G.R. No. 148357 - Albon vs. Ferdo

In May 1999, the City of Marikina embarked on a public works project to widen, clear, and repair existing sidewalks within Marikina Greenheights Subdivision.
The project was pursued pursuant to Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993, which regulated the use of streets and sidewalks in Marikina, and aligned with previous infrastructure undertakings by the city government.

On June 14, 1999, petitioner Aniano A. Albon filed a taxpayer’s suit (SCA Case No. 99-331-MK) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City against respondents, namely the City Mayor, City Engineer, Assistant City Engineer, and City Treasurer of Marikina.
Petitioner asserted that the sidewalks were private property, owned by V.V. Soliven, Inc., and claimed that the city’s use of public funds and resources to improve them was unconstitutional and unlawful.
The petitioner invoked the constitutional prohibition against the use of public funds for private purposes, as well as Sections 335 and 336 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code), and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Petitioner also claimed lack of appropriation for the project.

The RTC denied the petitioner’s application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction, citing PD 1818 and Supreme Court Circular No. 68-94 which bar courts from issuing injunctions involving government infrastructure projects.
On November 15, 1999, RTC dismissed the petition, ruling that the city was authorized by its inherent police power to undertake the project and, citing the 1991 Supreme Court decision in White Plains Association v. Legaspi, declared the subdivision’s roads and sidewalks as public property.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a December 22, 2000 decision, affirmed the RTC ruling, holding Ordinance No. 59 as valid and confirming that the sidewalks were public property owned by the City of Marikina or the Republic of the Philippines, based on the White Plains Association precedent.
The CA denied reconsideration, and the petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

The City of Marikina, as a Local Government Unit (LGU), is empowered by RA 7160 to enact ordinances and exercise police powers for the general welfare, including infrastructure projects intended for residents.
Petitioner's main contention is that the sidewalks are private property of the subdivision developer, thus public funds cannot lawfully be used for their maintenance or improvement.
The case raises issues regarding ownership of subdivision sidewalks set aside as open spaces and whether public funds may be expended on improvements thereof.

Can a Local Government Unit validly use public funds to widen, repair, and improve sidewalks located within a privately-owned subdivision?
Are the sidewalks in Marikina Greenheights Subdivision public property owned by the City of Marikina or private property of the subdivision developer?
Does the expenditure of public funds by the city government violate constitutional and statutory prohibitions against using public money for private purposes?
What are the legal implications of ownership status of subdivision sidewalks with respect to allowable city expenditures?