Title
Calma vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 78447
Decision Date
Aug 17, 1989
Calma complained about noise from Ongs' lumber yard, alleging health issues. COMMISSION ordered abatement but exceeded jurisdiction; Supreme Court ruled no violation of P.D. No. 957, due process breach, and no enforceable residential warranty.
abatement of nuisance
due process rights
property owners

Case Summary (G.R. No. 78447)

Factual Background

Restituto Calma and his spouse purchased a subdivision lot from Pleasantville Development Corporation in City Heights Phase II, Bacolod City, in August 1975 and thereupon built a residence in 1976. Neighbors Fabian and Nenita Ong acquired the lot fronting the Calmas in 1979–1980 and erected buildings where they lived and conducted business. On April 25, 1981, petitioner complained to the Association of Residents of City Heights, Inc. that activities on the Ong lot operated as a lumber yard and produced disturbing noise that allegedly caused nervous tension and illness to petitioner and his son. The association reported that the Ongs had taken some remedial steps, but petitioner found them inadequate and, on June 17, 1981, wrote Pleasantville Development Corporation requesting abatement of the nuisance.

Civil and Administrative Filings

Dissatisfied with the responses, Restituto Calma filed a civil complaint for damages against the Ong spouses and Pleasantville Development Corporation on July 28, 1981 before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (Civil Case No. 16113), alleging that Pleasantville’s sale of the adjacent lot and its failure to cause demolition of illegal constructions caused the nuisance and consequent damage, and praying for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. On August 31, 1981 petitioner lodged a complaint with the National Housing Authority alleging violations of P.D. No. 957 and seeking abatement, demolition, refund of amortizations, medical assistance, penalties under Sec. 39 of P.D. No. 957, and revocation of Pleasantville’s license.

Proceedings before the COMMISSION and its Decision

After pleadings and position papers, the National Housing Authority functions had been assumed by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. The COMMISSION rendered a decision in HSRC No. REM-92181-0547 dated May 22, 1985 which dismissed the complaint for lack of merit insofar as violations of Sections 9(b), 19 and 23 of P.D. No. 957 were concerned. The COMMISSION nonetheless included a directive ordering Pleasantville Development Corporation to take appropriate measures for the prevention and abatement of the complained activities and to submit, within fifteen days from finality, a timetable of action and thereafter periodic status reports of compliance. The COMMISSION thereby combined dismissal of the regulatory violations with an affirmative order to abate the alleged nuisance.

Enforcement Order, Petition for Prohibition, and Referral

On August 27, 1986 the COMMISSION issued an order granting the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce its decision. Pleasantville Development Corporation then filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction with this Court assailing the COMMISSION’s order to take measures to abate the nuisance and to file timetables and status reports, on the ground that the COMMISSION had found no violation of P.D. No. 957 and thus exceeded its jurisdiction. The petition was referred by this Court to the Court of Appeals.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals (Fifth Division) granted the petition and held that the COMMISSION acted capriciously and in excess of jurisdiction in imposing an obligation upon Pleasantville after having absolved it of the complaint. The appellate court set aside the COMMISSION’s August 27, 1986 order granting a writ of execution, dissolved or cancelled any writs issued pursuant thereto, and set aside the portion of the COMMISSION’s May 22, 1985 decision that ordered Pleasantville to take measures to abate the activities and to submit timetables and periodic reports. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the order was overbearing, arbitrary, and without basis in fact.

Petition for Review and Issues Presented

Restituto Calma moved for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, which denied the motion, and thereafter filed the present petition for review on certiorari to this Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals and reinstatement of the COMMISSION’s decision. The principal issues concerned whether the COMMISSION had authority to order abatement despite dismissing statutory violations; whether the COMMISSION’s finding of nuisance and its abatement order were supported by evidence; and whether the failure to join the Ong spouses in the administrative proceeding violated due process.

Parties’ Contentions

Pleasantville Development Corporation contended that having been absolved of statutory violation the COMMISSION had no basis to impose affirmative obligations and thus exceeded its jurisdiction. The Solicitor General, as intervenor considered by the Court of Appeals, pointed to Executive Order No. 648, Sec. 5(p), which authorizes the COMMISSION to issue orders for cessation, closure, vacating or demolition of uses or structures found to have violated laws and directives administered by it. Restituto Calma maintained that Pleasantville breached an express or implied warranty that subdivision lots would be used only for residential purposes and that the COMMISSION’s order was a proper exercise to secure abatement and protect the tranquility of the residential subdivision.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Authority and Evidence

This Court observed that, although the power to abate a nuisance is not explicitly enumerated in P.D. No. 957, Executive Order No. 648 granted the COMMISSION authority to issue orders for cessation or demolition where it determined violations of laws and issuances under its implementation, citing Sec. 5(p) of E.O. No. 648. The Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the COMMISSION’s abatement order could be grounded on that provision because the COMMISSION’s conclusion that the Ongs’ activities and structures constituted a nuisance lacked evidentiary support. The Solicitor General conceded that the COMMISSION’s decision made no finding of nuisance. The record reflected that the COMMISSION based its abatement directive on position papers without receiving evidence on the nuisance issue.

Due Process Defect and Nonjoinder of Affected Parties

The Court emphasized that the Ong spouses, whose property and activities would be directly affected by a declaration of nuisance and an abatement order, were not parties to the proceedings before the COMMISSION. The Court held that to declare their property a nuisance and to order abatement without giving them an opportunity to be heard violated the basic right to due process. The Court invoked Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940), to underscore the cardinal requirement of due process in administrative proceedings. In consequence, the COMMISSION gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered Pleasantville to take measures for prevention and abatement.

Contractual Warranty and Evidentiary Burden

Addressing petitioner’s contention of breach of warranty, the Court examined the printed Contract to Sell between Pleasantville and petitioner, particularly provisions numbered 12 and 22. The Court found the contract language ambiguous and internally inconsistent: one clause allowed commercial/residential use while another purported exclusivity for residential use and single-family buildings. The Court held that the printed contract did not unequivocally establish a warranty of exclusive residential use. The Court further observed that Restituto Calma had not adduced evidence of representations or other proof to establish an enforceable warranty or its breach. The Court noted that the Civil Code’s provisions on sales did not impose the type of implied warranty alleged, and that P.D. No. 957 imposed no such warranty. As the party asserting breach, petitioner bore the burden to prove both the existence of a warranty and its violation.

Proper Forum and Remaining Remedies

The Court acknowledged petitioner’s understandable motive to seek relief for the alleged disturbance and medica

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms