Title
Patalinghug vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 104786
Decision Date
Jan 27, 1994
A funeral parlor's construction in Davao City was challenged for violating zoning laws; the Supreme Court upheld its permit, ruling the area was commercial despite tax declarations classifying nearby structures as residential.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 78903)

Applicable Law

The primary law at issue is Davao City Ordinance No. 363, known as the "Expanded Zoning Ordinance of Davao City," specifically Section 8, which regulates land use in C-2 districts. The ordinance states that funeral parlors must be established at least 50 meters away from residential structures and certain institutional buildings, including churches.

Background and Initial Approval

The petitioner received a building permit on February 10, 1987, after obtaining zoning compliance from Zoning Administrator Hector Esguerra. The permit facilitated the construction of the Metropolitan Funeral Parlor on Cabaguio Avenue in Agdao, Davao City. The construction proceeded despite complaints from local residents regarding proximity violations to the Iglesia Ni Kristo Chapel and nearby residential structures.

Investigation and Complaint

Following a complaint from several residents, the Sangguniang Panlungsod conducted an investigation. Their findings revealed that the closest residential structure, owned by Wilfred G. Tepoot, was only 8 inches from the funeral parlor. Residents subsequently filed a case on September 6, 1988, seeking to annul the building permit and prevent the operation of the funeral parlor.

Lower Court's Ruling

The Regional Trial Court conducted an ocular inspection and dismissed the complaint on July 6, 1989, concluding that the residential structures mentioned were sufficiently distanced from the funeral parlor, with key distances noted: 63.25 meters from Cribillo's residence and 55.95 meters from the chapel. The Court found the suit premature, citing the failure of the private respondents to exhaust administrative remedies.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Following the lower court's decision, the private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the prior ruling on November 29, 1991. The Appellate Court determined that Tepoot’s nearby building was indeed residential, as indicated by a tax declaration, which contradicted the lower court's classification of that building as commercial.

Supreme Court's Assessment

The Supreme Court, tasked with reviewing the factual determinations made by both lower courts, noted that discrepancies existed in the classification of Tepoot's property. They acknowledged the significance of factual assessments made by the trial court and emphasized that the trial court found sufficient evidence to classify Tepoot's building as commercial based on its actual use, which included operating a laundry business.

Tax Declaration vs. Zoning Purpose

The Court underscored the distinction between a property's tax classification and its zoning applicability. It clarified that a tax declaration does not

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.