Case Summary (G.R. No. 40243)
Facts of the Case
Residents of Barrio Sta. Elena filed complaints on March 18, 1966, citing smoke, dust, and odor from the abaca-baling machine and hazards from stored inflammable materials. A council-appointed committee confirmed the danger of accidental fire given the warehouse’s proximity to crowded dwellings and narrow roads. On April 22, 1966, the Municipal Council adopted Resolution No. 29, declaring the warehouse a public nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code and directing relocation within two months.
Procedural History
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Municipal Council was denied. He then filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes. On September 18, 1969, that court upheld Resolution No. 29, affirmed the validity of Ordinance No. 13, series 1952, and ordered petitioner to remove inflammable materials within two months. Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether the warehouse constitutes a public nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code.
- Whether Ordinance No. 13, series 1952, of the Municipality of Virac is a valid exercise of police power or unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution (General Welfare, Police Power)
Article 694, Civil Code of the Philippines (public nuisance)
Ordinance No. 13, series 1952 (prohibiting warehouse construction within 200 meters of a block of houses for storage of inflammable products)
Administrative Code of 1917, Section 2238 (municipal police power)
Local Government Code of 1991, Section 16, Book I (general welfare clause)
Court of First Instance Ruling
- The warehouse was lawfully constructed under a valid municipal permit and must not be demolished.
- Ordinance No. 13 is a valid exercise of police power and not unconstitutional.
- Storage of abaca, copra, and other inflammable materials violated the ordinance, posed fire hazards, and constituted a public nuisance under Article 694.
- Petitioner was ordered to remove the prohibited materials within two months and enjoined from future storage.
Petitioner’s Assignments of Error
- Ordinance No. 13 exceeds municipal police power and infringes due process and equal protection.
- The trial court misinterpreted the ordinance’s scope—penalizing storage rather than construction.
- Unequal enforcement existed, as similarly situated warehouses were not prosecuted.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Resolution
The Supreme Court found Ordinance No. 13 to be a legitimate exercise of municipal police power, anchored in the general welfare clause. It satisfied
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 40243)
Facts
- Celestino Tatel is engaged in the import and export of abaca and other products and owns a warehouse in barrio Sta. Elena, Municipality of Virac, Catanduanes.
- On March 18, 1966, residents complained of noise, smoke, obnoxious odor, and dust from an abaca bailing machine in petitioner’s warehouse, disturbing neighborhood peace.
- The Municipal Council of Virac appointed an investigative committee, which reported crowded surroundings, narrow roads, proximity to residential houses, and the presence of inflammable materials creating a fire hazard.
- By Resolution No. 29 dated April 22, 1966, the Council declared the warehouse a public nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code and directed its removal or transfer within two months.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Municipal Council.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes to enjoin enforcement of Resolution No. 29.
- Respondent municipal officials invoked Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, which prohibits construction of warehouses for inflammable materials within 200 meters of a block of houses.
- Petitioner challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional under due process and equal protection clauses and invalid for procedural defects.
- The trial court, on September 18, 1969, ruled that the warehouse was lawfully constructed, the ordinance was valid, storage of abaca and copra violated the ordinance, and the warehouse constituted a public nuisance subject to abatement.
Issues
- Whether petitioner’s warehouse is a nuisance within the meaning of Article 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
- Whether Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, of the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional or void.
- Whether disparate enforcement against other similarly situated warehouses renders the ordinance discriminatory.
Ruling of the Court a quo
- The warehouse was legally