Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27013)
Facts:
Angel Mascunana and Angeles M. Verdeflor v. The Provincial Board of Negros Occidental, Municipal Council of Talisay, Negros Occidental, Leon T. Treyes, Ulpiana Inson, Gonzalo Ordaniel and Florentino Gargallano, G.R. No. L-27013, October 18, 1977, Supreme Court Second Division, Aquino, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Angel Mascunana and Angeles M. Verdeflor challenged Resolution No. 59 (September 8, 1962) of the Municipal Council of Talisay declaring a parcel of land adjacent to the Minuluan River and near the intersection of Burgos and Rizal Streets as municipal property "closed to vehicular traffic." The parcel was alleged to be the terminus or extension of Burgos Street and to abut Lots owned by petitioners (Lot No. 80 in Mascunana's name; Lots 81-A, 81-B and 81-C in the names of his children, including Angeles). Four occupants — Leon T. Treyes, Ulpiana Inson, Gonzalo Ordaniel and Florentino Gargallano — had constructed houses on the disputed area.
Mascunana wrote the mayor (March 20, 1962) asking removal of squatters occupying the alleged extension of Burgos Street; the municipal treasurer reported the area was municipal property but uncertain of its public-servitude status and recommended referral to the municipal attorney. The acting provincial fiscal (July 30, 1962) opined Burgos Street was a municipal street and property devoted to public use, and that mere nonuser did not destroy its public nature. After an ocular inspection the municipal council adopted Resolution No. 59 declaring the area closed to vehicular traffic and later (Oct. 20, 1962) sought advice on disposition to occupants.
The municipal attorney referred the case to the provincial fiscal, who (Nov. 2, 1962) advised that closure is governed by Sec. 2246, Revised Administrative Code, and that Executive Bureau circular requirements (including the district engineer's recommendation, adjacent owners' waivers, and provincial fiscal statement per section 161 of the Compilation of Provincial Circulars) should accompany a closure resolution. The provincial board conducted a further ocular inspection (June 26, 1964); the provincial fiscal later concluded (June 30, 1965) the parcel could not practically be considered a street and that Section 2246's formal requisites need not be complied with. The provincial board thereupon approved (Resolution No. 1035, July 30, 1965) the municipal council's Resolution No. 59.
On March 15, 1966 petitioners filed in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental a suit to annul Resolutions No. 59 and No. 1035 and for other equitable reliefs, attaching cadastral Index Sheet No. 102 (approved 25 Feb. 1916) which showed Burgos Street terminating at the riverbank and indicating the disputed area lay between Lots 82 and 81. Respondents moved to dismiss (private respondents asserting long possession and improvements), and the trial court issued a terse minute order (Aug. 8, 1966) dismissing the petition; a motion for reconsideration was denied in a similar curt order.
The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. The fiscal filed an appellee's brief for the provincial board and municipal council; the private respondents did not file appellees' briefs. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the petition stated a cause of action ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in summarily dismissing the petition on the basis of respondents' motions to dismiss without addressing petitioners' contentions, such that the case should proceed to trial?
- Was petitioners' action properly an action for declaratory relief under Rule 64, or was it an ordinary action to enforce the requirements for closing municipal thoroughfares under Sec. 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code?
- Were Resolutions No. 59 and No. 1035 void for failure to observe the requisites prescribed by section 161 of the Compilation of Provincial Circulars implementing Sec. 2246, and was the disputed area ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)