G.R. No. 174143 - Spouses Hipolito, Jr. vs. Cinco

Petitioners – spouses Ricardo Hipolito, Jr. and Liza Hipolito – inherited a property (2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila) which includes an apartment-style building.
Originally, Edeltrudis Hipolito y Mariano (the predecessor) entered into a lease contract with Francisco Villena (now deceased) on June 15, 1989, granting a 20‑year lease for a portion of the property and authorizing the construction of an apartment building without securing a building permit.

In or around 2002, conflict arose when petitioners and other heirs learned that respondent Atty. Carlos D. Cinco allegedly acquired the property by deed of sale in 1976.
On June 17, 2002, respondents (Atty. Carlos Cinco, Teresita Cinco, and Dr. Carlota Balde Cinco) filed a verified request with the Office of the Building Official (OBO) for a structural inspection, citing potential safety hazards.
Building Inspector Engineer Leonardo B. Rico conducted an initial inspection, identifying two dilapidated wooden structures on the premises and recommending a referral to the Committee on Buildings for further evaluation.

The request was treated as a petition for condemnation/abatement under the National Building Code (NBC) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
A series of hearings were conducted between August 12, 2002, and September 20, 2002, after proper notice was given to parties and the tenants, to assess the safety and structural integrity of the buildings (including architectural, electrical, and fire safety considerations).
A counter-manifestation was filed on September 20, 2002 by Victoria Villena, owner of one of the buildings and wife of one of the heirs of Francisco Villena, challenging the respondents’ capacity and the technical evaluation reports.
An ocular inspection was scheduled on October 7, 2002, and a detailed memorandum report was prepared, documenting extensive deterioration in roofing, wooden structural components, and various building systems.

On March 26, 2003, the OBO issued a Resolution declaring the buildings “dangerous and ruinous” based on findings of severe dilapidation (deterioration ranging from 60% up to 80%) due to weathering, poor maintenance, and termite infestation.
The Resolution recommended the demolition of the structures, with a subsequent Demolition Order issued to the respondents and copies furnished to petitioners and tenants.

Petitioners appealed the OBO’s decision to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), arguing that the demolition order was anomalously issued and that the inspection did not afford them an opportunity to present their evidence or secure an independent evaluation.
An inspectorate team from the DPWH conducted another ocular inspection distinguishing between two structures – Building 1 (a two‑storey residential building) and Building 2 (a three‑storey residential building) – and confirmed extensive structural, sanitary, and electrical defects in both.
On May 19, 2004, the DPWH Secretary dismissed petitioners’ appeal, affirming the OBO’s Resolution and Demolition Order, noting that the Building Official’s powers derive from Sections 214 and 215 of P.D. No. 1096.
Petitioners further sought redress by appealing to the Office of the President (OP), which, on February 28, 2005, affirmed the DPWH decision. A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied on April 25, 2005.

Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court’s review was limited to errors of law, noting that questions of fact—such as the determination of property ownership and whether petitioners were builders in good faith—were largely within the purview of administrative agencies and the lower courts.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the resolutions of the administrative agencies (OBO, DPWH, and OP) which sustained the condemnation and demolition of the buildings.
Whether the OBO gravely erred in failing to observe the cardinal due process requirements both in the conduct of the hearing and in the contents of the technical inspection report.
Whether, in the context of the case, the OBO overstepped its bounds by not applying the provisions of Article 482 and Articles 694 to 707 of the New Civil Code when executing Section 215 of the National Building Code (P.D. No. 1096).
Whether the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest can be characterized as builders in good faith with respect to the three‑storey apartment building (Building 2).
Whether the action for extrajudicial abatement of a nuisance was proper under the circumstances presented.