G.R. No. 71169 - Sangalang vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Case Summary (G.R. No. 71169)

Petitioners and Respondents (formal posture)

Multiple petitions and motions for reconsideration were before the Supreme Court: motions by the Sangalangs and BAVA challenging the opening of Jupiter and Orbit Streets and the demolition of gates; motions by various intervenors and counsel raising related points including deletion of damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. Separately, a petition (G.R. No. 60727) questioned whether the Mayor of Makati validly opened Jupiter and Orbit Streets to vehicular traffic.

Key Dates

Principal events in the underlying litigation commenced in 1979 (petition for prohibition and damages filed October 24, 1979). The Supreme Court’s reported disposition occurred in 1989 (decision discussed in the prompt).

Applicable Law and Authorities

Constitutional framework applicable to the decision: the Constitution in effect at the time of the decision. Statutory and regulatory authorities relied upon or discussed: Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) Section 44 (and its later form in PD No. 1529, Sec. 50); Presidential Decree No. 957 (zoning/subdivision regulation framework); Presidential Decree No. 1216 (referenced); Municipal Ordinance No. 17 (Municipal Government of Makati) and Resolution No. 139 (Nov. 21, 1948); deeds of donation executed by Ayala Corporation; Civil Code provisions (Arts. 436, 694, 695, 698, 699, 701); jurisprudence cited in the decision (Ortigas & Co. v. Feati Bank; Philippine Long Distance Co. v. City of Davao; Vda. de Genuino; Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon; The Homeowners Associations of El Deposito v. Lood).

Procedural history in the trial court and appellate proceedings

BAVA filed a petition for prohibition and damages with a preliminary injunction in October 1979. The trial court denied temporary restraining order and later denied preliminary injunction (order March 4, 1980) and denied reconsideration (November 14, 1980). The Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding the Transfer Certificates of Title for Jupiter and Orbit lacked the Section 44 (Act No. 496) annotation and thus the Mayor lacked authority to open those streets; the intermediate appellate proceedings and related petitions culminated in Supreme Court review, and subsequent motions for reconsideration were filed before the Supreme Court.

Facts material to the legal questions

The Municipality of Makati, acting through the Mayor and municipal engineering officials, opened several streets in Bel‑Air Village (including Amapola, Mercedes, Zodiac, Jupiter, Neptune, Orbit, and Paseo de Roxas) to public traffic on grounds of public necessity and traffic decongestion.
Ayala Corporation was the original owner of the Bel‑Air subdivision and executed deeds of donation covering certain street lots (including Jupiter and Orbit), which contained conditions describing permitted uses (use by members and, under certain conditions, by the general public) and reversion clauses if not used as streets.
Disputes arose over whether Jupiter and Orbit were dedicated or donated for exclusive private use by BAVA members or were subject to public use; whether the Transfer Certificates of Title bore the annotation (required under Section 44/PD 1529 Sec. 50) preventing closure or disposal of streets without court approval; and whether the Mayor’s summary opening and demolition of gates amounted to deprivation of property without due process or uncompensated taking.

Legal issues presented

Whether the Mayor of Makati could validly order the opening of Jupiter and Orbit Streets to vehicular traffic and cause removal of gates and barriers without prior ordinance or court order.
Whether the Transfer Certificates of Title lacked the statutory annotation (Section 44 / PD 1529 Sec. 50) and thus allowed the registered owner to close streets.
Whether Ayala Corporation’s deeds of donation limited the public use of the streets to association members only or expressly permitted public use under conditions.
Whether the Mayor’s acts constituted an uncompensated taking or denial of due process, or whether they were a valid exercise of police power (including summary abatement of a nuisance).

Court of Appeals finding addressed by the Supreme Court

The Court of Appeals had held that Transfer Certificates of Title covering the streets did not contain the Section 44 annotation; consequently, it concluded the Mayor did not have legal authority to open Jupiter and Orbit to public traffic. The Court of Appeals thus found in favor of petitioners on that ground.

Supreme Court’s analysis on the annotation and title conditions

The Supreme Court found that the Transfer Certificate of Title covering Orbit (No. 206824) did contain the required annotation making the condition applicable; thus the Court of Appeals erred in concluding the annotation was absent. More fundamentally, the Supreme Court analyzed the deeds of donation executed by Ayala Corporation and concluded that the terms of the donations themselves contemplated use of Jupiter and Orbit not exclusively by Bel‑Air residents but, under express provisions, “under certain reasonable conditions and restrictions, by the general public.” The deeds included reversion clauses if the properties ceased to be used as streets. Therefore, the documentation and the donation terms supported the position that the streets were not for exclusive private benefit of BAVA members.

Supreme Court’s analysis of police power and non‑impairment of contracts

The Court reiterated the doctrine that non‑impairment of contracts is not absolute and must be reconciled with the state’s police power to promote health, safety, order, and general welfare. Citing prior decisions (Ortigas & Co. v. Feati Bank; Philippine Long Distance Co.; Vda. de Genuino), the Court affirmed that legislative and municipal regulation under police power may alter contractual arrangements if the exercise is not capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, and if due process is observed. The Court treated the Mayor’s action—opening streets to relieve traffic congestion and promote public convenience—as a legitimate exercise of police power, responsive to pressing public needs (traffic decongestion in Makati and the larger urban context). The Court emphasized that police power differs from eminent domain in that it may be exercised without provision of just compensation (citing Civil Code Art. 436), though it must not be arbitrary; the burden to show that exercise was unjustified rests on the aggrieved party.

Nuisance, Municipal Ordinance No. 17, and summary abatement

The Supreme Court sustained the Mayor’s reliance on Municipal Ordinance No. 17 (as amended by Resolution No. 139), which required a mayoral permit for construction and empowered authorities to remove or

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 71169)

Procedural Posture and Case Consolidation

Multiple related petitions and motions were before the Court, identified by several G.R. numbers including, principally, G.R. No. 71169 and G.R. No. 60727, and additionally G.R. Nos. 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281.
The Court considered: (1) two motions for reconsideration in G.R. No. 71169 (one filed by Atty. J. Cezar Sangco for spouses Jose and Lutgarda Sangalang and another adopted by Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA)); and (2) a motion for reconsideration and/or clarification by Atty. Richard Funk in G.R. Nos. 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281.
The motions for reconsideration challenged the Court’s Decision promulgated on December 22, 1988, and sought, among other reliefs, reversal of holdings concerning the public use of Jupiter Street and deletion of awards of damages.
The Court denied the motions filed by the Sangalangs and BAVA with finality, finding no new arguments warranting reconsideration.
The Court also denied Atty. Funk’s motion for reconsideration for the same reason and upheld the award of attorney’s fees as just and proper under Article 2208, paragraph II of the Civil Code.
The ultimate disposition ordered: the petition in G.R. No. 60727 is GRANTED; motions for reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281 are DENIED with finality.

Chronology of Lower Proceedings and Key Procedural Facts

October 24, 1979: Petitioner (BAVA) instituted a petition for prohibition and damages with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No. 34948).
October 25, 1979: Respondent court ordered respondents to answer and denied issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO); petitioner filed an urgent motion for reconsideration of the denial alleging continued acts of dispossession — that urgent motion was denied.
November 6, 1979: Parties were ordered to submit affidavits, counter-affidavits, and memoranda as basis for resolving the preliminary injunction application; submissions were filed in due time.
December 11, 1979: Respondents filed their answer to the petition.
March 4, 1980: Respondent Court denied the application for preliminary injunction.
November 14, 1980: The respondent court denied the motion for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction denial.
The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 11803-SP rendered findings on certificate of titles and restrictions that became part of the arguments on appeal.

Factual Background Material Presented by Parties

Respondents (Makati municipal officials) asserted that, prior to January 1977, studies were made on the feasibility of opening certain Bel-Air Village streets (Amapola, Mercedes, Zodiac, Jupiter, Neptune, Orbit and Paseo de Roxas) to alleviate traffic congestion adjacent to Bel-Air Village.
Respondents relied on the subdivision plan approval condition that major thoroughfares connecting to public streets and highways shall be opened to public traffic.
Respondents alleged meetings were held with petitioner’s representatives, including a January 28, 1977 meeting where Rufino R. Santos (then president of petitioner) allegedly agreed to opening streets; respondents claimed Jupiter Street was opened because public welfare demanded it and Orbit Street was opened subject to conditions after further meeting(s).
Petitioner (BAVA/Sangalang) contended that streets other than Jupiter and Orbit had been voluntarily kept open by the Association, that Rufino R. Santos never agreed to the opening of Jupiter and Orbit streets, and that Torrens titles covering Jupiter and Orbit did not contain the same conditions as other street lots.
The parties referenced deeds of donation executed by Ayala Corporation (the original owner) covering Jupiter and Orbit Streets and various statutory provisions (Section 44 of Act No. 496 as amended / Section 50 of PD No. 1529, PD No. 957, PD No. 1216, and Municipal Ordinance No. 17 of Makati, as amended by Resolution No. 139).
Transfer Certificate of Title numbers were specifically identified for Jupiter Street (S-76020, S-76021, S-76022, S-76024, S-76055) and for Orbit Street (No. 206824).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Mayor of Makati could validly open Jupiter and Orbit Streets to vehicular traffic.
Whether the Mayor had the authority to order demolition/removal of gates and barriers closing Jupiter and Orbit Streets without a municipal ordinance or without court approval.
Whether the opening/demolition amounted to deprivation of property without due process or expropriation without just compensation.
Whether the Transfer Certificates of Title bore annotations or restrictions (per Section 44 of Act No. 496 / Section 50 of PD 1529) preventing closure or disposition of street portions without Court of First Instance approval.
Whether the deed(s) of donation by Ayala Corporation reserved the streets for exclusive private use by Bel‑Air residents or allowed public use under certain conditions.
Whether the acts of respondents constituted grave abuse of discretion or denial of due process.

Holdings / Disposition

The Court held that the Mayor of Makati could lawfully open Jupiter and Orbit Streets to the general public under the exercise of police power; the petition in G.R. No. 60727 was GRANTED.
The Court denied with finality the motions for reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281.
The Court found that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 206824 (Orbit Street) did contain the annotation required by Section 50 of PD No. 1529 (and related references to Act No. 496), contrary to the Court of Appeals’ finding that the titles lacked such restrictions.
The Court concluded that the Deed(s) of Donation executed by Ayala Corporation effectively required that Jupiter and Orbit Streets be left open, expressly providing for use "under certain reasonable conditions and restrictions, b