Facts:

The case involves Crisostomo B. Aquino, the petitioner, against the Municipality of Malay, Aklan, represented by Mayor John P. Yap and other municipal officials, as respondents. The events leading to the case began on January 7, 2010, when Boracay Island West Cove Management Philippines, Inc., led by Aquino, applied for zoning compliance to construct a three-storey hotel on a 998 square meter parcel of land in Sitio Diniwid, Barangay Balagab, Boracay Island. This land was covered by a Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). However, on January 20, 2010, the Municipal Zoning Administrator denied the application, citing that the proposed site was within a "no build zone" as defined by Municipal Ordinance 2000-131.

Despite the denial, Aquino appealed to the Office of the Mayor on February 1, 2010, but received no response. On April 5, 2011, the municipal government issued a Notice o...

Facts:

Background of the Parties and the Project

• Crisostomo B. Aquino, as president and chief executive officer of Boracay Island West Cove Management Philippines, Inc. (Boracay West Cove), is the petitioner.
• The respondents include the Municipality of Malay, Aklan—with its mayor, the Sangguniang Bayan, the municipal engineer, treasurer, auxiliary police, and other related agencies—and additional private entities such as Boracay Foundation, Inc. and individuals represented as John and Jane Does.

Zoning Compliance and the Application Process

• On January 7, 2010, Boracay West Cove applied for zoning compliance with the municipal government of Malay, Aklan, seeking a building permit for a three-storey hotel to be constructed on a 998 sqm parcel in Sitio Diniwid, Barangay Balagab, Boracay Island.
• The application pertained to a parcel covered by a Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) granted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
• The Municipal Zoning Administrator denied the application through a Decision on Zoning dated January 20, 2010, on the ground that the construction was planned within a “no build zone” as defined by Municipal Ordinance 2000-131.

Administrative and Municipal Actions

• The petitioner appealed the zoning denial to the Office of the Mayor on February 1, 2010 and followed-up on May 13, 2010 without a subsequent action from the mayor’s office.
• On April 5, 2011, the petitioner received a Notice of Assessment regarding unpaid taxes and liabilities connected with operating the resort sans the requisite permits, with a warning of closure.
• Despite expressing willingness to settle the liabilities, the municipal treasurer refused the tendered payment, and the petitioner continued the construction and expansion of the hotel.

Issuance and Implementation of Demolition Orders

• On March 28, 2011, the municipal government issued a Cease and Desist Order to halt further expansion of the hotel.
• On June 7, 2011, Executive Order No. 10 (EO 10) was issued by the Office of the Mayor ordering the closure and demolition of the hotel, with partial implementation starting on June 10, 2011.
• Subsequent demolitions were carried out, with further demolition taking place as recently as February 2014.

Litigation and Relief Sought

• Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking injunctive relief and arguing that administrative proceedings should precede demolition orders.
• He contended that:
• His petition for certiorari was the proper remedy to challenge EO 10.
• He possessed rights under the FLAgT to construct permanent improvements, which should override the municipal ordinance—especially given the area’s status as forestland under DENR jurisdiction.
• The respondent mayor, by ordering demolition without a prior judicial proceeding, violated his due process rights.
• Respondents argued that the FLAgT did not exonerate the petitioner from complying with the zoning ordinance and the National Building Code (PD 1096), and that the demolition order was lawful as the mayor possesses executive power to remove illegally constructed structures.

Issue:

Proper Remedy and Procedural Requirements

• Whether a petition for certiorari is the appropriate remedy to question the issuance and implementation of EO 10, as opposed to a petition for declaratory relief.
• Whether declaratory relief remained available once EO 10 had been enforced and resulted in actual demolition.

Nature of the Functions Exercised by the Respondents

• Whether the respondent mayor was merely exercising executive functions or was acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity in ordering the demolition.
• Whether the determination of illegal construction, with its attendant demolition order, involved requirements of due process.

Legality and Classification of the Hotel

• Whether the hotel, constructed within a designated no-build zone, could be classified as a nuisance per se or as a nuisance per accidens.
• Whether such classification justified the immediate demolition without a prior court order.

Jurisdictional and Substantive Considerations

• Whether the FLAgT, which allowed the construction of improvements for tourism purposes, could prevail over the municipal ordinance that established a no-build zone.
• Whether the primary jurisdiction over the property in question lies with the DENR or with the local government unit (LGU) of Malay, Aklan.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)