Case Digest (G.R. No. 206423)
Facts:
Leoncio Alangdeo, Arthur Verceles, and Danny Vergara v. The City Mayor of Baguio, Hon. Braulio D. Yaranon (to be substituted by incumbent City Mayor, Hon. Mauricio Domogan), Jeofrey Mortela, Head Demolition Team, City Engineers Office, and Ernesto Lardizabal, G.R. No. 206423, July 01, 2015, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.On November 13, 2003, respondent Ernesto Lardizabal filed a complaint for demolition before the City Engineers Office of Baguio City, alleging that petitioners were constructing residential structures and a garage extension on a parcel in Barangay Atok Trail (the subject property) owned by Mariano Pangloy and the heirs of Juanito Lardizabal. The City Engineers Office found no building permit for the constructions. The City Mayor then issued Demolition Order No. 05, series of 2005 (DO No. 05), directing the City Demolition Team to summarily demolish the structures, stating it was issued pursuant to Section 3, paragraph 2.5(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing Summary Eviction (Summary Eviction IRR) under Republic Act No. 7279 (RA 7279).
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of DO No. 05 which the City Mayor denied, and they filed a complaint for injunction and prohibition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Baguio City, Branch 60, docketed as Civil Case No. 6007-R. The RTC granted a temporary restraining order and later a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of DO No. 05 pending final determination. At trial, petitioner Arthur Verceles testified that he had a tax declaration and a pending ancestral land claim before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and that he had occupied and paid taxes on the land since 1977; he also noted the area was subject to Proclamation No. 414 (a mineral reservation). Barangay officials testified about a 2003 census showing many houses in the area lacked building permits. Respondents’ witnesses testified the petitioners’ structures lacked building permits; Ernesto testified that an appeal regarding possession was pending before the Office of the DENR Secretary.
In a Decision dated April 27, 2006 the RTC enjoined the City Government and its agents from implementing DO No. 05 until resolution of all cases concerning the subject property, reasoning that Proclamation No. 414 covered the area and that selective demolition would violate equal protection. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Decision dated June 29, 2012, the CA reversed the RTC, finding petitioners failed to show a right deserving protection and relying on a DENR Secretary decision of August 31, 2006 (DENR Case No. 5625) that recognized the preferential/ancestral rights of Pangloy and the heirs of Juanito Lardizabal pending NCIP determination; the CA dismissed the injunction for lack of cause of action....(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Court of Appeals have dismissed respondents’ appeal for being an improper mode of appeal because it raised pure questions of law?
- Is issuance of a writ of injunction enjoining implementation of Demolition Order No...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)