G.R. No. L-30036 - Bordas vs. Canadalla

Cesar A. Altarejos and co-occupants (collectively Altarejos et al.) had been in actual possession of a property located at 39-C North Diversion Road, Camachile, Balintawak, Quezon City for approximately 20 to 30 years.
The registered owners of the property were spouses Edilberto and Dolores Palispis (Spouses Palispis).
The Quezon City officials involved were Mayor Herbert Bautista, Secretary to the Mayor Tadeo M. Palma, and Officer-in-Charge Marlowe Y. Jacutin of the Task Force for the Control, Prevention, and Removal of Illegal Structures and Squatting (Task Force COPRISS).

On October 1, 2013, Spouses Palispis requested removal of illegal structures and squatters from their property through Palma, via Jacutin.
Altarejos et al. opposed, citing prior dismissal of an ejectment case and questioning legal authority to order demolitions without court intervention.
The Task Force inspected the site finding multiple structures for residential and commercial use.
Multiple meetings between occupants, owners, and city officials failed to reach settlement.
On November 5, 2013, Jacutin requested demolition of structures citing Republic Act No. 7279 (R.A. 7279) sections 3(m) and 27.
City officials, including representatives from the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor and the Commission on Human Rights, met with occupants. Spouses Palispis pledged financial assistance to qualifying occupants.

On March 17, 2014, Secretary Palma issued a Memorandum ordering Jacutin to demolish the structures, citing Spouses Palispis' ownership and multiple findings including fire hazards and illegal construction.
The Memorandum referenced legal bases: Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-1800 Series 2007, Section 455(b)(3)(vi) of R.A. 7160 (Local Government Code), and Sections 27 and 28(a) of R.A. 7279.
On April 11, 2014, Jacutin issued a corresponding Notice of Demolition for violations of the above laws and ordinance.

Altarejos et al. filed a Petition for Prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging the demolition order violated separation of powers and was issued without court order.
On November 18, 2016, the RTC denied the Petition for Prohibition, ruling that the occupants failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the mayor acted within his authority.
The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration on November 6, 2017.
Altarejos et al. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on September 7, 2018, affirmed the lower court's decision, endorsing the mayor’s authority for summary eviction and demolition.
The CA denied the motion for reconsideration on April 25, 2019.
Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Petitioners argued the city officials lacked authority to summarily evict or demolish, citing the absence of a court order and separation of powers.
Petitioners contended that under the National Building Code, only the Building Official can order demolition after proper declaration;

summary demolition without such procedures was illegal.

They argued no grounds for summary eviction under R.A. 7279 existed: they were not new squatters nor professional squatters; structures were not in danger areas.
Petitioners raised due process concerns, citing lack of hearings by the Task Force and no opportunity to be heard.
Respondents argued their authority was derived from R.A. 7279, the Local Government Code, Quezon City Ordinance SP-1800, and DILG Opinion No. 16, series of 2006.
Respondents cited official inspections declaring the structures illegal and fire hazards.
Respondents distinguished demolition orders from judicial ejectment actions, asserting mayoral powers to remove illegal structures.
They contended prior court dismissal of ejectment does not prevent summary eviction and demolition under administrative powers.

Whether the Petition for Prohibition is the proper remedy to challenge the demolition order.
Whether the city mayor has legal authority to order demolition and eviction without court intervention and summarily.
Whether the respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the demolition order.