Alolino v. Flores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Teofilo Alolino owned two contiguous parcels of land in Taguig where he constructed a two-storey house with windows and an exit door facing a municipal/barrio road. In 1994, the respondent spouses Fortunato and Anastacia Flores constructed a house and sari-sari store on the vacant municipal road immediately adjoining the rear wall of Alolino's house. The structure was built only two to three inches away from Alolino's wall, effectively blocking five windows and his rear exit, thereby depriving him of light, ventilation, and access to the road. Despite two Notices of Illegal Construction issued by the Building Official in 1995 and 2002, the respondents continued their construction, even adding a second floor. Procedural History: Alolino filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the removal of the structure, enforcement of easement of light and view, and damages. The respondents argued they had occupied the lot since 1955 and that the Sangguniang Bayan of Taguig had reclassified the road as a residential lot via Resolution No. 15 in 2004. The RTC ruled in favor of Alolino, declaring the structure a public and private nuisance. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, ruling that Alolino failed to acquire an easement of light and view through formal prohibition and that the road had been validly reclassified. The Petition: Alolino filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. He contended that the barrio road is property of public dominion and cannot be reclassified by a mere resolution. He further argued that the respondents' structure is a nuisance per se because it occupies a public road and that the CA erred in applying Section 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) to prevent the demolition of the illegal structure.
Issue(s)
Whether the barrio road was validly withdrawn from public use and reclassified as patrimonial property through a Sanggunian resolution. Whether Alolino acquired a legal easement of light and view or a right of way over the property occupied by the respondents. Whether the respondents' structure constitutes a nuisance that may be legally demolished.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the Court of Appeals' decision, and REINSTATED the Regional Trial Court's decision. The respondents were ordered to remove and demolish their illegal structure and pay P100,000.00 in attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the barrio road is property of public dominion under Article 424 of the Civil Code. Pursuant to Section 21 of the Local Government Code (LGC), a local road can only be permanently closed and withdrawn from public use through an ordinance approved by at least two-thirds of the Sanggunian members. The Court emphasized the distinction established in Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation, noting that an ordinance is a law, whereas a resolution is merely a declaration of sentiment. Since the Sanggunian only passed a resolution, the reclassification was ineffective, and the road remained public dominion. As such, it is outside the commerce of man, inalienable, and not susceptible to prescription or private occupation. On Issue 2: The Court held that Alolino did not acquire an easement of light and view or a right of way. Under Article 668 of the Civil Code, the prescriptive period for an easement of light and view for windows in a dominant estate begins only from the time of formal prohibition upon the adjoining owner, which Alolino failed to perform. Regarding the right of way, the Court noted that it is a discontinuous easement and, under Article 622, cannot be acquired by prescription. Furthermore, public property cannot be burdened by voluntary easements. However, the Court clarified that the absence of these easements does not grant the respondents the right to maintain an illegal structure on a public road. On Issue 3: The Court determined that the respondents' house is a public nuisance and a nuisance per se. Under Article 694 of the Civil Code, any structure that obstructs or interferes with the free passage of a public highway or street is a nuisance. Citing Dacanay v. Asistio, the Court reiterated that the occupation of public places for private use is injurious to public welfare. The Court also found that the CA misapplied Section 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA), as that law specifically allows for demolition when structures occupy public places like roads or when there is a court order. The interest of the general public in unobstructed passage outweighs the respondents' interest in their illegal construction.
Main Doctrine
Municipal roads are properties of public dominion for public use and are outside the commerce of man. To validly withdraw a local road from public use and convert it into patrimonial property, a Local Government Unit (LGU) must strictly comply with Section 21 of the Local Government Code (LGC), which requires the enactment of an ordinance approved by at least two-thirds of the Sanggunian members. A mere resolution is legally insufficient for this purpose. Consequently, any permanent structure built on such a road constitutes a public nuisance and a nuisance per se, which may be demolished by court order regardless of the length of occupation.