Favis v. City of Baguio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Antonio Favis purchased a parcel of land in Baguio City. Simultaneously, the seller donated a parcel of land to the City of Baguio for road purposes, which Favis used for ingress and egress to Lapu-Lapu Street. Lapu-Lapu Street, a city property, had a width of 8 meters but abruptly ended, with a narrow 2.5-meter opening connecting to the donated road leading to Favis's land. Lot 25 of the Baguio Market Subdivision, leased to Shell Company since 1947, was adjacent to this area. In 1961, the City Council of Baguio passed Resolution No. 132, authorizing the lease of Lot 25 and an additional 100 sq. m. portion of Lapu-Lapu Street (Lot B) to Shell. The City Engineer noted that Lot B was within the road right-of-way and could not be leased. Favis protested, arguing the lease would reduce Lapu-Lapu Street's width and that the City lacked authority to lease public streets. To address objections, the City Council passed Resolution No. 215, amending Resolution No. 132, by converting the portion of Lapu-Lapu Street from Dagohoy Street southward into a 5-meter wide alley (4 meters in actual use), declaring Lot B as not part of this alley. Procedural History: Favis filed a suit for annulment of the lease contract and damages, praying for the removal of constructions, cancellation of the permit and lease, and damages. The lower court upheld the resolutions and dismissed the complaint. The Petition: Favis appealed the decision, arguing the resolutions were invalid for contravening the City Charter, lacking proper notice, and violating Executive Order No. 113 by reducing the street width. He also contended the City Council lacked the power to close streets and that the reduction prejudiced his access and created dangers.
Issue(s)
Whether Resolutions No. 132 and 215, Series of 1961, are invalid for not being enacted as ordinances. Whether the resolutions are invalid for lack of advertisement or direct notice to owners of contiguous properties. Whether the resolutions violate Executive Order No. 113 by reducing the width of Lapu-Lapu Street. Whether the City Council has the power to close city streets. Whether Favis is entitled to damages due to the reduction in Lapu-Lapu Street's width.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, upholding the validity of Resolutions No. 132 and 215, Series of 1961, and dismissing Favis's complaint. The Court ruled that the resolutions, having been unanimously approved with proper formalities and presumptions of validity, were as effective as ordinances. It found that the notice requirement under the City Charter applied only when assessments were involved, which was not the case here. The Court also determined that the resolutions did not violate Executive Order No. 113, as the existing 2.5-meter opening to Favis's property remained unchanged and the leased portion did not affect his access. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the City Council's explicit power under its charter to close city streets, finding no abuse of discretion in vacating a portion of Lapu-Lapu Street. Finally, the Court held that Favis was not entitled to damages as he did not suffer special damages different in kind from those sustained by the public, and his property did not abut the closed section, with sufficient access remaining.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Resolutions No. 132 and 215, Series of 1961, for not being enacted as ordinances: The Court held that even if a statute requires action by ordinance, a resolution passed with the statutory formality of an ordinance is binding and effective as such. Resolutions No. 132 and 215 were unanimously approved, bore the city seal, were signed by officials, and approved by the Mayor, thus carrying the presumption of validity. The Court stated that these resolutions, with the presumption of official duty regularly performed, were as good as ordinances and had the same force. Therefore, the objection based on form, rather than substance, was dismissed. On the alleged invalidity due to lack of advertisement or direct notice: The Court clarified that the notice requirement in the City Charter, which mandates notice to persons affected and assessed, applies only when an ordinance calls for an assessment. Since the resolutions in question did not involve any assessment against appellant or his land, such notice was not required. Moreover, the Court noted that Favis did actually protest Resolution 132, and his protest was considered and overruled when Resolution 215 was passed, thereby subserving the purpose of notice. On the alleged violation of Executive Order No. 113 regarding street width: The Court found no violation of Executive Order No. 113. It reasoned that the 2.5-meter opening connecting the donated road and Lapu-Lapu Street, which Favis used, had always been that narrow and remained unchanged. The leased portion of Lapu-Lapu Street was on the opposite side and did not affect this opening. The Court also pointed out that Executive Order No. 113 did not mandate the widening of existing streets less than 10 meters wide, as doing so would entail significant expenditure for compensation. On the City Council's power to close city streets: The Court affirmed that the City of Baguio, as a creature of Congress, possessed only the powers granted by its organic act. Citing subsection (L) of Section 2558 of the Revised Administrative Code (Baguio Charter), the Court found an explicit grant of authority to the City to provide for the "closing up" of public plazas, squares, and streets. Therefore, the City Council was undoubtedly empowered to close a city street, and the act of withdrawing a strip of Lapu-Lapu Street from public use and converting the remainder into an alley was well within this power. On Favis's claim for damages: The Court ruled that Favis was not entitled to damages because he did not suffer special damages differing in kind, but only in degree, from those sustained by the public. His property did not abut the closed section, and he still had reasonable access to the general system of streets. The Court reiterated the trial court's findings that the remaining 4-meter width was sufficient for Favis's needs and that the leased portion was not necessary for public use. It was also physically impossible to connect the full 8-meter width of Lapu-Lapu Street with the donated area due to the existing 2.5-meter opening. The Court concluded that any inconvenience suffered was damnum absque injuria.
Main Doctrine
A city council possesses the explicit power to close city streets, and such discretion will not ordinarily be controlled by courts absent a clear abuse of discretion, fraud, or collusion. Property of public domain, when no longer intended for public use, becomes patrimonial property and may be leased by the city.