A.M. No. 190-RET - IN RE: Chanliongco

Spouses Edwin and Lourdes TriviAo are the registered owners of a residential unit in the La Pacita Complex Subdivision, San Pedro, Laguna.
Since 1987, they have been operating a mini-grocery store out of a portion of their residence.
By 2000, the commercial use had expanded to occupy more than half of the house, prompting the need for renovation.

The TriviAos applied for a building permit with the Office of the Zoning Administrator, resulting in the issuance of a Zoning Certification on June 21, 2000.
Prior to commencing construction, several documents and clearances were secured:

A Certification/Endorsement dated June 5, 2000, from Mr. Danilo Berciles, Board Chairman and President of Pacita Complex I Homeowners Association, Inc., interposing no objection to the construction.
A Construction Clearance/Certification dated June 5, 2000, from Barangay Chairman Norvic D. Solidum indicating no objection.
A Tax Declaration on the lot (No. 17-29691 on Lot 1, Blk. 1) in the name of Mr. TriviAo.
An Endorsement Letter dated June 21, 2000, from the Inspector of the San Pedro Fire Station, signaling no objection.

On July 11, 2000, private respondents—comprising some of the homeowners in the subdivision—wrote to Mayor Felicisimo Vierneza objecting to the construction.
Their objection was based on the claim that the building permit violated the San Pedro Zoning Ordinance of March 1982, which prohibits commercial construction in an RI (low-density residential) area.
After receiving a copy of the Zoning Certification on July 29, 2000, these private respondents bypassed the designated Local Zoning Board of Appeal and instead pursued their complaint directly at the Office of the Municipal Mayor.

On January 12, 2001, private respondents instituted a Petition/Appeal With Urgent Prayer For A Cease And Desist Order (docketed as RIV6-012601-1512) before the HLURB, alleging that:

The construction of a commercial building in an RI residential zone was strictly prohibited.
The construction would negatively affect traffic, environmental sanitation, noise levels, and overall residential peace.

On February 16, 2001, the HLURB Regional Field Office No. IV dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Persisting in their protest, private respondents filed a Verified Petition for Review on March 5, 2001 (HLURB Case No. REM-A-010320-0091).

On April 18, 2001, HLURB issued a Temporary Restraining Order against proceeding with the construction, which was subsequently made permanent by an HLURB order dated May 30, 2001.
The May 30, 2001 Order enjoined the use of the reconstructed premises for commercial activities beyond those originally existing unless an injunction bond of P100,000.00 was posted within ten days.
Respondents (the building owners) filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the May 30, 2001 Order, which was denied.
They then initiated a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the HLURB Regional Field Office lacked jurisdiction.

On September 27, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the HLURB’s May 30, 2001 order, and dismissed HLURB Case No. REM-A-010320-0091 for lack of merit.
A Motion for Reconsideration was later filed by respondents with the CA, which was denied on July 4, 2003.
The petition for review before the Supreme Court raised several assigned errors, principally focused on jurisdictional issues, timeliness of filing, and whether the construction violated the applicable zoning ordinance.

Whether the petition/appeal (RIV6-012601-1512) filed by the private respondents with the HLURB Regional Field Office was filed in the correct forum and within the allowed 30-day reglementary period as prescribed under the San Pedro Zoning Ordinance.
Whether the respondents, by actively participating in the proceedings before the HLURB, are estopped from later questioning the jurisdiction of said forum.

Whether petitioners’ challenges regarding the late filing (i.e., filing more than five months after notice) and the characterization of the petition/appeal as an “afterthought” have merit.
Whether the Zoning Certification should be regarded as a Certificate of Zoning Compliance subject to an appeal with the Local Zoning Board or not.

Whether the decision of the Zoning Administrator had become final and executory, thereby precluding further challenge.

Whether the construction undertaken by respondents constitutes a violation of the prohibitions under the Zoning Ordinance of San Pedro, Laguna.
Whether the burden of proof lies on respondents to demonstrate that their construction falls under any exception to the ordinance’s prohibitions.