G.R. No. 198774 - Alolino vs. Flores

Case Summary (G.R. No. 198774)

Petitioner

Alolino sued in the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. 69320) seeking: (1) removal of the encroaching structure; (2) enforcement of his easement of light and view; and (3) payment of damages.

Respondents

Respondents admitted constructing without a building permit because the structure was on a barrio/municipal road. They asserted long prior occupation (since 1955), blamed Alolino for building to his lot edge without setbacks, alleged no violation of easement rights, and claimed a 2004 Sangguniang Bayan reclassification of the lot as residential.

Key Dates and Procedural History

TCT No. 784 issued Aug. 30, 1976 (26 sq. m.); TCT No. 976 issued Aug. 29, 1977 (95 sq. m.).
1994: Respondents constructed on the barrio road abutting Alolino’s rear wall. Building Official issued a Notice of Illegal Construction (Feb. 15, 1995).
2001–2002: Respondents constructed a second floor; Building Official issued another Notice (May 6, 2002). Barangay certification of unresolved complaint (May 17, 2002). Demand letter from Alolino (Jan. 23, 2003). Complaint filed with RTC (Feb. 14, 2003).
Ocular inspection by RTC team (Dec. 6, 2007) confirmed blockage of light and air.
RTC judgment (Apr. 20, 2009): ordered removal of respondents’ structure; found Alolino had acquired an easement of light and view; characterized respondents’ structure as private and public nuisance.
Court of Appeals (CA) reversed (July 8, 2011): held no easement acquired, Alolino at fault for building to boundary, no right of way, and no public nuisance; relied in part on Sanggunian resolution (2004) and Section 28 of RA 7279. Reconsideration denied (Sept. 28, 2011).
Petition for review to the Supreme Court filed (Nov. 15, 2011). Decision reviewed here issued April 4, 2016.

Applicable Law and Legal Provisions

Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable as the decision date is 1990 or later).
Civil Code provisions cited: Articles 424, 613–622, 649–657, 667–673, 682, 694, 1108, 1113, 1347, 1409, and related articles on easements, prescription, and nuisance.
Local Government Code (RA No. 7160), Section 21 (Closure and Opening of Roads).
National Building Code provisions referenced (Section 702/708 on setbacks and lot occupancy).
Urban Development and Housing Act (RA No. 7279), Section 28 (Eviction and Demolition).
Jurisprudential principles cited in the decision as presented.

Facts Established at Trial

Alolino’s house had terraces on both floors and six windows on the perimeter wall (three per floor). He extended his two-storey house to the property edge.
Respondents’ structure was constructed approximately two to three inches from the back of Alolino’s house, covering five windows and the exit door, thereby depriving him of light, ventilation, and rear access to the barrio road.
Building Official issued two Notices of Illegal Construction (1995 and 2002); respondents did not comply.
Ocular inspection (RTC) confirmed obstruction of light and air.

Issues Presented

Whether Alolino acquired an easement of light and view or an easement of right of way over the respondents’ property (by prescription or title).
Whether the national setback and building code provisions (Article 670 Civil Code; Section 708 National Building Code) apply, and whether Alolino was at fault for building to his lot edge.
Whether respondents’ structure is a public and private nuisance and whether it can be demolished given RA 7279 Section 28.
Whether the Sanggunian’s 2004 reclassification (by resolution) effectively withdrew the barrio road from public use and rendered respondents’ possession lawful.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Classification of the Land

The Supreme Court affirmed that the lot where respondents built is a barrio road and thus property of public dominion devoted to public use under Article 424 of the Civil Code.
Reclassification of a local road to patrimonial use requires an ordinance approved by at least two-thirds of the Sanggunian under Section 21 of the Local Government Code. A mere Sanggunian resolution is insufficient; an ordinance is a legislative act with the force of law, whereas a resolution is only a declaration of sentiment or opinion. Because no ordinance was enacted, the 2004 resolution could not validly withdraw the barrio road from public use.
Legal consequences of the barrio road’s status (as applied): it is not alienable or disposable; not subject to Torrens registration; not susceptible to prescription; not leasable/sellable/contractable; not subject to attachment/execution; and cannot be burdened by voluntary easements.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Easements and Prescription

Distinction between land and structures: the land (barrio road) is public property; the respondents’ house is an illegally constructed private structure on public land. The land cannot be burdened with voluntary easements, but the structure (as private property) could theoretically be the subject of prescription or voluntary easements.
Easement categories: continuous and apparent easements may be acquired by title or prescription of ten years (Art. 620); continuous non-apparent and discontinuous easements require title (Art. 622). An easement of right of way is discontinuous and cannot be acquired by prescription. An easement of light and view can be acquired by prescription, but prescription begins only from the time the owner of the dominant estate gives formal prohibition to the adjoining proprietor (Art. 668).
Application to this case: Alolino did not and could not have given a formal prohibition prior to respondents’ 1994 construction; therefore he could not have acquired an easement of light and view by prescription. The statutory legal easements of right of way (Arts. 649–657) do not apply to this situation.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis — Nuisance Doctrine

Article 694 (Civil Code) defines a nuisance and includes acts or conditions that "obstruct or interfere with the free passage of any public highway or street" or "hinder or impair the use of property."
The Supreme Court found that occupation and use by private individuals of public places devoted to public use (such as barrio roads) constitute public and private nuisances and are nuisance per se when they permanently obstruct such roads. The respondents’ permanent obstruction of the barrio road by an illegally constructed house is injurious to public welfare and convenience and thus constitutes a nuisance under Article 694.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — RA 7279 Section 28 and CA’s Error

The Court of Appeals had invoked Section 28 of RA 7279 to deny demolition. The Su

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 198774)

Facts

Petitioner Teofilo Alolino is the registered owner of two contiguous parcels at No. 47 Gen. Luna Street, Barangay Tuktukan, Taguig, covered by TCT Nos. 784 (26 sq. m., issued Aug. 30, 1976) and 976 (95 sq. m., issued Aug. 29, 1977).
Alolino initially built a bungalow-type house, added a second floor in 1980, and extended the two-storey house up to the edge of his property; there are terraces on both floors and six windows on the perimeter wall (three on ground floor, three on second floor).
In 1994 respondents Fortunato Flores and Anastacia (Marie) Flores constructed a house/sari-sari store on the vacant municipal/barrio road immediately adjoining the rear perimeter wall of Alolino’s house.
The respondents, constructing on a municipal road, did not secure a building permit; their structure stood about two to three inches from the back of Alolino’s house and covered five windows and the exit door.
The respondents’ construction deprived Alolino of light and ventilation he previously enjoyed and obstructed his ingress and egress to the municipal road through his rear door.
Alolino demanded removal of the respondents’ structure; respondents refused. Alolino complained to the Building Official of Taguig and to the Barangay of Tuktukan.
The Building Official issued a Notice of Illegal Construction against respondents on February 15, 1995, directing immediate stoppage of further construction.
Sometime in 2001 or 2002 respondents began constructing a second floor without permit; a second Notice of Illegal Construction was issued on May 6, 2002.
The Barangay Council of Tuktukan certified on May 17, 2002 that no settlement was reached relating to Alolino’s 1994 complaint.
Respondents did not comply; Alolino sent a demand letter dated January 23, 2003. After refusal, Alolino filed a complaint with the RTC on February 14, 2003 (Civil Case No. 69320) praying for removal of the encroaching structure, enforcement of easement of light and view, and payment of damages.
During trial, both parties requested an ocular inspection; the RTC ordered inspection on November 19, 2007, conducted on December 6, 2007; the inspection team’s report (dated Jan. 30, 2008) confirmed respondents’ property blocked entry of light and air to Alolino’s house.
On April 20, 2009 the RTC found Alolino had acquired an easement of light and view and ordered respondents to remove their illegal structure; the RTC held the respondents’ construction was a private nuisance (preventing use of Alolino’s back portion and obstructing passage to the barrio road) and a public nuisance (illegally constructed on a barrio road without permit).
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 94524); the CA on July 8, 2011 reversed the RTC and dismissed Alolino’s complaint for lack of merit.
The CA held: (1) Alolino had not acquired an easement of light and view because he had not given a formal prohibition pursuant to Article 668; (2) Alolino was at fault for building up to his property boundary in violation of the National Building Code; (3) Alolino had not acquired a right of way to the barrio road; and (4) the respondents’ house was not a public nuisance because it did not endanger surrounding safety. The CA concluded the Government had abandoned the barrio road pursuant to a 2004 Sanggunian resolution and invoked Section 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act to bar demolition.
Alolino moved for reconsideration on July 28, 2011; the CA denied the motion on September 28, 2011. Alolino filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on November 15, 2011.
The Supreme Court decision was rendered April 4, 2016 (G.R. No. 198774).

Procedural History

Barangay complaint and two Notices of Illegal Construction issued by Taguig Building Official: Feb. 15, 1995 and May 6, 2002.
Barangay Council certification of no settlement: May 17, 2002.
Demand letter by Alolino: Jan. 23, 2003. Complaint filed in RTC: Feb. 14, 2003 (Civil Case No. 69320).
Ocular inspection ordered Nov. 19, 2007; conducted Dec. 6, 2007; report dated Jan. 30, 2008 confirmed obstruction of light/air.
RTC judgment in favor of Alolino ordering removal/demolition: Apr. 20, 2009.
Appeal to Court of Appeals: docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 94524. CA decision reversing RTC and dismissing complaint: July 8, 2011. Reconsideration denied: Sept. 28, 2011.
Petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court: Nov. 15, 2011.
Supreme Court decision granting petition and reinstating RTC: Apr. 4, 2016.

Issues Presented

Whether Alolino acquired an easement of light and view over the respondents’ structure or an easement of right of way over the barrio road.
Whether the respondents’ house/sari-sari store, constructed on the barrio/municipal road, constitutes a private nuisance and/or a public nuisance.
Whether the Sangguniang Bayan resolution of 2004 effectively reclassified the barrio road into a residential lot, thereby depriving the Government property of its public-use character.
Whether Alolino’s own construction up to his property line and alleged nonobservance of setbacks precludes relief.
Whether Section 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act prevents demolition of respondents’ illegal structure on a public road.
Appropriate remedy and award of attorney’s fees and costs.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner Alolino’s contentions:
- He acquired an easement of light and view by virtue of title because respondents constructed on a barrio road.
- Provisions on setbacks (Sec. 708 National Building Code and Art. 670 Civil Code) are inapplicable because the property is adjacent to a barrio road.
- He has a right of way over the lot occupied by respondents because it is a barrio road.
- The respondents’ house/sari-sari store is a nuisance per se.
Respondents’ counter-arguments:
- Alolino has not acquired an easement of light and view or right of way by prescription or title.
- Alolino is at fault for building his house up to the property edge without observing setbacks required under Article 670 Civil Code and Section 702 (cited) of the National Building Code.
- Their house/sari-sari store is not a nuisance; it does not pose a serious threat to public safety and the Sanggunian has reclassified the lot as residential by resolution (Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 15, Series of 2004).

Legal Provisions and Authorities Quoted or Relied Upon

Classification of LGU properties:
- Article 424, Civil Code: lists property for public use (provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, etc.) and states all other property possessed by LGUs is patrimonial.
- Article 423 cited for LGU property classification (referenced).
Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), Section 21 (Closure and