ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 165445.� December 15, 2004]
PABALAN vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 15 2004.
G.R. No. 165445 (Luis G. Pabalan vs. The Executive Secretary, Office of the President, and/or Iglesia Evangelika Metodista En Las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF), Novaliches Congregation.)
Petitioner Luis G. Pabalan seeks the reversal of the February 19, 2004 decision [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.73307 affirming the September 19, 2000 and August 6, 2002 resolutions of the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 20-A-8919.
The present controversy stemmed from a letter-complaint dated February 12, 1997, filed by petitioner Luis G. Pabalan before the Office of the Building Official (OBO) of Quezon City, alleging that the construction work being undertaken by private respondent IEMELIF encroached on his property.
Acting on the complaint, the OBO conducted an ocular inspection of the premises. Thereafter, it issued a work stoppage order against the construction work complained of, and called the parties to a hearing.
Meanwhile, in a letter dated July 14, 1997, another IMELIF faction headed by Bishop George Castro, informed the OBO that they are joining petitioner in his complaint for illegal construction against IMELIF. At the same time, the group asserted the Church's title to the disputed property.
On July 23, 1997, the OBO issued a resolution declaring petitioner as the registered owner of the property and ordered the demolition of the constructed building on ground lack of the required building permit.
On August 25, 1997, IMELIF Bishop Castro group moved to intervene and to set aside the July 23, 1997 OBO resolution. In its Order dated October 8, 1997, the OBO denied the motion for intervention. On November 17, 1997, the Castro group filed a motion for reconsideration.
On November 18, 1997, petitioner filed a motion for execution of the OBO's demolition order.
On January 18, 1998, the OBO denied private respondent's motion for reconsideration.
On July 31, 1998, petitioner applied for a fencing permit which the OBO granted despite private respondent's opposition.
On October 23, 1998, the OBO issued an order directing Task Force COPRISS to carry out the demolition of the subject building.
The OBO directive to COPRISS was, however, not implemented when the City Administrator of Quezon City, issued a Memorandum dated November 4, 1998 directing Assistant Building Official Romualdo Santos to recall his order of demolition until the controversy involving question of ownership of the subject property is resolved.
On November 12, 1998, private respondent appealed to the DPWH Secretary.
On September 14, 1999, after the parties have submitted their respective pleadings, the DPWH Secretary came out with a decision, directing, as follows:
1.������ The OBO Resolution dated July 23, 1997 in Building Case No. 97-47 is hereby declared null and void. Consequently, all subsequent Orders and processes issued by the OBO based on the said Resolution are also hereby declared void and no force and effect.
2.������ The Fencing Permit No. 2205 issued by the OBO in favor of the Appellee Pabalan is hereby ordered recalled, the same having been prematurely issued, considering that the boundary dispute between IEMELIF and Appellee Pabalan have yet to be resolved; and
3.������ Appellant's petition for issuance of a Building Permit for the construction works on the building subject of the Appeal is denied, for reasons that the land dispute between IEMELIF and Pabalan, and the question of who between Appellant and IEMELIF Bishop Castro group is the legal representative of their church have yet to be settled in the proper fora. [2] cralaw
In his Order dated October 20, 1999, the DPWH Secretary denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 20-A-8919.
In his September 19, 2000 resolution, [3] cralaw the Executive Secretary affirmed the order of the DPWH Secretary, reiterating the latter's pronouncement that "where the complaint is grounded on encroachment, the boundaries of affected parties must first be established by a competent court for the reliefs available to them" and that "[A]bsence of competent court ruling on the issue of ownership of the lot in controversy xxx the OBO exceeded its authority delegated to it under the [National Building Code] when it declared xxx Pabalan as the legitimate owner of said lot".
On August 6, 2002, the Executive Secretary denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Displeased, petitioner went to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court thereat docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 73307.
There, too, petitioner was without success. For, in the herein assailed decision dated February 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals denied the petition, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition is DENIED. The assailed Resolution dated September 19, 2000 of the Office of the President, in O.P. Case No. 20-A-8919 as well as the Resolution dated August 6, 2002, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against Petitioner,
saying, among others, that -
In the case at bench, the OBO-Quezon City in the Resolution dated July 23, 1997, categorically declared petitioner (LUIS) as the owner of the disputed property. Such declaration, we believe is an abuse of discretion on the part of OBO-Quezon City. Section 207 (Duties of Building Official), of the National Building Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1096) does not empower the building official to declare an individual to be an owner of a specific property. Said function of determining the true owner of a particular parcel of land is vested in the courts of competent jurisdiction and not on the Building Official. Thus, the Resolution dated July 23, 1997 of OBO-Quezon City declaring LUIS owner of the disputed property is null and void since the power of determining ownership over a parcel of land is not part or included in the duties granted by PD No. 1096 to the Building Official. The aforesaid Resolution being a nullity, hence, no Resolution has ever become final and executory as claimed by petitioner.
xxx��� xxx������ xxx
Petitioner is now with us.
This Court finds no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals in affirming the decision of both the DPWH Secretary and the Executive Secretary.
As correctly ratiocinated, demolition is not at all times the appropriate sanction for illegal construction, grounded on lack of the required building permit. The National Building Code, being a curative law, allows the builder of an illegally constructed building to legitimize his construction even belatedly as long as he could present title to the property, submit as built plans of his building and the construction meets the minimum requirements and standard of the Code and its implementing Rules and Regulations.
On the other hand, when the complaint is grounded on encroachment, the boundaries of affected parties must first be established by a competent court for the determination of the reliefs available to them under all applicable laws and not limited only to the National Building Code.
WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Asst. Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, concurred in by Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Rosmari D. Carandang of the former Fifth Division.
[2] cralaw See Annex "I", Petition; Rollo, p. 62.
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 60-64.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
