University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021

Topic Basic Principles > General Power and Attributes > Abatement of Nuisance
Case Name Estate of Francisco v CA
Case No. & Date G.R. No. 95279 (1991)
Ponente Melencio-Herrera, J.
Petitioners Estate of Gregoria Francisco, represented by Silvestre Tan, Administrator
Respondents CA, Hon Salvador Memoracion (as RTC judge), Municipality of Isabela, Basilan (represented by Mayor
Benjamin Valencia), Rogelio Igot, Felicisimo Pioquinto, Daniel Padinas, Antonio Cabangon, Felix Roxas,
Benjamin Ferrer, Gregorio Tabada, Efren Delos Reyes, Florencio Hugo, Jesus Francisco, Alfredo Tubilag, Pablo
Andres

Summary (recit- Mayor Valencia of Isabela, Basilan ordered the demolition of the quonset building (a copra warehouse) of the
friendly) petitioner because it was outside the zone for warehouses as provided in the Zoning Ordinance No. 147.
Further, it was noted that the building was antiquated and dilapidated. The SC ruled that the Mayor may not
summarily order the demolition without judicial process given that it is not a nuisance per se.
Doctrine/s Sangguniang Bayan may provide for the abatement of a nuisance but can’t declare a particular thing as a
nuisance per se and order its condemnation.

RELEVANT FACTS
 A quonset building situated in Port Area, Isabela, Basilan was demolished pursuant to the order of Mayor Benjamin Valencia.
The quonset was constructed by American Liberation Forces in 1944 then purchased by Gregoria Francisco who died in 1976.
 By virtue of Proclamation No. 83 issued by President Quirino, the land was declared for exclusive use of the Philippine Port
Authority (PPA). On 10 January 1989, PPA issued a permit to Tan Gin San (wife of Gregoria) to occupy the land for one year
which was then used for storage of copra.
 On 08 May 1989, Zoning Ordinance No. 147 was issued. Since the quonset was outside the zone for warehouses, Mayor
Valencia notified Tan Gin San to remove or relocate the quonset, noting that it is antiquated and dilapidated and stressing the
“clean-up campaign on illegal squatters and unsanitary surroundings along Strong Blvd.” Thereafter, since the order was
unheeded, the Mayor ordered its demolition on 24 May 1989.
 Petitioner sought a Writ of Prohibition with Injunction and Damages before the RTC. RTC denied and upheld the power of the
Mayor to order the demolition by virtue of the Zoning Ordinance No. 147. Hence, the quonset was completely demolished. In its
place sprang shanties and nipa huts.
 CA initially ruled in favor of the petitioner saying that the Mayor was not vested with power to order the demolition without any
judicial proceeding. Further, the quonset was not a nuisance per se and the petitioner is in legal possession of the land by virtue
of the PPA permit. However, it reversed itself upon MR. It said that the absence of judicial process was remedied when the
petitioner filed for prohibition and injunction.
 Respondents justify the demolition in the exercise of police power and for reasons of health, safety and general welfare.
Further, the quonset was outside the zone for warehouses, hence it was a non-conforming structure which should be relocated.
As provided in the Ordinance, a certificate of non-conformance should be applied for by the owner, otherwise the structure may
be condemned or removed,.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
1. WON the No – Violation of a municipal ordinance does not empower the Municipal Mayor to avail of extra-
Mayor could judicial remedies.
summarily, without
 Even if the petitioner failed to apply for a Certificate of Non-conformance, the Ordinance should
judicial process, order
not be interpreted as authorizing the summary removal of the quonset. For if it does, it must be
the demolition of the
quonset. – NO struck down for being in contravention of the requirements of due process. Per the Ordinance, its
enforcement and administration resides with the Zoning Administrator who may initiate the
necessary legal proceeding. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Zoning Administrator may
appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Further, the penalty for violation is stated to be not less than
P50 but not more than P200 or imprisonment for 1-6mos.
 The Local Government Code (LGC) imposes upon the Mayor “to cause to be instituted judicial
 University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021

proceedings in connection with the violation of ordinances.”

2. WON the No – The quonset building is not a nuisance per se.

demolition was proper  Respondents can’t seek cover under the general welfare clause authorizing the abatement of
because the quonset
nuisances without judicial proceedings. That tenet applies to a nuisance per se, or one which affects
was a nuisance per se.
the immediate safety of persons and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined
– NO
law of necessity.
 The storage of copra in the quonset is a legitimate business. By its nature, it can’t be said to be
injurious to rights of property, of health or of comfort of the community. If it be a nuisance per
accidens it may be so proven in a hearing conducted for that purpose. It is not per se a nuisance
warranting its summary abatement without judicial intervention.
 The LGC also provides that while the Sangguniang Bayan may provide for the abatement of a
nuisance it can’t declare a particular thing as a nuisance per se and order its condemnation.
 Petitioner was in lawful possession of the lot and quonset building by virtue of a permit. It was not
squatting on public land. Its property was not of trifling value. It was entitled to an impartial hearing
before a tribunal authorized to decide whether the quonset building did constitute a nuisance in
law.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the judgment under review of respondent Court of Appeals, dated 13 June 1990, is SET ASIDE; its original
Decision, promulgated on 25 January 1990, is REINSTATED; and this case is ordered REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of
Basilan, Branch 2, for the determination of the just compensation due petitioner for the demolition of its quonset building.
Other issues: WON the absence of judicial process was remedied when the petitioner filed for prohibition and injunction. – NO. The
fact that petitioner filed a suit for prohibition and was subsequently heard thereon will not cure the defect, the demolition having
been a fait accompli prior to hearing and the authority to demolish without a judicial order being a prejudicial issue.