Facts:

This case involves Aniano A. Albon as the petitioner against respondents Bayani F. Fernando (City Mayor), Engr. Alfonso Espirito (City Engineer), Engr. Anaki Maderal (Assistant City Engineer), and Natividad Cabalquinto (City Treasurer), all officials of the City of Marikina. The dispute centers on a public works project undertaken by the City of Marikina in May 1999 aimed at widening, clearing, and repairing the sidewalks of the Marikina Greenheights Subdivision. The project was executed under Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993. On June 14, 1999, Albon filed a complaint for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction with damages against the city officials, claiming that the project was unconstitutional because it utilized public funds and resources for the improvement of what he contended were privately owned sidewalks within a subdivision owned by V.V. Soliven, Inc. Albon asserted that this action contravened the constitutional prohibition against utilizing public funds for private purpose

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• In May 1999, the City of Marikina initiated a public works project aimed at widening, clearing, and repairing sidewalks within the Marikina Greenheights Subdivision.
• The project was undertaken pursuant to Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993, which had been used by the city for similar infrastructure projects involving roads, streets, and sidewalks.

Parties Involved

• Petitioner: Aniano A. Albon, who initiated the suit challenging the project.
• Respondents:
• Bayani F. Fernando, City Mayor of Marikina
• Alfonso Espirito, City Engineer of Marikina
• Anaki Maderal, Assistant City Engineer of Marikina
• Natividad Cabalquinto, City Treasurer of Marikina

Allegations and Claims

• Petitioner claimed that the sidewalks being improved were private property, as the Marikina Greenheights Subdivision was owned by V.V. Soliven, Inc.
• He asserted that it was unconstitutional and unlawful for the LGU to use government equipment, property, and public funds for the grading, widening, clearing, repair, and maintenance of these sidewalks.
• The petitioner further argued that such use of funds violated:
• The constitutional prohibition against using public funds for private purposes (Article VI, Sec. 9 of the Constitution).
• Sections 335 and 336 of Republic Act (RA) 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
• Provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Procedural History

• On June 14, 1999, petitioner filed a taxpayer’s suit for certiorari, prohibition, injunction, and damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina.
• The RTC, after denying the petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (citing PD 1818 and Supreme Court Circular No. 68-94), dismissed the case on November 15, 1999.
• The trial court held that the City of Marikina was authorized to undertake the project under its inherent police power, applying the 1991 White Plains Association doctrine that declared the roads and sidewalks inside the subdivision as public property.
• The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals by the petitioner, which, on December 22, 2000, sustained the trial court’s ruling by declaring Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993, valid and the sidewalks public in nature.
• Petitioner’s subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied at both trial and appellate levels, leading him to file the present petition for review on certiorari.

Regulatory and Legal Framework

• The City of Marikina’s actions were justified under its police powers as provided in RA 7160, which allows LGUs to enact ordinances for the promotion of general welfare and public safety.
• The controversy revolves around the interpretation of relevant laws and policies, including:
• PD 957 and its amendment by PD 1216, which require subdivision developers to set aside open spaces (including sidewalks) for public use.
• The concept that such infrastructure, though used by the public, remains the property of the private developer until donated or expropriated.
• Previous Supreme Court decisions (notably the 1991 White Plains Association case and its subsequent modifications in 1998) play a central role in interpreting the issue of ownership of subdivision roads and sidewalks.

Points of Contention

• Whether the use of public funds for the improvement of sidewalks situated in a privately-owned subdivision is valid.
• Whether the sidewalks are indeed public property as a result of applicable ordinances and police powers, or rather remain under private ownership until formally transferred.
• If the project constitutes a violation of the constitutional and statutory prohibitions on the misappropriation of public funds for private purposes.

Issue:

Core Legal Question

• Can a local government unit (LGU) validly appropriate and use public funds to widen, repair, and improve sidewalks located in a privately-owned subdivision?

Specific Issues Raised

• Does the expenditure on sidewalk improvements fall within the LGU’s exercise of police powers under RA 7160?
• Are the sidewalks in question considered public property based on the applicable subdivision laws (PD 957/PD 1216) and judicial precedents?
• Did the respondents' actions in disbursing public funds for the project violate the constitutional proscription against using government funds for a private purpose?
• Was there an appropriation for the project, and does its absence or inadequacy impact the legality of the expenditure?
• Is the alleged public benefit (i.e., public and unimpeded access to the sidewalks) sufficiently established to justify the project?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)