Case Summary (G.R. No. 167219)
Legal Issue Presented
The central issue concerns whether a local government unit (LGU), specifically the City of Marikina, may lawfully allocate and utilize public funds to widen, repair, and improve sidewalks located within a privately-owned subdivision, Marikina Greenheights Subdivision. The petitioner challenged the use of public resources for this purpose, claiming it violated constitutional prohibitions and statutory provisions regarding the appropriation of public funds for private purposes.
Background of the Case and Procedural History
In May 1999, Marikina City government undertook infrastructure improvement works on sidewalks within the Greenheights Subdivision under Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993. The petitioner, asserting the sidewalks were private property owned by V.V. Soliven, Inc., filed a taxpayer’s suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) challenging the project’s legality and the use of public funds and resources for the undertaking. The RTC denied the petitioner’s application for a temporary restraining order and eventually dismissed the suit, holding that the City acted within its police powers and that the sidewalks were public property based on prior jurisprudence. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court’s ruling, validating the ordinance and the LGU’s exercise of power. However, the Supreme Court reviewed these rulings upon further appeal by the petitioner.
Powers of Local Government Units and Police Power
Under the 1987 Constitution and the Local Government Code (RA 7160), LGUs are vested with police power and the authority to enact ordinances and regulations necessary to promote general welfare, protect public health, safety, property, and maintain peace and order within their territorial jurisdiction. They are empowered to provide and maintain basic services and infrastructure facilities funded by local funds, including roads, bridges, and similar infrastructure primarily intended to serve their constituents.
The Nature and Ownership of Sidewalks in Private Subdivisions
The Court emphasized the provisions of PD 957, as amended by PD 1216, which mandate subdivision owners to reserve open spaces, roads, alleys, and sidewalks exclusively for public use, effectively withdrawing them from private commerce. However, critical to ownership is whether the lands and sidewalks have been formally donated or expropriated by the government. The Court clarified that sidewalks within subdivisions remain private property of the developer or owner until formally transferred to the LGU, either by donation or expropriation with just compensation.
Jurisprudential Evolution on Ownership of Subdivision Roads and Sidewalks
While initial rulings such as the 1991 White Plains Association decision suggested automatic vesting of ownership in the LGU when land is reserved for public use, the Court modified this view in its 1998 decision concerning the same association. It held that subdivision roads and sidewalks belong to the private owner until donation or expropriation, aligning with the principle that legal ownership governs the applicability of public funding for maintenance or improvements.
Prohibition Against Using Public Funds for Private Purposes
Section 335 of RA 7160 explicitly prohibits the appropriation or use of public funds for private purposes. This principle enshrines fiscal responsibility and public trust in government funds. The Court cited Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, emphasizing that the essential character of the expenditure’s object must be public; incidental public benefit from a project primarily promoting private interests does not legitimize the expenditure of public funds.
Application of Precedents to the Present Case
The petitioner’s reliance on the constitutional proscription and the Local Government Code provisions find support in cases such as Pascual and Young v. City of Manila, where the Court invalidated public expenditures on infrastructure projects within private subdivisions unless ownership was vested in the government. The implementing rules of PD 957 further require the subdivision owner’s responsibility for maintaining subdivision roads and sidewalks until official conveyance to the LGU.
Conclusion on Legality of Public Expenditure
The Supreme Court concluded that the use of LGU funds for widening and improvement of sidewalks that are still privately owned is unlawful, as it contravenes Section 335 of RA 7160. Proper ownership of sidewalks is a necessary precondition for LGUs to utilize public funds to maintain or improve such infrastructure. Simil
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 167219)
Facts and Legal Issue
- The City of Marikina undertook a project in May 1999 to widen, clear, and repair sidewalks within Marikina Greenheights Subdivision, through Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993.
- Petitioner Aniano A. Albon filed a taxpayer’s suit with allegations that the sidewalks were private property, owned by V.V. Soliven, Inc., and thus the LGU's maintenance work constituted an unlawful use of public funds.
- He contended that using public resources violated the constitutional prohibition on using public funds for private purposes, specific provisions of RA 7160 (Local Government Code), and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- The petitioner also argued that there was no appropriation for the project.
- The question before the Court: May an LGU validly use public funds for the widening, repair, and improvement of sidewalks located in a privately-owned subdivision?
Procedural History
- Trial court denied the petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction, citing PD 1818 and Supreme Court Circular No. 68-94 which barred injunctions involving government infrastructure projects.
- The Regional Trial Court later dismissed the petition, ruling that the City had authority under its police power to undertake the project, referencing the 1991 White Plains Association v. Legaspi decision.
- The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision, confirming the sidewalks as public property and the ordinance as a valid exercise of LGU's power.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied at the Court of Appeals.
- The case was elevated to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari.
Powers of Local Government Units (LGUs) under RA 7160
- LGUs possess legislative powers under the Local Government Code (RA 7160), including police powers for general welfare to regulate, preserve, and protect the health, safety, and property of residents within their territorial jurisdiction.
- Section 17 of RA 7160 empowers LGUs to provide basic services and facilities, including infrastructure facilities such as municipal or city roads, bridges, and related public improvements.
- Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993 regulating streets and sidewalks in Marikina is a valid enactment exercising the City’s police powers.
Public or Private Nature of Subdivision Sidewalks and Roads
- PD 1216 and PD 957 mandate subdivision owners to allocate open spaces, roads, alleys, and sidewalks exclusively for public use, effectively removing these from private commerce