Case Digest (G.R. No. 71169)
Facts:
Jose D. Sangalang and Lutgarda D. Sangalang, et al. v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Ayala Corporation (G.R. No. 71169); Bel‑Air Village Association, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Rosario de Jesus Tenorio and Cecilia Gonzalves (G.R. No. 74376); Bel‑Air Village Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Eduardo and Buena Romualdez (G.R. No. 76394); Bel‑Air Village Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Dolores Filley and J. Romero & Associates (G.R. No. 78182); Bel‑Air Village Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Violeta Moncal and Majal Development Corporation (G.R. No. 82281); and Nemesio I. Yabut, Municipal Mayor of Makati, et al. v. Court of Appeals and Bel‑Air Village Association, Inc. (G.R. No. 60727) — August 25, 1989, Supreme Court En Banc, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the Sangalangs and Bel‑Air Village Association, Inc. — BAVA) challenged the demolition of gates and the opening of Jupiter and Orbit Streets in Bel‑Air Village, alleging deprivation of property and seeking prohibition, damages, and injunctive relief. On October 24, 1979 BAVA filed Civil Case No. 34948 for prohibition and damages with a preliminary injunction; the trial court denied a temporary restraining order (Oct. 25, 1979), later denied the preliminary injunction (Mar. 4, 1980), and denied reconsideration (Nov. 14, 1980).
Respondents (the Municipality of Makati led by Mayor Nemesio Yabut, municipal officers, and later Ayala Corporation) defended the opening of streets as necessary for public welfare and traffic decongestion. They relied on subdivision approvals, a Deed of Donation by Ayala, Municipal Ordinance No. 17 (permitting removal of illegal constructions), studies ordered by the Mayor, and provisions of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) as amended and codified in Presidential Decree No. 1529 and P.D. 957. The Court of Appeals held that certain Transfer Certificates of Title (notably for Jupiter) lacked the annotation required by Section 44 of Act No. 496 (now Sec. 50, P.D. 1529), and thus concluded the Mayor lacked legal authority to open those streets.
This Court (in an earlier Decision reported at rollo references, Sangalang) addressed whether Ayala could be held responsible and whether the Mayor lawfully opened the streets. Motions for reconsideration were filed (G.R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, 82281) contesting, among other t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the motions for reconsideration of this Court’s December 22, 1988 Decision be granted?
- Did the Mayor of Makati have legal authority to open Jupiter and Orbit Streets to vehicular traffic?
- Did the demolition of gates and opening of those streets amount to a taking or deprivation of property requiring compensation or violate due process?
- Should the award of damages and attorney’s ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)