Title
Acaac vs. Azcuna Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 187378
Decision Date
Sep 30, 2013
PETAL Foundation challenged a municipal ordinance prohibiting unauthorized construction on Capayas Island, claiming vested rights. SC upheld the ordinance, ruling PETAL lacked ownership and failed to secure permits.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187378)

Background Facts

PETAL was established as a non-governmental organization focused on ecological protection and tourism. It constructed several structures on Capayas Island, a small islet, but did not secure the necessary building permits. Respondents issued Notices of Illegal Construction due to these violations of the National Building Code (Presidential Decree No. 1096) and subsequently enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2002, which prohibited unauthorized construction and entry into designated sanctuaries, including Capayas Island. Despite these ordinances, petitioners maintained that they possessed vested rights to occupy Capayas Island, leading them to seek an injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance.

RTC Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the subject ordinance invalid for multiple reasons, including lack of proper public consultation, failure to publish the ordinance as mandated by the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), and its improper approval by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The court also acknowledged that petitioners lacked title to Capayas Island but emphasized the illegality of the ordinance itself.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, affirming the validity of the subject ordinance on the grounds that it was deemed approved following the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's inaction within the mandated period. The CA also upheld the claims that the ordinance was properly published and subject to public consultation.

Legal Issues Addressed

The primary issue examined by the Supreme Court was the validity of the subject ordinance. The Court reaffirmed the provisions of Section 56 of the Local Government Code, according to which an ordinance is deemed valid if the Sangguniang Panlalawigan does not act upon it within 30 days of its submission. The Court noted that petitioners could not successfully argue against the ordinance's validity due to their fai

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.