NEW SUN VALLEY office of the City of Paranaque, the public
HOMEOWNERS and was perfectly within the facility that is
ASSOCIATION, INC. V. judicial notice of the Courts. subject to SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY, closure is BARANGAY SUN VALLEY, provided. ISSUE: Whether or not the BSV PARANAQUE CITY Sangguniang Barangay should G.R. No. 156686; July 27, 2011 have passed an ordinance instead Section 21 of the LGC, which J. Leonardo-De Castro of a resolution to open the requires the passage of an subject roads ordinance by a local government unit to effect the opening of a local FACTS: Respondent road, does not apply to the instant BSV Sangguniang Barangay RULING: No, it is not necessary case. The Rosemallow and Aster issued Resolution No. 98-096, for BSV Sangguniang Barangay to Streets have already been donated directing the opening of pass an ordinance to open the by the Sun Valley Subdivision to, Rosemallow and Aster Streets to subject roads. and the titles thereto already issued vehicular and pedestrian traffic. in the name of, the City Petitioner NSVHAI filed a Petition The local government units power Government of Paraaque since for a Writ of Preliminary to close and open roads within its 1964. Petitioner did not deny this Injunction/Permanent Injunction jurisdiction is clear under the Local fact. Hence, the road lots have with prayer for issuance of TRO Government Code (LGC), Section already been placed beyond the with the RTC of Paraaque City. 21 of which provides: private rights or claims of Petitioner claimed therein that the Petitioner. implementation of BSV Resolution Section No. 98-096 would cause grave 21. Closure and Therefore, an ordinance is not injustice and irreparable injury as Opening of necessary to open the roads lots if the affected homeowners acquired Roads. (a) A their titles are already in the name their properties for strictly local of the local government unit, residential purposes. Executive government which is the Barangay Sun Valley Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort of unit in this case. the RTC issued a TRO. may, pursuant to an In the Amended Petition, Petitioner ordinance, per argued that manently or te a Barangay Resolution cannot mporarily close validly cause the opening of the or open any subject roads because under the local road, law, an ordinance is required to alley, park, or effect such an act. The RTC square falling dismissed the Petition. The CA within its denied the appeal and affirmed the jurisdiction: Pr Orders of the RTC. ovided, however, That Petitioner alleged that the CA in case of should not have relied on permanent respondent’s claim of ownership, closure, such as this led to the erroneous ordinance must conclusion that there was no need be approved by to pass an ordinance. Petitioner at least two- also argued that the supposed titles thirds (2/3) of to the subject roads were never all the members submitted to the RTC. On the other of the hand, Respondents alleged that the sanggunian, issuance of the titles in favor and when of Paraaque over all the roads in necessary, an Sun Valley Subdivision was an adequate official act by the land registration substitute for
Louis Howard Andres Cox v. William I. Koch, Individually and as Trustee De Son Tort of Mixson-Gray Trust-A, Mixson-Simmons-Gray Trust-B, Mixon-Simmons-Gray Trust-C, Mixsonsimmons-Gray Trust D, 77 F.3d 492, 10th Cir. (1996)