G.R. No. 104786 - Patalinghug vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves Alfredo Patalinghug (petitioner) whose funeral parlor operation was challenged.
The dispute centers on whether the operation of a funeral home is a permissible use within a particular zone in Davao City under Ordinance No. 363, series of 1982 (the "Expanded Zoning Ordinance of Davao City").
Section 8 of the ordinance classifies C-2 districts (shaded light red on the zoning map) as dominantly for commercial and compatible industrial uses. It specifically permits funeral parlors/memorial homes provided they have adequate off-street parking and are situated not less than 50 meters from any residential structures, churches, or other institutional buildings.

Despite potential zoning issues, petitioner secured a prior certification of zoning compliance from the Zoning Administrator, Hector Esguerra.
Building Official Demetrio Alindad subsequently issued Building Permit No. 870254 on February 10, 1987, in the name of petitioner.
Petitioner commenced the construction of the funeral parlor (named Metropolitan Funeral Parlor) located at Cabaguio Avenue, Agdao, Davao City, and completed construction on November 3, 1987.

Several residents of Barangay Agdao filed a complaint alleging that the funeral parlor was being constructed within a 50-meter radius of the Iglesia Ni Kristo Chapel and nearby residential structures.
An investigation by the Sangguniang Panlungsod found that one residential structure, owned by Wilfred G. Tepoot, was located merely 8 inches to the south of the planned funeral parlor site.
Despite these findings, petitioner continued construction without halting operations.

Private respondents filed a case on September 6, 1988, seeking the declaration of nullity of the building permit along with mandatory injunctions or restraining orders.
The Regional Trial Court of Davao City, after an ocular inspection on March 30, 1989, issued an order on July 6, 1989 dismissing the complaint based on:

The measurement of distances indicated the residential building of Cribillo and the Iglesia Ni Kristo Chapel were beyond the 50-meter limit.
The residential property of Tepoot, although adjacent to the funeral parlor and separated by a concrete fence, was being used for commercial purposes (laundry business) by a lessee.
The suit was deemed premature as the respondents had not exhausted the administrative remedies provided under Ordinance No. 363.

The private respondents appealed the dismissal, leading to a decision by the Court of Appeals on November 29, 1991, which reversed the trial court’s ruling by annulling Building Permit No. 870254.
The reversal was largely based on the finding that Tepoot’s building, as declared for taxation purposes, was considered residential, thereby implicating a violation of the 50-meter distance requirement.

City Councilor Vergara’s testimony revealed that Tepoot’s building was utilized dually as both a dwelling and a venue for a laundry business.
The trial court determined that the commercial aspect dominated the use of the building, whereas the Court of Appeals relied on the residential designation provided by tax declarations.

Whether the operation of a funeral home within the specified distance (50-meter radius) from residential structures constitutes a violation of Ordinance No. 363.
Whether Tepoot’s adjacent building should be classified as residential or commercial for zoning purposes.

Whether a tax declaration, which deems a property as residential, is conclusive in zoning determinations.
How the actual use of a property (e.g., dual use as a dwelling and business) should influence its classification under the municipality’s zoning ordinance.

The significance and deference due to the factual findings of the trial court versus those of the Court of Appeals.
Whether conflicting factual determinations regarding the nature and use of Tepoot’s building can be overruled based on the evidence in the record.