Consti Cases Digests 2 (Part2)

8/12/2019 Consti Cases Digests 2 (Part2)

1/9

6. GANCAYCO V. QUEZON CITYFACTS: In the early 1950s, retired Justice Gancayco bought a parcel of land

located at 746 Epifanio delos Santos Avenue (EDSA),3Quezon City with an

area of 375 square meters.

On 27 March 1956, the Quezon City Council issued Ordinance No.

2904, entitled "An Ordinance Requiring the Construction of Arcades, for

Commercial Buildings to be Constructed in Zones Designated as Business

Zones in the Zoning Plan of Quezon City, and Providing Penalties in

Violation Thereof."4

An arcadeis defined as any portion of a building above the first floor

projecting over the sidewalk beyond the first storey wall used as protection

for pedestrians against rain or sun.

Under this particular ordinance, the building owner is not allowed to

construct his wall up to the edge of the property line, thereby creating a space

or shelter under the first floor. In effect, property owners relinquish the use of

the space for use as an arcade for pedestrians, instead of using it for their own

purposes.

The ordinance covered the property of Justice Gancayco.

Subsequently, sometime in 1965, Justice Gancayco sought the exemption of a

two-storey building being constructed on his property from the applicat

Ordinance No. 2904.

The City Council acted favorably on Justice Gancaycos reques

issued Resolution, "subject to the condition that upon notice by the

Engineer, the owner shall, within reasonable time, demolish the enclosu

said arcade at his own expense when public interest so demands."

In March 2003, the Metropolitan Manila Development Auth

(MMDA) conducted operations to clear obstructions along the sidew

EDSA in Quezon City pursuant to Metro Manila Councils (MMC) Reso

No. 02-28, Series of 2002.7 The resolution authorized the MMDA and

government units to "clear the sidewalks, streets, avenues, alleys, bri

parks and other public places in Metro Manila of all illegal structures

obstructions.

The MMDA sent a notice of demolition to Justice Gancayco all

that a portion of his building violated the Building Code in relati

Ordinance No. 2904. The MMDA gave him 15 days to clear the portion

building that was supposed to be an arcade.

Justice Gancayco did not comply with the notice. Soon after the

of the 15 days, the MMDA proceeded to demolish the party wall o

ground floor structure. The fact of demolition was not disputed. At the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_177807_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_177807_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_177807_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_177807_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_177807_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_177807_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_177807_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/oct2011/gr_177807_2011.html#fnt3


2/9

of the demolition, the affected portion of the building was being used as a

restaurant.

On 29 May 2003, Justice Gancayco filed a Petition with prayer for a

temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, seeking to prohibit the MMDA

and the City Government of Quezon City from demolishing his property. In

his Petition, he alleged that the ordinance authorized the taking of private

property without due process of law and just compensation, because the

construction of an arcade will require 67.5 square meters from the 375 square

meter property. In addition, he claimed that the ordinance was selective and

discriminatory in its scope and application when it allowed some buildings in

other locations to construct arcades at their option. He thus sought the

declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 2904 and the payment of damages.Alternately, he prayed for the payment of just compensation should the

court hold the ordinance valid.

The City Government of Quezon City claimed that the ordinance was a

valid exercise of police power, regulating the use of property in a business

zone. In addition, it pointed out that Justice Gancayco was already barred by

estoppel, laches and prescription.

Similarly, the MMDA alleged that Justice Gancayco could not seek the

nullification of an ordinance that he had already violated, and that the

ordinance enjoyed the presumption of constitutionality. It further stated that

the questioned property was a public nuisance impeding the safe passa

pedestrians. Finally, the MMDA claimed that it was merely implementin

legal easement established by Ordinance No. 2904.

The RTC rendered its Decision in favor of Justice Gancayco . I

that the questioned ordinance was unconstitutional, ruling that it all

the taking of private property for public use without just compensatio

was confiscatory and oppressive.

The MMDA thereafter appealed from the Decision of the trial c

The Court of Appeals (CA) partly granted the appeal. The CA uphel

validity of Ordinance No. 2904 and lifted the injunction agains

enforcement and implementation of the ordinance. In so doing, it held

the ordinance was a valid exercise of the right of the local governmen

to promote the general welfare of its constituents pursuant to its p

powers. The CA further stated that even with the requirement o

construction of arcaded sidewalks within his commercial lot, the ult

benefit from the same still redounds to appellee , his comm

establishment being at the forefront of a busy thoroughfare like EDSA

arcaded sidewalks, assure clients of the commercial establishments th

some kind of protection from accidents and other hazards. Thus, there

"taking" for public use which must be subject to just compensation.

Nevertheless, the CA held that the MMDA went beyond its po

when it demolished the subject property. It further found that Reso


3/9

No. 02-28 only refers to sidewalks, streets, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks

and other PUBLIC PLACES in Metro Manila, thus excluding Justice

Gancaycos private property. Lastly, the CA stated that the MMDA is not

clothed with the authority to declare, prevent or abate nuisances.

Both parties filed an MR. The CA denied the motions stating that the

parties did not present new issues nor offer grounds that would merit the

reconsideration of the Court.

ISSUES:

I. WON JUSTICE GANCAYCO WAS ESTOPPED FROM ASSAILING

THE VALIDITY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2904.

II. WON ORDINANCE NO. 2904 IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

III. WON THE MMDA LEGALLY DEMOLISHED THE PROPERTY.

RULING:

I. The MMDA and the City Government of Quezon City both claimthat Justice Gancayco was estopped from challenging the

ordinance, because, he asked for an exemption from the application

of the ordinance. The fact that petitioner recognized the ordinance

does not preclude it from challenging the said imposition. The

doctrine of estoppel cannot operate to give effect to an act which

is otherwise null and void or ultra vires.

II. It bears stressing that police power is lodged primarily iNational Legislature. It cannot be exercised by those not posse

legislative power. But the NL, however, may delegate this pow

the President and administrative boards as well as the lawm

bodies of municipal corporations or LGUs.

To resolve the issue on the constitutionality of the ordinanc

must first determine whether there was a valid delegation of

power. Then we can determine whether the City Governme

Quezon City acted within the limits of the delegation.

The Revised Charter of Quezon City provided that th

government had the power to regulate the kinds of building

structures that may be erected within fire limits and the mann

constructing and repairing them.

In the exercise of police power, property rights of indivi

may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulf

objectives of the government. Otherwise stated, the govern

may enact legislation that may interfere with personal li

property, lawful businesses and occupations to promot

general welfare. However, the interference must be reasonablnot arbitrary. The methods or means used to protect public h

morals, safety or welfare must have a reasonable relation to th

in view.


4/9

For this reason, when the conditions so demand as determined

by the legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of

police power because property rights, though sheltered by due

process, must yield to general welfare.

In the case at bar, it is clear that the primary objectives of the

city council of Quezon City when it issued the questioned

ordinance ordering the construction of arcades were the health and

safety of the city and its inhabitants; the promotion of their

prosperity; and the improvement of their morals, peace, good

order, comfort, and the convenience. These arcades provide safe

and convenient passage along the sidewalk for commuters and

pedestrians, not just the residents of Quezon City. More especially

so because the contested portion of the building is located on abusy segment of the city, in a business zone along EDSA.

III. The fact that the City Council gave Justice Gancayco an exemptionfrom constructing an arcade is an indication that the wing walls of

the building are not nuisances per se.

MMDA's insistence that it was only implementing Presidential

Decree No. 1096 (Building Code) and its implementing rules andregulations is not persuasive. The power to enforce the provisions

of the Building Code was lodged in the Department of Public

Works and Highways (DPWH), not in MMDA.

Additionally, the penalty prescribed by Ordinance No.

itself does not include the demolition of illegally constr

buildings in case of violations. Instead, it merely prescri

punishment of "a fine of not more than two hundred

(P200.00) or by imprisonment of not more than thirty (30) da

by both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the Co

Lastly, the MMDA claims that the City Government of Qu

City may be considered to have approved the demolition o

structure, simply because then Quezon City Mayor Felicia

Belmonte signed MMDA Resolution No. 02-28. But there w

valid delegation of powers to the MMDA. Contrary to the cla

the MMDA, the City Government of Quezon City washed its h

off the acts of the former. In its Answer, the city government that "the demolition was undertaken by the MMDA only, wi

the participation and/or consent of Quezon City." Therefor

MMDA acted on its own and should be held solely liable fo

destruction of the portion of Justice Gancaycos building.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision o

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 84648 is AFFIRMED.


5/9

7. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE V. MANALOFACTS: RAYMOND MANALO and his brother REYNALDO MANALO

were abducted from their house by members of the Citizen Armed Force

Geographical Unit (CAFGU), an irregularauxiliary force of theArmed

Forces of the Philippines, residing in Manuzon, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. They

were suspected of being members of the NPA. For 18 months they and other

persons were held captives subjected to torture and other inhumane acts,

travelling from place to place, most which were military establishments. The

first time Raymond tried to escape he was caught and tortured and was about

to be killed when a call from a certain madam who wanted to see him

before he dies prevented him from being killed. The second time around,

Raymond managed to escaped without detection, this time with his brother.

Petitioners dispute respondents account of their alleged abduction

and torture. In compliance with the October 25, 2007 Resolution of the Court,

they filed a Return of the Writ ofAmparoadmitting the abduction but

denying any involvement therein

This case was originally a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (MANALOs; therein petitioners)

on August 23, 2007 to stop herein petitioners (SECRETARY OF NATIONAL

DEFENSE ; therein respondents) and/or their officers and agents from

depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights. Therein

petitioners also sought ancillary remedies, Protective Custody Orders,

Appointment of Commissioner, Inspection and Access Orders, and all

legal and equitable reliefs under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the

Constitution and Rule 135, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.

In our Resolution dated August 24, 2007, we (1) ordered the Secr

of the Department of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP

agents, representatives, or persons acting in their stead, including bu

limited to the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) to su

their Comment; and (2) enjoined them from causing the arrest of th

petitioners, or otherwise restricting, curtailing, abridging, or depriving

of their right to life, liberty, and other basic rights as guaranteed under A

III, Section 1[4]of the 1987 Constitution.

While the August 23, 2007 Petition was pending, the Rule on the

ofAmparotook effect on October 24, 2007. Forthwith, the Manalos fi

Manifestation and Omnibus Motion to Treat Existing Pe

asAmparoPetition, to Admit Supporting Affidavits, and to Grant Interim

FinalAmparoReliefs. They prayed that: (1) the petition be conside

Petition for the Writ ofAmparo under Sec. 26[6]of theAmparo Rule; (

Court issue the writ commanding therein respondents to make a ve

return within the period provided by law and containing the specific m

required by law; (3) they be granted the interim reliefs allowe

theAmparoRule and all other reliefs prayed for in the petition bu

covered by theAmparo Rule; (4) the Court, after hearing, render judgm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_militaryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliarieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_the_Philippineshttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliarieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_military


6/9

required in Sec. 18[7]of theAmparoRule; and (5) all other just and equitable

reliefs

On October 2007, the Court resolved to treat the August 23, 2007

Petition as a petition under theAmparo Rule in light of the prevalence of

extralegal killing and enforced disappearances, REMANDING the case to the

CA designating it to conduct the summary hearing on the petition and decide

the petition in accordance with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.

On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in

favor of the Manalos granting the PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF

AMPARO.

As theAmparoRule was intended to address the intractable problem of

extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, its coverage, in its

present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats

thereof. Extralegal killings are killings committed without due process of

law.On the other hand, enforced disappearances are attended by the

following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a

government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with

the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State

to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal toacknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the

protection of law.

While constitutional rights can be protected under the Grave A

Clause through remedies of injunction or prohibition under Rule 65 o

Rules of Court and a petition for habeas corpusunder Rule 102,[90]

remedies may not be adequate to address the pestering problem of extr

killings and enforced disappearances.

However, with the swiftness required to resolve a petition for a

of amparothrough summary proceedings and the availability of approp

interim and permanent reliefs under theAmparo Rule, this writ offers a

remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and th

thereof. The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes

summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to mak

appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to deter

criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liabilitdamages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administ

responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full

exhaustive proceedings.

The writ of amparoserves both preventive and curative rol

addressing the problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearanc

is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commi

of these offenses; it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punish

of perpetrators as it will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investig

and action.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn90http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn7


7/9

FIRST ISSUE: THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY AND GRIEVOUSLY

ERRED IN BELIEVING AND GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE

INCREDIBLE, UNCORROBORATED, CONTRADICTED, AND OBVIOUSLY

SCRIPTED, REHEARSED AND SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVIT/TESTIMONY

OF HEREIN RESPONDENT RAYMOND MANALO.

Petitioners allege that the Court of Appeals seriously and grievously

erred in believing and giving full faith and credit to the incredible

uncorroborated, contradicted, and obviously scripted, rehearsed and self-

serving affidavit/testimony of herein respondent Raymond Manalo.

However, Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparoprovides the petition

for a writ of amparois a remedy available to any person whose right to life,

liberty and security is violated or threatened with violationby an unlawful

act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual orentity including extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. Sec. 18

states that if the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial

evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as

may be proper and appropriate.

Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

The SC affirms the findings of the Court of Appeals that respondents

were abducted from their houses in Bulacan on February 14, 2006 and were

continuously detained until they escaped on August 13, 2007. The abduction,

detention, torture, and escape of the respondents were narrate

respondent Raymond Manalo in a clear and convincing manner. His ac

is dotted with countless candid details of respondents harrowing exper

and tenacious will to escape, captured through his different senses

etched in his memory. Raymonds affidavit and testimony were corrobo

by the affidavit of respondent Reynaldo Manalo. The testimony and m

reports prepared by forensic specialist Dr. Molino, and the pictures o

scars left by the physical injuries inflicted on respondents,[10

corroborate respondents accounts of the torture they endured whi

detention. Respondent Raymond Manalos familiarity with the facilit

Fort Magsaysay such as the DTU, as shown in his testimony and confi

by Lt. Col. Jimenez to be the Division Training Unit, [104]firm

respondents story that they were detained for some time in said mi

facility.

NEXT ISSUE: THE RELIEFS GRANTED

First, that petitioners furnish respondents all official and unof

reports of the investigation undertaken in connection with their case, e

those already in file with the court.

Second, that petitionersconfirm in writing the present plac

official assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and D

Caigas.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn103http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn103http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn104http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn103


8/9

Third, that petitioners cause to be produced to the Court of Appeals

all medical reports, records and charts, and reports of any treatment given

or recommended and medicines prescribed, if any, to the Manalo brothers ,

to include a list of medical personnel (military and civilian) who attended

to themfrom February 14, 2006 until August 12, 2007.

With respect to the first and second reliefs, petitioners argue that the

production order sought by respondents partakes of the characteristics of a

search warrant. Thus, they claim that the requisites for the issuance of a

search warrant must be complied with prior to the grant of the production

order, namely: (1) the application must be under oath or affirmation; (2) the

search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the

things to be seized; (3) there exists probable cause with one specific offense;

and (4) the probable cause must be personally determined by the judge afterexamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses

he may produce.[152] In the case at bar, however, petitioners point out that

other than the bare, self-serving and vague allegations made by respondent

Raymond Manalo in his unverified declaration and affidavit, the documents

respondents seek to be produced are only mentioned generally by name, with

no other supporting details. They also argue that the relevancy of the

documents to be produced must be apparent, but this is not true in the

present case as the involvement of petitioners in the abduction has not been

shown.

Petitioners arguments do not hold water. The production order

theAmparoRule should not be confused with a search warrant fo

enforcement under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

Constitutional provision is a protection of the people from the unreaso

intrusion of the government, not a protection of the government from

demand of the people such as respondents.

Instead, the amparoproduction order may be likened to the produ

of documents or things under Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of

Procedure

With respect to the second and third reliefs, petitioners assert th

disclosure of the present places of assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario aka R

Castillo and Donald Caigas, as well as the submission of a list of me

personnel, is irrelevant, improper, immaterial, and unnecessary in

resolution of the petition for a writ of amparo. They add that it

unnecessarily compromise and jeopardize the exercise of official func

and duties of military officers and even unwittingly and unneces

expose them to threat of personal injury or even death.

On the contrary, the disclosure of the present places of assignme

M/Sgt. Hilario akaRollie Castillo and Donald Caigas, whom respon

both directly implicated as perpetrators behind their abduction

detention, is relevant in ensuring the safety of respondents by avoiding

areas of territorial jurisdiction. Such disclosure would also help ensur
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn152http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn152http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn152http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/october2008/180906.htm#_ftn152


9/9

these military officers can be served with notices and court processes in

relation to any investigation and action for violation of the respondents

rights. The list of medical personnel is also relevant in securing information

to create the medical history of respondents and make appropriate medical

interventions, when applicable and necessary.

In blatant violation of our hard-won guarantees to life, liberty and

security, these rights are snuffed out from victims of extralegal killings and

enforced disappearances. The writ of amparois a tool that gives voice to preys

of silent guns and prisoners behind secret walls.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED.

Documents

Consti Cases Digests 2 (Part2)