Case Summary (G.R. No. 192692)
Factual Background
Leopoldo V. Parumog sought to construct a memorial park, Guardian Angel Eternal Garden, on his property in Barangay Cavite, Guimba, Nueva Ecija. To proceed, he acquired the necessary permits and cleared the proposal with local authorities, including the Guimba Local Government Unit (LGU). Opposed by adjacent landowners, including Dela Cruz and Felipe, a complaint for injunction with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was filed to stop construction, citing violation of rights to health and ecology. The case proceeded through various legal actions, commencing with the issuance of a TRO on June 25, 2004.
Rulings of the Trial Court
In a decision issued on September 29, 2006, the RTC ruled in favor of Dela Cruz and Felipe, making the injunction permanent against the memorial park's construction. The trial court criticized Resolution No. 33-04, arguing it merely reclassified the property without formally amending the municipal zoning ordinance, which is a prerequisite for a memorial park to be established in non-designated areas. Although the municipality later passed Ordinance No. 4-04 to amend the zoning ordinance, the courts noted insufficient evidence of its approval by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) or the Provincial Government.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA reversed the trial court's findings, identifying that the Guimba LGU had validly approved Ordinance No. 4-04, thus allowing the construction of memorial parks, including Parumog’s project. The CA concluded that the petitioners were barred from contesting the validity of Resolution No. 33-04 due to failure to appeal the original decision and established that both the local legislative and consultation processes were met according to local governance laws.
Issues Presented
The Supreme Court addressed three primary issues: (1) whether the CA erred in preventing the petitioners from challenging the issue of non-consultation, (2) whether the CA correctly validated the approval of the LGU’s resolutions regarding the project, and (3) whether the rights of the adjacent landowners to health and ecology were violated.
Legal Principles and Analysis
To obtain an injunction, petitioners must demonstrate (1) a clear right needing protection, (2) a substantial invasion of that right, (3) urgent necessity to prevent serious damage, and (4) absence of adequate legal remedies. The Court characterized the requisite rights concerning health, ecological balance, and due process as enforceable. However, the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192692)
The Case
- The case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- It contests the February 26, 2010 Decision and the June 25, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 88238.
- The CA reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 31 of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, related to an injunction case.
Antecedents
- Respondent Leopoldo V. Parumog sought to establish the Guardian Angel Eternal Garden memorial park on his property in Barangay Cavite, Guimba, Nueva Ecija.
- Parumog applied for necessary permits from the Municipality of Guimba Local Government Unit (Guimba LGU) and the Barangay LGU.
- Petitioners, Reynaldo Dela Cruz and Catalino C. Felipe, opposed the project, filing a complaint for injunction and seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) on June 15, 2004, to halt construction.
- The complaint included allegations of violations of their rights to health and a balanced ecology, and the Guimba LGU was impleaded as a defendant.
- The trial court granted the petitioners' request for a TRO on June 25, 2004.
Ruling of the Trial Court
- The trial court issued a Decision on September 29, 2006, ruling in favor of Dela Cruz, making the injunction against the memorial park permanent.
- The court found serious legal flaws in Resolution No. 33-04, stating it only reclassified the land as commercial, without designating it as a burial ground.
- The trial court noted that Barangay Cavite was not designated as a burial area in the local zoning ordinance, requiring an amendment for the project to proceed.
- Although Ordinance No. 4-04 was later passed to amend the zoning ord