Case Summary (G.R. No. 187378)
Petitioner’s Position
PETAL and the individual petitioners asserted vested possession and prior use of Capayas Island (claimed predecessors’ possession since 1961 and a Memorandum of Agreement for resort operations). They sought injunctive relief against the municipality’s notices of illegal construction and voluntary demolition, and they challenged the ordinance’s validity on grounds that it was adopted without public consultation, was not published in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law, and was not validly approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP).
Respondents’ Position
Respondents maintained that Capayas Island is public domain (timberland) and that petitioners have no proprietary title. They asserted compliance with the Local Government Code (LGC) procedures for ordinance enactment, that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan failed to act within the statutory period so the ordinance was deemed approved by operation of law, and that notices and postings were made. Respondents also relied on building code requirements to justify orders for removal of unpermitted structures.
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
- Constructions by PETAL: cottages (1995), seminar cottage (2001).
- Notices of Illegal Construction: April 11 and May 20, 2002; Third and Final Notice: July 8, 2002.
- Municipal Ordinance enacted (SB adoption): July 8, 2002; approved by mayor July 12, 2002; submitted to SP thereafter.
- Notices of Voluntary Demolition and postings: August–October 2002.
- Petitioners filed for injunctive relief in RTC (Civil Case No. 4684): October 29, 2002.
- RTC Decision: November 26, 2004 (declared ordinance invalid; ordered respondents to desist from closing island but required petitioners to remove structures built without permits).
- CA Decision reversing RTC: September 30, 2008; CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration: March 9, 2009.
- Supreme Court resolution: petition for review denied.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary statutes and rules invoked: the 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable for decisions dated 1990 or later), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), specifically Section 56 (review of municipal ordinances by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan) and Section 511 (posting and publication requirements for ordinances with penal sanctions); Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code of the Philippines); and general principles concerning public domain property and presumption of validity of official acts.
Factual Findings Relevant to Disposition
PETAL constructed cottages and structures on Capayas Island and used them commercially. The municipal government issued notices for lack of building permits and published/posted notices declaring the area a government property and sanctuary. The Sangguniang Bayan adopted the sanctuary ordinance and submitted it to the SP but the SP did not take affirmative action within the statutory period. Petitioners did not present evidence of title to the island; the RTC found petitioners had no title and ordered removal of unpermitted structures (an order not appealed by petitioners).
RTC Ruling (Trial Court)
The Regional Trial Court declared the sanctuary ordinance invalid on several grounds: pendency of petitioner PETAL’s protest and lack of SP approval; lack of publication and posting in a newspaper and public places; classification of the island as timberland (public domain) making sanctuary designation inappropriate; and that authority over timberlands lies with the national government (DENR). The RTC nevertheless ordered petitioners to remove structures built without valid building permits.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and held the ordinance valid. Key holdings:
- Under Section 56 of the LGC, because more than 30 days elapsed without action by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, the ordinance was deemed consistent with law and therefore valid by operation of law.
- Section 56(d) must be read with Section 56(c): the “action” required by (c) is the SP’s formal declaration that an ordinance is invalid; absence of such action within 30 days results in the ordinance being presumed valid.
- The municipality had authority under the LGC (Sections 447 and 16) to establish such sanctuaries; it is not exclusively within DENR’s prerogative.
- Evidence of public consultations, postings and publication were found persuasive; petitioners’ bare allegations of noncompliance were insufficient to overcome the presumption of validity. The CA also affirmed the RTC finding that petitioners lacked proprietary rights in the island, rendering injunctive relief inappropriate.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Legal Reasoning
- Deemed Approval by Operation of Law: The Court embraced the CA’s interpretation of Section 56 LGC. When SP does not act within 30 days after submission, the ordinance is presumed valid under Section 56(d). Reading paragraphs (c) and (d) together, the Court emphasized that the “action” contemplated by (c) is a formal declaration of invalidity, and lack of such action within 30 days yields a presumption in favor of the ordinance’s consistency with la
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 187378)
Parties
- Petitioners:
- Ramonito O. Acaac.
- Peopleas Eco-Tourism and Livelihood Foundation, Inc. (PETAL), a non‑governmental organization engaged in protection and conservation of ecology, tourism, and livelihood projects in Misamis Occidental, founded by Ramonito O. Acaac.
- Apolinario M. Elorde.
- Hector Acaac.
- Romeo Bulawin.
- Respondents:
- Melquiades D. Azcuna, Jr., in his capacity as Mayor of Lopez Jaena Municipality, Misamis Occidental.
- Marietes B. Bonalos, in her capacity as Municipal Engineer and Building Official‑Designate of Lopez Jaena Municipality, Misamis Occidental.
- Court actors:
- Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Oroquieta City, Branch 2, Judge Bernadette S. Paredes‑Encinareal (author of RTC decision).
- Court of Appeals (CA), Panel headed by Associate Justice Ruben C. Ayson with Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Michael P. Elbinias (author of CA decision).
- Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J. (penning the resolution to deny the petition); Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.
Nature and Subject of the Dispute
- Petitioners sought injunctive relief (temporary restraining order, injunction) and damages to prevent respondents from enforcing a municipal ordinance and related notices that affected petitioners’ occupation and operation of facilities on Capayas Island.
- The core legal contest centered on the validity and enforceability of Municipal Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2002 (the subject ordinance) establishing Capayas Island and surrounding areas as birds, fish and shells sanctuary and related government actions (notices of illegal construction, posting of government property, notices of voluntary demolition).
- Related factual and legal issues included petitioners’ claimed vested rights/possession, the petitioners’ alleged lack of title, compliance with building permit requirements under Presidential Decree No. 1096 (the National Building Code), and procedural requirements for municipal ordinances under Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code, LGC).
Relevant Factual Background — Development of PETAL’s Activities and Notices
- PETAL built cottages of indigenous materials on Capayas Island (a 1,605 square meter islet) in 1995 and constructed a seminar cottage in 2001; PETAL rented these to the public and they served as a source of livelihood for beneficiaries, including petitioners Hector Acaac and Romeo Bulawin.
- On April 11 and May 20, 2002, respondents Azcuna and Bonalos issued separate Notices of Illegal Construction against PETAL for failure to apply for a building permit prior to construction, citing violation of Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code of the Philippines), and ordering cessation of illegal building activities on Capayas Island.
- After PETAL failed to comply with requirements for a building permit, respondents issued a Third and Final Notice of Illegal Construction on July 8, 2002.
- On July 8, 2002, the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Lopez Jaena adopted Municipal Ordinance No. 02, Series of 2002, which, as described in the records, prohibited among other things:
- the entry of any entity, association, corporation or organization inside the sanctuaries; and
- construction of any structures, permanent or temporary, on the premises, except if authorized by the local government.
- On July 12, 2002, Mayor Azcuna approved the subject ordinance and forwarded it to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Misamis Occidental (SP) for review. The SP conducted a joint hearing on the matter.
- Notices were posted at designated areas, including Capayas Island, declaring the premises government property and prohibiting ingress and egress thereto.
- On August 23, 2002, PETAL was served a Notice of Voluntary Demolition directing removal of the structures it built on Capayas Island; the notice cited violation of the subject ordinance as among the reasons. A similar notice was served on individual petitioners on October 25, 2002.
Petitioners’ Judicial Action and Claims
- On October 29, 2002, petitioners filed Civil Case No. 4684 before the RTC praying for temporary restraining order, injunction, and damages against respondents.
- Substantive contentions by petitioners:
- They asserted prior vested rights to occupy and utilize Capayas Island, alleging possession since 1961 through predecessors‑in‑interest and a Memorandum of Agreement for operation of the island as a camping, tourism, and recreational resort.
- They argued the subject ordinance prejudiced their interests by depriving them of livelihood.
- They attacked the validity of the subject ordinance on grounds that:
- it was adopted without public consultation;
- it was not published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province as required by the Local Government Code (RA 7160);
- it was not approved by the SP; therefore, its implementation should be enjoined.
Respondents’ Answer and Defenses
- Respondents denied petitioners’ proprietary and possessory claims, averring that petitioners were not lawful owners or lessees of Capayas Island, which was classified as timberland and part of the public domain.
- Respondents contended they complied with publication and hearing requirements for passage of the subject ordinance and argued the ordinance was deemed approved by operation of law due to the SP’s failure to take positive action thereon, as provided under the LGC; hence it was valid and enforceable.
RTC Decision (November 26, 2004) — Findings and Orders
- The RTC declared the subject ordinance invalid/void based on several grounds:
- petitioners’ protest (presumably before the SP) had not been resolved and the subject ordinance was not duly approved by the SP;
- the ordinance was not published in a newspaper of general circulation nor posted in public places as required;
- Capayas Island was classified as timberland, making it unsuited to be declared a bird or fish sanctuary; and
- authority and control over timberlands belong to the national government, through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
- Orders issued by the RTC included:
- respondents were ordered to desist from closing Capayas Island to the public; and
- petitioners were ordered to remove the structures they built thereon without valid building permits, since they were found to have no title over the disputed property.
- Respondents appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA‑G.R. CV No. 00284‑MIN.
Court of Appeals Decision (September 30, 2008) — Findings and Rationale
- The CA granted respondents’ appeal and reversed and set aside the RTC decision in material part.
- The CA held that the subject ordinance was deemed approved upon failure of the SP to declare it invalid within 30 days after its submission, pursuant to Section 56 of the Local Government Code (LGC).
- The CA gave credence to Mayor Azcuna’s testimony that the subject ordinance was posted and publish