation
anddisplayofbillboards,signagesandotheradvertisingmediaappliedonlytopublic
areas, but MRT3, being private property pursuant to the BLT agreement
betweentheGovernmentandMRTC,wasnotoneoftheareasastowhichthe
prohibition applied. Moreover, MMC Memorandum Circular No. 8809 did not
apply toTrackworks billboards, signages and other advertising mediain MRT3,
becauseitdidnotspecificallycoverMRT3,andbecauseitwasissuedayearpriorto
the construction of MRT3 on the center island of EDSA. Clearly, MMC
MemorandumCircularNo.8809couldnothaveincludedMRT3initsprohibition.
MMDAsinsistencethatitwasonlyimplementingPresidentialDecreeNo.1096
(BuildingCode) anditsimplementingrulesandregulationsisnotpersuasive. The
power to enforce the provisions of the Building Code was lodged in the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), not in MMDA,
consideringthelawsfollowingprovision,thus:
Sec.201.Responsibility for Administration and Enforcement.The
administrationandenforcementoftheprovisionsofthisCodeincludingthe
impositionofpenaltiesforadministrativeviolationsthereofisherebyvestedin
the Secretary of Public Works, Transportation and Communications,
hereinafterreferredtoastheSecretary.
ThereisalsonoevidenceshowingthatMMDAhadbeendelegatedbyDPWH
toimplementtheBuildingCode.(Emphasissupplied.)
872

872

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Gancaycovs.CityGovernmentofQuezonCity
Additionally,thepenaltyprescribedbyOrdinanceNo.2904itselfdoes
not include the demolition of illegally constructed buildings in case of
violations.Instead,itmerelyprescribesapunishmentofafineofnot
morethantwohundredpesos(P200.00)orbyimprisonmentofnotmore
than thirty (30) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment at the
discretionoftheCourt,Provided,thatiftheviolationiscommittedbya
corporation,partnership,oranyjuridicalentity,theManager,managing
partner,oranypersonchargedwiththemanagementthereofshallbeheld
responsibletherefor.Theordinanceitselfalsoclearlystatesthatitisthe
regularcourtsthatwilldeterminewhethertherewasaviolation ofthe
ordinance.
AspointedoutinTrackworks,theMMDAdoesnothavethepowerto
enactordinances.Thus,itcannotsupplementtheprovisionsofQuezon
CityOrdinanceNo.2904merelythroughitsResolutionNo.0228.
Lastly,theMMDAclaimsthattheCityGovernmentof
QuezonCitymaybeconsideredtohaveapprovedthedemolitionofthe
structure,simplybecausethenQuezonCityMayorFelicianoR.Belmonte
signed MMDA Resolution No. 0228. In effect, the city government
delegatedthesepowerstotheMMDA.Thepowersreferredtoarethose
thatincludethepowertodeclare,preventandabateanuisance 32 andto
furtherimposethepenaltyofremovalordemolitionofthebuildingor
structurebytheownerorbythecityattheexpenseoftheowner.33
MMDAsargumentdoesnotholdwater.Therewasnovaliddelegation
ofpowerstotheMMDA.ContrarytotheclaimoftheMMDA,theCity
GovernmentofQuezonCitywasheditshandsofftheactsoftheformer.In
its Answer,34 the city government stated that the demolition was
undertakenbythe
_______________
32Sec.12(w).
33Sec.12(jj).
34Rollo(G.R.No.177933)pp.249270.
873

VOL.658,
OCTOBER11,
2011

873

MMDAonly,withouttheparticipationand/orconsentofQuezonCity.
Therefore,theMMDAactedonitsownandshouldbeheldsolelyliable
forthedestructionoftheportionofJusticeGancaycosbuilding.
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theDecisionoftheCourtof
AppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.84648isAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., LeonardoDe Castro, Brion,
Peralta,Abad,Villarama,Jr.,MendozaandPerlasBernabe,JJ.,concur.
BersaminandPerez,JJ.,OnOfficialLeave.
DelCastillo,J.,OnSickLeave.
Reyes,J.,NoPart.
Judgmentaffirmed.
Note.Thereistakingwhentheexpropriatorentersprivateproperty
notonlyforamomentaryperiodbutforamorepermanentduration,for
thepurposeofdevotingthepropertytoapublicuseinsuchamannerasto
oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.
(PhilippineNationalOilCompanyvs.Maglasang,570SCRA560[2008])
o0o