Title
Supreme Court
City of Bacolod vs. Sugarland Hotel, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 182630
Decision Date
Dec 6, 2021
Sugarland Hotel demolished its fourth floor per MOU; City and Province refused compensation, breaching agreement; court upheld MOU, awarded damages for breach and bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182630)

Factual Background and Permit Denial

Sugarland Hotel, operating since 1973 adjacent to Bacolod City Domestic Airport, sought a height‐clearance permit in 1982 for a fourth‐floor annex. ATO Director Singson denied the application, citing potential obstruction to aerial navigation. No further administrative action was taken until 1994.

Airport Closure Due to Alleged Obstructions

On May 13, 1994, ATO Chief Villaruel ordered the airport’s closure, identifying the hotel’s upper floors and nearby informal settlements as hazards. Public outcry prompted efforts to negotiate reopening.

Memorandum of Understanding and Survey Terms

On May 20, 1994, city, provincial, ATO, and hotel representatives executed an MOU: ATO would re‐survey; if only the fourth floor obstructed operations, it would be demolished within 5–7 days, and city/province would indemnify the hotel based on appraisals approved by their sanggunian and COA. All ICAO‐noncompliant structures were to be removed simultaneously.

Partial Demolition and Airport Reopening

ATO and public works engineers conducted resurvey without hotel participation. On May 25, 1994, ATO recommended lowering the hotel by 6.38 m; Sugarland Hotel demolished its fourth floor, and the airport resumed operations the same day.

Withheld Indemnification and Nuisance Declaration

Although sanggunian ordinances appropriated P4,000,000 (city) and P3,600,000 (province) for compensation, both governments refused payment. The city sanggunian then declared the remaining parapet a public nuisance and authorized “extra-legal” demolition.

Forced Demolition and Collateral Damage

On November 17–18, 1994, the city engineer, with police and armed guards, forcibly demolished the hotel’s remaining parapet and fourth‐floor shells without a court order. Debris damaged lower floors, utilities, and structural integrity, forcing hotel closure until repairs completed in 1997.

Trial Court Ruling: MOU Binding and No Obstruction

In December 2005, the Bacolod RTC held the MOU valid under Art. 1318, N.C.C., found no impelling aviation safety need under Administrative Order No. 5 (domestic airports), and ruled the fourth floor was not an illegal nuisance. It ordered city and province to pay P4,000,000 and P3,600,000 plus 12% interest, and jointly and severally awarded P12,000,000 unearned profits (later deleted), P1,000,000 moral damages, P1,000,000 exemplary damages, P600,000 attorney’s fees, and costs.

Court of Appeals Modifications

In November 2007, the CA affirmed the RTC’s holdings on the MOU, illegality, and nuisance. It modified awards by: deleting unearned‐profits award and granting P6,000,000 temperate damages; reducing interest to 6% per annum from May 25, 1994; and dismissing city/province reimbursement claims against DOTC/ATO.

Supreme Court Deference to Lower Courts’ Findings

The Supreme Court, applying the 1987 Constitution, declined to disturb the RTC’s and CA’s factual findings on consent, performance, and non‐nuisance, emphasizing Rule 45’s limitation to questions of law and the high respect due affirmed factual conclusions.

Non-Nuisance Finding Under Domestic Airport Rules

The Court confirmed Bacolod Domestic Airport is governed by Administrative Order No. 5 (1967), not ICAO Annex 14. The hotel’s 2.5% allowable gradient was not exceeded; the 1.6% standard for international aerodromes did not apply, so no safety imperative justified demolition.






...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.