Title
Alangdeo vs. Yaranon
Case
G.R. No. 206423
Decision Date
Jul 1, 2015
Petitioners contested a demolition order for structures built without permits on disputed land. SC ruled in their favor, citing lack of legal basis for summary demolition and improper appeal process.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 206423)

Facts:

Background of the Case

  • On November 13, 2003, respondent Ernesto Lardizabal filed a complaint for demolition before the City Engineer's Office of Baguio City, questioning the ongoing construction of a residential structure and garage extension by petitioners Leoncio Alangdeo, Arthur Verceles, and Danny Vergara on a parcel of land in Barangay Atok Trail, Baguio City. The land was allegedly owned by Mariano Pangloy and Ernesto’s father, Juanito Lardizabal.
  • The City Engineer's Office found that the construction lacked a building permit, leading the City Mayor to issue Demolition Order No. 05 (DO No. 05), directing the City Demolition Team to summarily demolish the structures.

Petitioners' Claims

  • Petitioners moved for reconsideration of DO No. 05, but it was denied. They then filed a complaint for injunction and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, seeking to enjoin the implementation of the demolition order.
  • Petitioners claimed that they had a Tax Declaration and a pending application for an Ancestral Land Claim over the subject property filed before the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). They also argued that they had been paying taxes and occupying the land since 1977.
  • They further contended that Barangay Atok Trail was covered by Proclamation No. 414, which declared the area as a mineral reservation, making it impossible for them to obtain a title despite their long-standing possession.

RTC Ruling

  • The RTC granted the injunction, finding that Proclamation 414 declared the area as a buffer zone for the mining industry, and thus, all structures in the area (not just petitioners') lacked building permits. The RTC held that allowing the demolition of petitioners' structures while leaving others untouched would violate the equal protection clause.

CA Ruling

  • The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, ruling that petitioners failed to demonstrate an existing right to be protected by injunction. The CA relied on a DENR decision recognizing the ancestral and preferential rights of Mariano Pangloy and the Heirs of Juanito Lardizabal over the subject property.

Issue:

  1. Whether the CA should have dismissed respondents' appeal as it involved pure questions of law and/or for lack of merit.
  2. Whether the issuance of a writ of injunction is warranted.

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA's decision and enjoining the implementation of DO No. 05.
  • The Court held that the CA should have dismissed the appeal as it involved pure questions of law, which should have been brought directly to the Supreme Court.
  • On the substantive issue, the Court found that DO No. 05 had no legal basis. Petitioners could not be considered new squatters, professional squatters, or members of a squatting syndicate under the Summary Eviction IRR. Moreover, none of the situations enumerated under Section 28 of RA 7279, which allow for eviction or demolition, were present in this case.
  • The Court also emphasized that the absence of a building permit does not justify summary demolition under the National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP). The Building Official, not the City Mayor, has the authority to order demolition under the NBCP, and no such declaration was made in this case.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.