G.R. No. 3430 - Rocha and Co. vs. Crossfield

Petitioner Benito Symaco is the registered owner of a lot in Malabon, Rizal, specifically designated as “Lot 20, parcel 2 of plan Pse-10928” under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 35160.
On May 22, 1957, petitioner filed an application for a building permit with the Office of the Mayor of Malabon to repair the eaves and partitions of his house constructed of strong materials.

On May 23, 1957, the Municipal Mayor granted the building permit based on petitioner's application.
However, an ocular inspection by Carlos R. Mendoza, a building inspector acting on the Mayor’s orders, revealed that instead of mere repairs, the old building had been demolished and a new one was being constructed.
Following the inspection, on July 2, 1957, petitioner was informed that he needed to file for a new permit to construct a new building.

In response, petitioner filed a written application on July 29, 1957 with the District Engineer of Rizal for the permit necessary to construct the new building.
The application was investigated by Mr. Diego An, Chief of Miscellaneous Survey and Investigation, who then submitted his findings and recommendation on July 30, 1957 to the Highway District Engineer.
On August 1, 1957, the Highway District Engineer endorsed Mr. An’s report to the office of the Mayor of Malabon.

On July 1, 1957, a civil action for forcible entry involving a portion of the property was filed against petitioner by A. M. Raymundo & Company.
The dispute, involving the ownership of a portion of the lot, prompted counsel for A. M. Raymundo & Company to send a letter on August 6, 1957, urging the Mayor to withhold the issuance of the building permit.
Subsequently, on September 23, 1957, the Mayor responded by advising that the issuance of the building permit was being held in abeyance pending the final resolution of the disputed portion of the property’s ownership.

The matter was further heard by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which, on July 11, 1958, ruled in favor of petitioner by ordering the Mayor to immediately issue the building permit.
The court noted that once petitioner complied with the requirements under the relevant municipal ordinance, the Mayor’s duty to issue the permit became ministerial, leaving no room for discretionary refusal.
The decision observed that the pending litigation regarding the disputed portion of the lot was essentially a private dispute that should not impact the issuance of the permit.

Petitioner invoked Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which provides a remedy by mandamus where a public officer unlawfully neglects a clear duty.
The petitioner argued that having met the statutory requirements, the Mayor’s failure to issue the permit was a neglect of duty, thus entitling him to the writ of mandamus.
Respondent contended that an alternative remedy under Section 2188 of the Revised Administrative Code existed, but the court later found this remedy to be neither plain, speedy, nor adequate for compelling performance.

Whether the Municipal Mayor’s refusal to issue the building permit, despite petitioner’s compliance with statutory requirements, constitutes an unlawful neglect of duty.
Whether the inclusion of a pending private dispute (the forcible entry case filed by A. M. Raymundo & Company) provides a valid basis for withholding the issuance of the building permit.
Whether the alternative remedy provided under Section 2188 of the Revised Administrative Code is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy compared to the writ of mandamus sought by petitioner.
Whether the nature of the Mayor’s duty in issuing the building permit is purely ministerial, thereby obligating him to issue the permit immediately upon compliance with the ordinance’s requirements.