G.R. No. L-8191 - Sitchon vs. Aquino

Six separate class suits were filed against the City Engineer of Manila to enjoin him from demolishing houses constructed by petitioners on public property.
The petitioners, representing various groups of individuals, had occupied public street areas or river beds and built houses without governmental authority.
In most instances, the petitioners had paid “concession fees or damages” to the city treasurer, and the receipts were annotated “without prejudice to the order to vacate.”
The lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction in each case before a threat of demolition materialized.

Filed by Diosdado A. Sitchon, Luis Gavino, and Ponciano Adoremos, representing twenty-two additional persons.
The petitioners occupied portions of Calabash Road, City of Manila, in 1947 and 1948 and constructed houses without consent.
On or about July 5, 1952, the City Engineer issued a notice directing them to vacate and remove their houses before August 5, 1952, threatening demolition at their expense.
In December 1953, a demolition team informed the petitioners of the impending removal of their houses.

Initiated by Ricardo de la Cruz, Isidro Perez, and Fernando Figuerroa, representing 267 persons who occupied portions of Antipolo and Algeciras Streets after the liberation of Manila.
The constructions obstructed roads and drainage systems, rendering drainage ditches inoperative or completely obliterated.
The City Engineer advised and ordered them to vacate on or about May 15, 1952, with the same warning of demolition at the occupants’ expense.
A writ of preliminary injunction was issued upon the filing of the case.

Brought by Felino Pena, Francisco Morales, and Jose Villanueva on their own behalf and representing about thirty persons occupying portions of the R. Papa Extension area.
Similar to the other cases, the petitioners had built houses without authority and paid concession fees, with the annotations “without prejudice to the order to vacate.”
A notice, including a warning of demolition if the houses were not removed, had been given on May 10, 1932.
The petitioners secured a preliminary injunction to forestall the demolition.

Filed by Santiago Brotamonte, Godofredo Blanquizo, and Salvador Justiniano, representing forty-two persons.
The petitioners occupied parts of the bed of a branch of the Estero de San Miguel in 1947 and 1948 where houses were built without authority.
Concession fees were likewise paid “without prejudice to the order to vacate” following a notice in December 1953.
A corresponding writ of preliminary injunction was secured immediately after the petition was filed.

Initiated by Ernesto Navarro, Pablo Salas, and Herminigildo Digap, representing fifteen persons.
The petitioners had occupied portions of the bed of the Pasig River near the end of Rio Vista Street, San Miguel, Manila, and erected houses without permission.
After a notice and warning issued on or about June 20, 1952, the City Engineer threatened demolition at their expense, leading to the filing of the case and issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

Filed by Amado Sayo, Marciano Laraeo, and Victor Bernardo on behalf of twenty-two persons who, in 1946 and 1947, constructed houses on portions of Torres Bugallon, Cavite, Misericordia, and Antipolo Streets without authority.
Some petitioners paid monthly rentals, damages, or concession fees “without prejudice to the order to vacate.”
An order to vacate was given on May 1, 1952, and about two years later, a threat of demolition was issued.
The lower court, in this instance, rendered a judgment declaring that the houses constituted a public nuisance, authorizing the City Engineer to abate the nuisance and impose the expenses on the petitioners.

In every case, the City Engineer of Manila acted pursuant to an order to vacate and a subsequent threat of demolition should the petitioners fail to comply.
All petitioners appealed the adverse decisions of the Court of First Instance, leading to the cases being consolidated for joint determination by the Supreme Court.

Whether the respondent, in his capacity as City Engineer of Manila, possessed the statutory authority to order and execute the summary demolition or removal of houses declared public nuisances.
Whether the statutory provisions empowering the district health officer under Articles 700 and 702 of Republic Act No. 386 are displaced by the specific delegation of authority under section 31 of Republic Act No. 409, the Revised Charter of the City of Manila.

Whether the prior notices given to the petitioners, which warned of demolition if they did not comply by a specified date, satisfy the due process requirements before depriving them of property.
Whether the summary abatement, carried out without an additional judicial hearing after such notice, constitutes a violation of the petitioner’s rights under due process of law.

Whether the houses, by virtue of being erected on public streets and, in some cases, on river beds, automatically constitute public nuisances as defined by Articles 694 and 695 of the Civil Code.
Whether the inherent obstruction of public streets and waterways by these houses justifies the summary action without further proceedings.