Title
Sitchon vs. Aquino
Case
G.R. No. L-8191
Decision Date
Feb 27, 1956
Petitioners occupied public streets/waterways in Manila, built houses without authority, paid fees marked "without prejudice to vacate." City Engineer ordered demolition; SC upheld authority, citing public nuisance laws, police power, and due process compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211363)

Case Background

The petitioners occupied various portions of public streets and waterways in Manila during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Notably, they built houses on Calabash Road, Antipolo and Algeciras Streets, R. Papa Extension, as well as on riverbeds and public waterways, often paying "concession fees" without prejudice to future orders requiring them to vacate the premises. The City Engineer issued notices demanding their removal in 1952, warning of imminent demolition if they failed to comply.

Legal Proceedings

The petitioners sought injunctive relief in response to threats of demolition. The Court of First Instance of Manila ruled against them, determining that their houses constituted public nuisances under existing city ordinances and the Civil Code of the Philippines. The lower court decisions were appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which consolidated the cases due to the similar factual background and legal questions.

Nuisance Law Application

The lower court characterized the unauthorized structures as public nuisances according to Article 694 of the Civil Code, stating that such nuisances obstruct public access and may cause harm or annoyance to the community. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment, noting that the structures interfered with public use and enjoyment of the streets and waterways.

Authority of City Engineer and Legal Justifications

The Court discussed the roles of the City Engineer vis-à-vis the district health officer under Articles 700 and 702 of the Civil Code, ultimately affirming that the City Engineer held the authority to abate public nuisances under Section 31 of Republic Act No. 409, which is specific to the City of Manila. Thus, despite the general provisions regarding nuisances, the Court recognized the special legislative powers granted to local authorities to manage public spaces.

Due Process Concerns

The petitioners argued that demolitions attempted without a formal hearing constituted a violation of their right to due process. However, the Court emphasized that their respective buildings were established without legal authority on public property, which legitimized the summary removal under the police power

...continue reading

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