G.R. No. 206878 - People vs. Caga y Fabre

Case Summary (G.R. No. 206878)

Petitions, Courts and Procedural Posture

Justice Gancayco sought injunctive relief in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q03-49693) after MMDA demolished part of his ground-floor party/wing wall in 2003. The RTC (30 September 2003) declared Ordinance No. 2904 unconstitutional and ordered restoration. The Court of Appeals (CA) (18 July 2006) reversed in part: it upheld the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 2904, lifted the injunction against its enforcement, but ruled MMDA exceeded its authority in demolishing the structure. Both parties filed petitions for review to the Supreme Court, which consolidated the matters and affirmed the CA decision.

Facts and Legislative Background

Ordinance No. 2904 (1956) mandated arcades of specified dimensions along portions of EDSA in commercial zones. Amendments and subsequent ordinances modified coverage and dimensions; in 1966 Quezon City granted Gancayco an exemption (Resolution No. 7161, S-66) conditioned on demolition of the arcade enclosure upon notice by the City Engineer when public interest demanded. In March–April 2003 MMDA, under MMC Resolution No. 02-28 and invoking the National Building Code (Presidential Decree No. 1096), issued a demolition notice and, after 15 days, demolished portions of Gancayco’s building then used as a restaurant. Gancayco filed suit alleging unlawful taking without just compensation, denial of equal protection, and wrongful demolition.

Issues Presented to the Court

The principal issues were: (1) whether Justice Gancayco was estopped from assailing Ordinance No. 2904; (2) whether Ordinance No. 2904 is constitutional; (3) whether the wing wall of Gancayco’s building was a public nuisance; and (4) whether MMDA legally demolished the property.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Because the decision was rendered after 1990, the Court applied the 1987 Constitution as the governing constitutional framework. Relevant statutory and regulatory materials relied on in the Court’s analysis included: the Revised Charter of Quezon City (Republic Act No. 537) — particularly the grant of powers in Section 12 (including subsections cited in the opinion); Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code) — Sections 102 (policy), 1004 (arcades), 205, 207 (building officials and duties), and 215 (abatement of dangerous buildings); the Local Government Code provisions cited in prior jurisprudence; and the defining provisions of nuisance in Article 694 of the Civil Code. The Court also applied settled doctrines from prior decisions cited in the record concerning estoppel, police power, zoning, and MMDA’s institutional authority.

Court’s Analysis on Estoppel

The Court held that Gancayco was not estopped from challenging Ordinance No. 2904 on the ground that it effects an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. The critical point was temporal: Gancayco had been granted an exemption in 1966 and thus had not suffered an actual taking until MMDA’s 2003 demolition; consequently he could challenge the ordinance as applied to him when the alleged deprivation occurred. The Court cited precedents rejecting estoppel where an act is ultra vires or where a party that previously complied later challenges constitutionality. However, the Court concluded that Gancayco could not properly raise an equal protection challenge based on disparate exemptions because he himself requested and benefited from an exemption; one who benefits from a classification is not the proper party to complain of it.

Court’s Analysis on Constitutionality of Ordinance No. 2904 (Police Power and Zoning)

Applying the doctrine of police power under the 1987 Constitution, the Court upheld Ordinance No. 2904 as a valid exercise of the city’s police power and zoning authority. It found an express delegation of authority to the Quezon City council in the Revised Charter (RA No. 537, Sec. 12(oo)) to enact ordinances necessary for health, safety, convenience and general welfare, and specifically to regulate kinds of buildings within fire limits and their manner of construction (Sec. 12(j)). The Court treated zoning and arcade requirements as measures reasonably related to public safety and convenience, consistent with earlier decisions upholding zoning ordinances. The National Building Code, enacted after the city ordinance, likewise recognized the policy to safeguard life, health and public welfare and, in Section 1004, permits arcades where existing or zoning ordinances so require — thereby supporting (but not compelling) local determinations in favor of arcades. The Court declined to address whether the ordinance was wise in requiring the arcade to be established within private property rather than over an existing sidewalk, deeming that to be a question of legislative wisdom beyond the Court’s role.

Court’s Analysis on Whether the Wing Wall Was a Nuisance

The Court determined that the wing walls of Gancayco’s building were not nuisances per se. The 1966 exemption granted by the city indicated that the structure was not considered to pose an immediate threat to life or property when permit conditions were imposed. Under Article 694 of the Civil Code, nuisance may be per se or per accidens; a nuisance per se is one that immediately and directly affects safety and may be summarily abated. The Court emphasized that an ordinance declaring a structure illegal does not automatically render it a nuisance per se, and only judicial determination can declare a particular thing a nuisance where it is not per se a nuisance. The Court cited authority holding that local legislative bodies cannot, by mere resolution or ordinance, declare particular things nuisances per se and order extrajudicial abatement.

Court’s Analysis on MMDA’s Authority and the Legality of the Demolition

The Court concluded that MMDA acted beyond its authority in demolishing the structure. The Building Code vests enforce

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206878)

Procedural Posture and Relief Sought

Consolidated Petitions for Review under Rule 45 assail: (a) Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 18 July 2006 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 84648, and (b) Resolution dated 10 May 2007 of the Court of Appeals denying motions for partial reconsideration.
Parties: Petitioner Emilio A. Gancayco (retired Justice); respondents City Government of Quezon City and Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA). MMDA also filed a separate petition in consolidated proceedings.
Reliefs sought by petitioner in RTC petition (Civil Case No. Q03‑49693): temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction; declaration of Ordinance No. 2904 as null and void; payment of damages; alternatively, just compensation if ordinance held valid.
Procedural history: RTC (Quezon City, Branch 224) rendered decision 30 September 2003 in favor of petitioner; Court of Appeals partly granted MMDA’s appeal on 18 July 2006 (upheld validity of ordinance but found MMDA exceeded authority in demolition); CA denied motions for partial reconsideration 10 May 2007; Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision.

Facts — Property, Title, and Location

Petitioner purchased a parcel of land in the early 1950s located at 746 Epifanio delos Santos Avenue (EDSA), Quezon City (formerly 808 Highway 54).
Land area: 375 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT114558.
A two‑storey building was constructed on the property; at the time of the MMDA demolition, the affected portion was being used as a restaurant.

Ordinance No. 2904 — Content, Definition, and Mandate

Quezon City Ordinance No. 2904, enacted 27 March 1956, entitled: “An Ordinance Requiring the Construction of Arcades, for Commercial Buildings to be Constructed in Zones Designated as Business Zones in the Zoning Plan of Quezon City, and Providing Penalties in Violation Thereof.”
Definition: An “arcade” defined as any portion of a building above the first floor projecting over the sidewalk beyond the first storey wall used as protection for pedestrians against rain or sun (per Annex A, National Building Code definition cited).
Ordinance requirement: construction of an arcade with a width of 4.50 meters and height of 5.00 meters along EDSA within prescribed stretches (from north side of Santolan Road to one lot after Liberty Avenue, and from one lot before Central Boulevard to the Botocan transmission line).
Practical effect: required building line set back from property line to create space/shelter under first floor; property owners thereby relinquish use of that space for arcaded sidewalk rather than for their private use.

Amendments to the Ordinance and Geographic Exemptions

Ordinance No. 60‑4477 (8 August 1960) exempted properties at the Quezon City–San Juan boundary from the arcade requirement.
Ordinance No. 60‑4513 further extended exemption to commercial buildings from Balete Street to Seattle Street.
Ordinance No. 6603 (1 March 1966) reduced width of arcades to three meters for buildings along V. Luna Road, Central District, Quezon City.
The ordinance and its amendments covered petitioner’s property prior to the grant of an exemption.

Petitioner’s 1965–1966 Exemption Request and City Resolution

Sometime in 1965, petitioner sought exemption for a two‑storey building under construction on his property from application of Ordinance No. 2904.
The Quezon City Council granted the request by Resolution No. 7161, S‑66 dated 2 February 1966, subject to the condition that “upon notice by the City Engineer, the owner shall, within reasonable time, demolish the enclosure of said arcade at his own expense when public interest so demands.”
At the time of the MMDA demolition in 2003, petitioner was still enjoying the exemption and there was no valid notice from the City Engineer to demolish the enclosure.

MMDA Enforcement Operations, Notice, and Demolition (2003)

In March 2003 MMDA conducted operations to clear obstructions along the sidewalk of EDSA in Quezon City pursuant to Metro Manila Council (MMC) Resolution No. 02‑28, Series of 2002, which authorized MMDA and local government units to “clear the sidewalks, streets, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks and other public places in Metro Manila of all illegal structures and obstructions.”
On 28 April 2003 MMDA sent a notice of demolition to petitioner alleging the building portion violated the National Building Code (Presidential Decree No. 1096) in relation to Ordinance No. 2904 and gave petitioner fifteen (15) days to clear the arcade portion.
Petitioner did not comply within 15 days. MMDA thereafter proceeded to demolish the party wall or “wing walls” of the ground floor structure. Extent of demolition in the records is not entirely clear but the fact of demolition was undisputed.

RTC Decision (30 September 2003) — Ruling and Reasons

RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring Quezon City Ordinance No. 2904 unconstitutional, invalid and void ab initio.
RTC held ordinance effected a taking of private property without due process and just compensation because 67.5 square meters of petitioner’s 375 square meters would be required for the arcade without compensation; found ordinance confiscatory and oppressive.
RTC also held ordinance violated equal protection of laws and permanently enjoined respondents from enforcing the ordinance; directed MMDA to restore demolished portion to original condition.

Court of Appeals Decision (18 July 2006) — Modification and Rationale

CA partly granted the MMDA’s appeal and modified the RTC judgment:
- Upheld the validity and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 2904 as a valid exercise of police power by Quezon City.
- Lifted the injunction against enforcement and implementation of the ordinance.
CA reasoning on “taking”: held no taking occurred because owner retained beneficial ownership and ultimate benefit of arcaded sidewalks redounded to owner’s commercial est