EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-31864. September 29, 1972.]

THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF EL DEPOSITO, BARRIO

CORAZON DE JESUS, SAN JUAN, RIZAL, represented by its
President NAPOLEON VILORIA, PANTALEON PENARANDA,
JULIAN PENARANDA, PILAR DEL PILAR, MIGUEL
POMPERADA, ESTER PORRAS, TEODULO ROBLANDO, PABLO
RELATO, ABRAHAM REMPULA, HUGO ROBETO, ASUNCION
REYES, ERNESTO SALAZAR, FEDERICO SALAZAR, JUANITO
SALLEGUE, SAMONTE NESTOR, BEN SANTOS, ELEUTERIA
SANTOS, DOMINGO SARMOY, CORA SASTRE,
TRANSFIGURACION SOMBE, PEDRO SUBONG, IGMEDIO
TAMBONG, SALVADOR TERUEL, ALFREDO TORRES, CELSO
TORRES, ROQUE TUMAMPIL, TITA TUTANES, CATALINA
UNANA, DIONISIA VIGIL, ASUNCION VILLANUEVA, DELMO
VILLANUEVA, JOSE VILORIA, JR., BENIGNO VIRAY,
DOMINADOR WINDECA, SALVADOR YULO, JOSUE DAGON,
FELIPE TORRENTE, LEON LUCAS, JACINTO PASCUAL, and
THREE HUNDRED SIXTY ONE OTHER MEMBERS, THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF EL DEPOSITO, BARRIO
HALO HALO, SAN JUAN, RIZAL, represented by its President
AQUILINO BELO, JUAN GARCIA, GREGORIO GARCIA, PABLO
REANO, DOMINADOR TIBAR, GERONIMO LAZARRAGA, and
ONE HUNDRED THIRTY OTHER MEMBERS, petitioners, vs.
HON. GUARDSON LOOD, Judge of The Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, Pasig, Rizal, THE
MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, RIZAL, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF
SAN JUAN, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN JUAN, RIZAL,
ENGINEERING DISTRICT OF RIZAL, ACTING THRU NICOLAS
ALDANA, ENGINEER II, Pasig, Rizal, respondents.

H. A. Jambora for petitioners.

Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Acting Assistant Solicitor General
Dominador L. Quiroz and Solicitor Santiago M. Kapunan for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; INJUNCTIONS: ISSUANCE THEREOF

DISCRETIONARY WITH COURT; REFUSAL TO ISSUE WRIT IN INSTANT CASE,
NOT ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — Where the petitioners' houses were built
upon land of the Metropolitan Water District, admittedly a public land to
which petitioners have no right to possession of, and their shanties pose a
veritable danger to public health, respondent court, in issuing its orders
denying the motion for a writ of preliminary injunction allegedly "to maintain
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the status quo" and stay demolition and removal of their houses and
structures found to be public nuisance per se and serious hazards to public
health and welfare, committed no error, much less abuse of authority or
discretion, grave or otherwise.
2. CIVIL LAW; PROPERTY; NUISANCE PER SE; ABATEMENT WITHOUT
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. — Petitioners' constructions which have been duly
found to be public nuisance per se (without provision for accumulation or
disposal of waste matters and constructed without building permits
contiguously to and therefore liable to pollute one of the main water
pipelines which supplies potable water to the Greater Manila area) may be
abated without judicial proceedings under our Civil Code.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

Petitioners filed on April 15, 1970 this action for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction to set aside respondent court's
questioned orders dated February 9, 1970 and March 30, 1970 denying
petitioners' motions for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to stay
the demolition and removal of their houses and structures on a parcel of
public land in barrios Corazon de Jesus and Halo Halo in San Juan, Rizal,
(more popularly known as "El Deposito" from the Spanish times), pending
final outcome of Civil Case No. 11078 filed by them before respondent court.
Petitioners' action below was one for declaratory relief to declare as
null and void as ex post facto legislation, municipal ordinance No. 89, as
amended, of respondent Municipality of San Juan, prohibiting squatting on
public property and providing a penalty therefor, under which ordinance,
petitioners claimed, respondents were summarily demolishing and removing
their houses and improvements.
On April 20, 1970, upon issuance of summons requiring respondents to
answer the petition, the Court issued a temporary restraining order
restraining respondents, until further orders, "from proceeding with the
summary destruction, removal and demolition of all other houses found in
the premises of the land in barrio Corazon de Jesus and barrio Halo Halo, San
Juan, Rizal, by reason of Ordinance No. 89-Amd. as amended, passed by the
Municipal Council of San Juan, Rizal, on April 26, 1968 . . . ."
Respondents filed their answer in due course and the case was
thereafter submitted for decision with the filing by the parties of their
respective memoranda in lieu of oral argument.
As restated by petitioners themselves in their memorandum, the main
issue at bar is whether respondent judge "exceeded his authority and
jurisdiction and gravely abused his discretion" 1 in issuing the questioned
orders of February 9, and March 30, 1970, denying the preliminary injunction
sought to stay demolition and removal of petitioners' houses and structures.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Petitioners raise as issues also the issue of validity and constitutionality of
municipal ordinance No. 89-Amended as questioned by them in their action
below, and whether respondent Engineer may remove or demolish their
houses without a special court demolition order under said challenged
ordinance; and furthermore, "whether the filing of the petition for
compulsory registration in LRC Cad. Case No. N-6, LRC Cad. Rec. No. N-511
which placed in issue the status of the land as demanded for reasons of
public interest where the houses and other improvements of the petitioners
as claimants in the cadastral proceeding are found, precludes the
enforcement of municipal ordinance No. 89-Amd." 2
Subsequent events have cleared up the matter of this last issue as to
the alleged pendency of a petition in petitioner's favor for compulsory
registration of the land in question, as shown by proceedings held in the
Rizal court of first instance and this Court as hereinafter recounted.
A motion to reopen the cadastral proceeding 3 was filed under date of
August 2, 1971 by petitioners as claimants, citing the passage on June 19,
1971 of Republic Act No. 6236 which extended the time limit (not to extend
beyond December 31, 1976) for filing of applications for free patents and for
judicial confirmation of imperfect and incomplete titles to public agricultural
lands.
The court of first instance of Rizal, Branch I, presided by Judge Emilio V.
Salas had denied such reopening of the proceedings as per its order dated
August 20, 1971, "it appearing that the instant case was dismissed without
prejudice in our order dated April 6, 1970, which order was affirmed by the
Supreme Court in its resolution in G.R. No. L-32156 dated August 10, 1970,
which became final and executory since September 1, 1970." 4
Petitioners-claimants' motion for reconsideration, notwithstanding
withdrawal of the opposition of respondent municipality of San Juan, Rizal,
was denied in the Rizal court of first instance's order dated November 16,
1971.
A special civil action for certiorari and mandamus was then filed on
December 13, 1971 by petitioners-claimants and docketed as Case L-34438
of this Court. 5 Said action was dismissed for lack of merit per the Court's
resolution therein of December 16, 1971. Reconsideration was denied for
lack of merit per the Court's resolution of May 23, 1972, after the Court had
received the comment of the therein respondent Metropolitan Waterworks
and Sewerage System, (as successor-in-interest of Nawasa) asserting its
ownership of the property since its survey in 1910 as conducted for the
Metropolitan Water District (predecessor-in-interest of Nawasa) and
approved by the Director of Lands. In its comment, said therein respondent
MWSS further averred that within the property which had been declared for
taxation purposes in the name of the old Metropolitan Water District (with a
total area of 132,597 square meters, of which 14,138 square meters are
used for public roads) 6 are "aqueducts and an underground reservoir", and
that its predecessor-in-interest (Nawasa) had sold a portion (16,409 sq.
meters) of the property to the Municipality of San Juan (on which are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 constructed the municipality's elementary school, home economics building
and gymnasium), leased a portion thereof (4,102 sq. meters) for the
municipality's public high school, and "leased some lots to those who have
squatted on the said property." 50,000 square meters or five hectares of the
property were likewise leased by the Nawasa to the Pinaglabanan
Commemorative Commission (created by Executive Order No. 263 of the
President of the Philippines dated August 15, 1957) 7 for a 99-year period
from August 21, 1963 for the site of the national shrine to commemorate the
"Battle of Pinaglabanan" on August 28 and 29, 1896 between the Katipunan
revolutionaries and the Spanish garrison defending the gunpowder dump
(called the "polvorin") in San Juan, Rizal.
Final entry of the dismissal order of December 16, 1971 was made as
of June 12, 1972. Hence, it is quite clear that as of now, there exist no
proceedings, cadastral or otherwise, questioning the public character of the
land and asserting petitioners' alleged claims of ownership thereto.
On the main issue at bar, the Court is satisfied that by no means may
respondent court be said to have exceeded its authority or gravely abused
its discretion in issuing its questioned orders denying petitioners' motion
below for a writ of preliminary injunction allegedly "to maintain the status
quo" and stay demolition and removal of their illegal constructions found to
be public nuisances per se and serious hazards to public health, 8 by virtue
of the following principal considerations:
1. As found in respondent court's extended two-page order of
February 9, 1970 9 and ten-page order of March 30, 1970 10 denying
reconsideration, petitioners' motions to maintain the alleged status quo were
based on the same grounds already reiterated before and denied by then
Judge (now appellate associate justice) Andres Reyes who was then
presiding over respondent court in an order dated September 19, 1968, 11
which was upheld in a similar action for certiorari by the Court of Appeals in
its decision of February 4, 1969. 12
2. In both said proceedings before Judge Reyes and the Court of
Appeals, petitioners succeeded in obtaining restraining orders or preliminary
writs of injunction to stay demolition, which were dissolved upon said court's
handing down their order or decision on the merits of the injunction petitions
submitted by petitioners. With petitioners definitely having lost their bid to
reopen the cadastral proceedings to pursue their alleged claims of
ownership over the lands occupied by their constructions, supra, no further
reason or justification exists to continue the stay order against the removal
and demolition of their constructions.
3. As was well stated in then Judge Reyes' order of September 19,
1968, petitioners failed after several hearings "to show that they have even
a color of title to entitle them to exercise the right of possession to the
premises in question. On the other hand, the land is admittedly public land
and consequently the petitioners have no right to possession thereof . . ." 13
4. Petitioners' lack of right to the injunction sought by them was
further shown in the Court of Appeals' decision of February 4, 1969, where it
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 noted that "their very evidence, their documentary proof, would justify that
their houses were built upon land of the Metropolitan Water District, that is
to say, of the Philippine Government, therefore, such tax declarations of
petitioners' houses themselves are the best proof of their admission that
their possession of the lands they occupy was not and could not be adverse"
14 and that "their shanties pose a veritable danger to public health."15

5. No error, much less abuse of authority or discretion, could be

attributed to respondent court's statements and reasons for denying the
injunction sought by petitioners, as per its order of March 30, 1970, denying
reconsideration, as follows:
". . . The issues raised by the pleadings to determine whether or
not the petitioners are entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction, or a
status quo, in the words of the petitioners, had been resolved several
times not only by this Court but also by the Court of Appeals, and this
Court believes that insofar as the same grounds are concerned, they
are res judicata.

xxx xxx xxx

"Lastly, the Court does not lose sight of the fact that the land in
question is public land, in the sense that it is untitled. However, as the
government now contends, the land in question is clothed with a public
purpose to be utilized for public service by the government. This fact
has not been denied and as a matter of fact, the petitioners admit that
the land in question is public land. . . ."

6. The question of validity or unconstitutionality of municipal

ordinance No. 89-Amended need not be resolved in this proceeding, as it
should first properly be submitted for resolution of the lower court in the
action below. Suffice it to note that the Solicitor General appears to have
correctly stated the actual situation in that petitioners do not dispute the
authority of the San Juan council to pass ordinances providing for the
summary abatement of public nuisances, and that the ordinance in question
may not be faulted for being ex post facto in application since it "does not
seek to punish an action done which was innocent before the passage of the
same. Rather, it punishes the present and continuing act of unlawful
occupancy of public property or properties intended for public use." 16 At
any rate, the decisive point is that independently of the said ordinance,
petitioners' constructions which have been duly found to be public nuisances
per se (without provision for accumulation or disposal of waste matters and
constructed without building permits contiguously to and therefore liable to
pollute one of the main water pipelines which supplies potable water to the
Greater Manila area) may be abated without judicial proceedings under our
Civil Code. 17
As stated in Sitchon vs. Aquino, 18 the police power of the state justifies
the abatement or destruction by summary proceedings of public nuisances
per se.
No error, much less any abuse of discretion, grave or otherwise, may
therefore be attributed against respondent court in having issued its orders
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 denying for imperative reasons of public health and welfare the preliminary
injunction sought again by petitioners to allow them to continue occupying
the land in question with their condemned constructions and structures.
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the petition.
The temporary restraining order heretofore issued on April 20, 1970 is
hereby dissolved and such dissolution is declared immediately executory. No
pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
Makasiar and Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., is on official leave.
Antonio, J., did not take part.

Footnotes
1. Petitioners' memorandum, p. 6; Rollo, p. 119.

2. Idem, at pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 119-120.

3. Entitled "Director of Lands, petitioner vs. Napoleon Villoria, et al., claimants;
Municipality of San Juan, Rizal, et al., oppositors."

4. Annex H, petition in L-34438 of this Court, entitled Homeowners Ass'n. of Bo.

Corazon de Jesus, etc., et al. vs. Hon. Emilio V. Salas, etc., et al."

5. The title of such action is stated in fn. 4, supra.

6. Annex 2, Answer.
7. Answer at Rollo, p. 82.
8. Annexes 3, 4 and 5, Answer.
9. Annex E, petition.

10. Annex I, petition.

11. Annex 1, Answer.
12. CA-GR No. 42499-R entitled "Homeowners Ass'n. of Barrio Corazon de Jesus
(El Deposito) San Juan, Rizal, etc., et al. vs. Hon. Andres Reyes, et al."; Annex
1-a, Answer.
13. Rollo, p. 91.
14. Rollo, p. 97.
15. Rollo, p. 99.
16. Respondents' memorandum, p. 4.

17. See Arts. 694, 695, 700 and 705, Civil Code.
18. 98 Phil. 458 (1956); see also Halili vs. Lacson, 98 Phil. 772 (1956); City of
Manila vs. Garcia, 19 SCRA 413 (1967).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com