Title
Supreme Court
City of Bacolod vs. Sugarland Hotel, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 182630
Decision Date
Dec 6, 2021
Sugarland Hotel demolished its fourth floor per MOU; City and Province refused compensation, breaching agreement; court upheld MOU, awarded damages for breach and bad faith.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 182630)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Antecedents
    • Sugarland Hotel’s background
      • Originally Sampaguita Hotel, acquired by Felix Yusay in 1973.
      • Located adjacent to Bacolod City Domestic Airport; had four floors by 1982.
      • Height clearance permit for a fourth-floor annex denied by ATO in 1982.
    • Airport closure and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
      • In May 1994, ATO ordered closure of the airport due to perceived obstructions (hotel floors, informal settlers).
      • On May 20, 1994, parties (ATO, City, Province, Sugarland Hotel) executed an MOU:
        • Joint re-survey of hotel height and removal of excess portions.
        • City and Province to compensate Yusay for demolished portions upon Sanggunian and COA approval.
        • All other ICAO violations to be removed concurrently.
  • Demolition, breach and litigation
    • Demolition events
      • Sugarland Hotel excluded from some surveys; ATO unilaterally recommended 6.38 m demolition.
      • On May 25, 1994, fourth floor voluntarily demolished; airport reopened same day.
      • Subsequent Sanggunian appropriations of ₱4,000,000 (City) and ₱3,600,000 (Province) for indemnification.
      • Sanggunian later declared remaining parapet a nuisance and authorized summary abatement; City and Province refused to pay.
      • November 1994: forcible demolition of remaining fourth-floor portions without final order; extensive damage to lower floors.
    • Filing of case
      • Sugarland Hotel suspended operations; discovered the building met domestic airport gradients (AO No. 5).
      • November 21, 1994: Complaint for recission with damages or specific performance with damages filed against City, DOTC/ATO, Province.

Issues:

  • Whether the fourth floor was illegally constructed and constituted a public nuisance justifying summary demolition without compensation.
  • Whether the May 20, 1994 MOU is valid, binding and whether petitioners breached it in bad faith.
  • Whether Sugarland Hotel is entitled to damages and the proper measure thereof.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.