Greater Balanga Devt.

Vs Municipality of balanga

Facts:

This case involves parcel of land located behind the public market in the
municipality of balanga, province of bataan. It is registered in the name of the
petitioner, owned and controlled by the Camacho family. The lot was part lot 261-b,
formerly registered in the name of aurora banzon Camacho, which was later
subdivided into certain lots, some of which were sold, others donated.

Petitioner filed this petition with prayer for preliminary prohibitory and mandatory
injuction or restraining order and to reinstate the mayors permit and to curtail the
municipalitys collection of market and entrance fee from the occupants. He alleges
that: 1. It didn’t violate any law, thus, theres no reason for revocation of the permit.
2. Respondents failed to observe due process in the revocation. 3. The collection of
market fees is illegal.

On the other hand, respondents assert that the mayor as the local chief executive
has the power to issue, deny or revoke permits. They claim that the revocation was
due to the violations by the petitioner of sec. 3a-06(b) of the balanga code when it, 1.
Made false statement in the application form, failing to disclose that the lot was
subject to adverse claims for which a civil case was filed, 2. Failed to apply for 2
separate permits for the 2 lines of business (real estate and public market)

Issue:

Whether or not the revocation of the mayor’s permit was valid.

Ratio decidendi:

the powers of municipal corporations are to be construed in strictissimi juris and

any doubt or ambiguity must be construed against the municipality.

Until expropriation proceedings are instituted in court, the landowner cannot be

deprived of its rights over the land.

Held;

No. the powers of municipal corporations are to be construed in strictissimi juris

and any doubt or ambiguity must be construed against the municipality. The
authority of the mayor to revoke permit is premised on a violation by the grantee of
any of its conditions for its grant. For revocation to be justified under the balanga
revenue code, there must be, 1. Proof of willful misrepresentation and 2. Deliberate
intent to make false statemen. Good faith is always presumed.
In this case, the application for mayor’s permit requires the applicant to state the
type of business, profession, occupation, privileges applied for. Petitioner left this
entry blank in its application form. It is only in the mayors permit itself that
petitioners lines of business appear. Revocation is not justified because petitioner
did not make any false statement therein.

Neither was petitioners applying for two business in one permit a ground for
revocation. The second paragraph of sec. 3A-06(b) does not expressly require two
permits for their conduct of two or more business in one place, but only that
separate fees be paid for each business. Granting, however, that separate permits
are actually required, the application form does not contain any entry as regards the
number of business the applicant wishes to engage in.

The SB’S resolution merely mentioned the plan to acquire the lot for expansion of
the balanga public market adjacent thereto. The SB doesn’t actually maintain a
public market on the area. Until expropriation proceedings are instituted in court,
the landowner cannot be deprived of its right over the land.

Of course, the SB has the duty in the exercise of its police powers to regulate any
business subject to municipal license fees and prescribe the condition under which a
municipal license already issues may be revoked (B.P. Blg. 337, Sec. 149 (1) (r), but
anxiety, uncertainty, restiveness among the stallholders and traders doing business
on a property not owned by the municipality cannot be a valid ground for revoking
the permit of petitioner.

Also, the manner by which the mayor revoked the permit transgressed petitioners
right to due process. The alleged violation of sec. 3A-06(b) of the balanga revenue
code was not stated in the order of revocation and neither was petitioner informed
of this specific violation. Moreover, respondents isn’t the owner of lot 261 B-6-A-3
and thus cannot collect market fees which only the owner can do.