Hipolito v. Cinco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the structural integrity and safety of two buildings located at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila. The petitioners, Spouses Ricardo and Liza Hipolito, inherited a three-storey apartment building constructed in 1989 by Edeltrudis Hipolito on a leased portion of the property. The respondents, Teresita, Carlota, and Atty. Carlos Cinco, acquired the subject property in 1976. In 2002, the respondents filed a request for structural inspection of the old buildings on the premises, leading to findings that the structures were dilapidated, unsafe, and posed fire hazards. 2. Procedural History: Following the respondents' request, the Office of the Building Official (OBO) of Manila conducted inspections and hearings, ultimately issuing a Resolution on March 26, 2003, declaring the buildings dangerous and ruinous and ordering their demolition. The petitioners appealed to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), which conducted its own inspection and, in a Resolution dated May 19, 2004, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the OBO's demolition order. The petitioners then appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which also dismissed their appeal in a Resolution dated February 28, 2005, and subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration. The petitioners further appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the OP's resolution in a Decision dated May 19, 2006, and denied their motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 15, 2006. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are now before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the CA's affirmation of the administrative decisions. They argue that the CA erred in upholding the resolutions of the administrative authorities, that the OBO failed to observe due process, that the OBO overstepped its authority by not applying specific Civil Code provisions, and that they are builders in good faith. They also question the propriety of the action for extrajudicial abatement of nuisance. The core of their petition revolves around the alleged errors of law and grave abuse of discretion by the CA and the preceding administrative bodies in declaring their buildings dangerous and ordering demolition, and in not considering their status as builders in good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the resolution of the administrative authorities sustaining the recommendations of the Office of the Building Official of Manila. Whether the Office of the Building Official gravely erred in not observing due process requirements in the conduct of the hearing and in the contents of the inspection report; and whether the Office of the Building Official overstepped its authority in not applying Articles 482 and 694 to 707 of the New Civil Code in implementing Section 215 of the National Building Code (P.D. 1096). Whether the petitioners or their predecessor in interest are builders in good faith of the 3-storey apartment building. Whether the action for extrajudicial abatement of nuisance is proper in this case.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 19, 2006 and the Resolution dated August 15, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89783 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the administrative authorities' recommendations: The Supreme Court held that findings of fact by administrative agencies are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts due to their special knowledge and expertise. The Court reiterated that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, its review is generally confined to errors of law, not questions of fact. The determination of ownership and whether petitioners were builders in good faith are questions of fact that should be ventilated in a separate action. The administrative agencies' jurisdiction was confined to assessing the physical condition of the buildings and issuing appropriate orders, not delving into contractual issues or ownership disputes. The Court noted that the lease agreement expired in 2009, rendering the determination of 'builder in good faith' unnecessary. On the issue of whether due process was violated and the OBO overstepped its authority: The Court found no error in the CA's affirmation of the administrative resolutions. It emphasized that a Building Official has the authority to order the condemnation and demolition of dangerous and ruinous buildings under Sections 214 and 215 of P.D. No. 1096. The records showed that the OBO issued its resolution and demolition order after ocular inspections and hearings, and the DPWH Inspectorate Team reached the same conclusion. The Court clarified that the authority to order repair, vacation, or demolition under Section 215 is discretionary and depends on the degree of danger, not necessarily sequential. The fact that the buildings might also constitute nuisances under the Civil Code does not preclude the Building Official from exercising its authority under the National Building Code, as the latter is without prejudice to further action under the Civil Code. On the issue of whether petitioners are builders in good faith: The Court found this issue no longer necessary to resolve. It pointed out that the 20-year lease agreement under which the building was constructed expired in 2009. Since there was no provision for renewal or extension, the petitioners no longer had a basis to occupy the property, making the determination of their status as builders in good faith moot. On the issue of whether the action for extrajudicial abatement of nuisance is proper: The Court affirmed the propriety of the action. It reiterated that the Building Official has the authority to order demolition of dangerous and ruinous buildings. The Court stated that the fact that the buildings could also constitute nuisances under the Civil Code does not preclude the Building Official from issuing the demolition order under P.D. No. 1096. The authority under P.D. No. 1096 is without prejudice to further action under the Civil Code, meaning the two legal frameworks can coexist and be applied independently or concurrently as appropriate.
Main Doctrine
The authority of a Building Official to order the condemnation and demolition of buildings found to be dangerous or ruinous, pursuant to Sections 214 and 215 of the National Building Code (P.D. No. 1096), is executive and administrative in nature and generally not subject to judicial interference unless there is grave abuse of discretion. Findings of fact by administrative agencies are accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts.