Primary Holding

The respondents' house/sari-sari store, illegally constructed on a barrio road (public property), is deemed a public and private nuisance per se and must be demolished. The reclassification of the barrio road to residential by the Sanggunian resolution was ineffective because it was not done through a valid ordinance approved by two-thirds of the Sanggunian members.

Background

Petitioner Alolino owned property with a two-story house. Respondents Flores spouses built a house/sari-sari store on an adjacent municipal/barrio road without a building permit. This structure blocked Alolino's light and ventilation and access to the municipal road from his rear door, prompting him to seek its removal.

Facts

• 1. Alolino owned two contiguous land parcels with a two-story house constructed in 1980, featuring windows facing the municipal road.
• 2. In 1994, respondents constructed a house/sari-sari store on the municipal/barrio road adjacent to Alolino's property without a building permit.
• 3. Respondents' structure was built very close to Alolino's house, blocking light, ventilation from five windows and an exit door.
• 4. Alolino complained to the Building Official and Barangay.
• 5. Respondents initially built a one-story structure and later added a second floor around 2001-2002, still without a permit.
• 6. Respondents claimed they occupied the land since 1955 before Alolino purchased his property in the 1970s, and that Alolino built up to his property line without setback.
• 7. Respondents admitted building on a municipal road but claimed the property was reclassified as residential in 2004 by a Sanggunian resolution.
• 8. An ocular inspection confirmed that the respondents' structure blocked light and air to Alolino's house.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. Alolino acquired an easement of light and view by title because the respondents built on a barrio road.
• 2. Setback rules in the National Building Code and Civil Code are inapplicable because the property is adjacent to a barrio road.
• 3. He has a right of way over the barrio road.
• 4. The respondents' house/sari-sari store is a nuisance per se.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Alolino did not acquire an easement of light and view or right of way by prescription or title.
• 2. Alolino is at fault for building up to his property line without setback, violating the Civil Code and National Building Code.
• 3. Their house/sari-sari store is not a nuisance as it does not seriously threaten public safety, and the land was reclassified as residential.

Issues

• 1. Whether the respondents' structure built on a barrio road is a public nuisance.
• 2. Whether Alolino acquired an easement of light and view over the barrio road.
• 3. Whether the reclassification of the barrio road to residential by a Sanggunian resolution is valid.
• 4. Whether the demolition of the respondents' structure is warranted.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled that the barrio road is property of public dominion, intended for public use and is outside the commerce of man.
• 2. The Sanggunian’s reclassification of the barrio road through a resolution, not an ordinance, is invalid and ineffective.
• 3. As the structure is illegally built on public property and obstructs free passage on a barrio road, it constitutes a public nuisance.
• 4. The structure is also a private nuisance to Alolino as it obstructs light and ventilation and hinders the use of his property.
• 5. Alolino did not acquire an easement of light and view by prescription as he did not make a formal prohibition prior to the construction. However, this is irrelevant because the structure is a nuisance due to its illegal construction on public land.
• 6. Demolition is warranted as provided under Section 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act, which allows demolition of illegal structures on public roads that are nuisances injurious to public welfare.

Doctrines

• 1. Public Dominion: Properties of local government units for public use are considered public dominion, outside the commerce of man, and cannot be alienated or subjected to prescription.
• 2. Nuisance Per Se: An illegal construction obstructing public use of a barrio road is considered a nuisance per se, inherently injurious to public welfare.
• 3. Ordinance vs. Resolution: An ordinance is a law, requiring a higher level of formality and approval (like two-thirds vote for permanent closure of roads), while a resolution is merely an opinion of the legislative body and cannot validly reclassify public property.
• 4. Legal Easement vs. Voluntary Easement: Legal easements are imposed by law, while voluntary easements are created by agreement. Easements of light and view can be acquired by prescription or title, but not in this case against public property.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Properties of the local government that are devoted to public service are deemed public and are under the absolute control of Congress."
• 2. "As a barrio road, the subject lot's purpose is to serve the benefit of the collective citizenry. It is outside the commerce of man..."
• 3. "The difference between an ordinance and a resolution is settled in jurisprudence: an ordinance is a law but a resolution is only a declaration of sentiment or opinion of the legislative body."
• 4. "A barrio road is designated for the use of the general public who are entitled to free and unobstructed passage thereon. Permanent obstructions on these roads, such as the respondents' illegally constructed house, are injurious to public welfare and convenience. The occupation and use of private individuals of public places devoted to public use constitute public and private nuisances and nuisance per se."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation: Used to distinguish between ordinance and resolution, establishing that a resolution cannot validly reclassify public property.
• 2. Macasiano v. Diokno: Cited to support the principle that properties of public dominion are under the absolute control of Congress.
• 3. Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo v. Municipality of Buruanga: Cited to support the principle that properties for public use are outside the commerce of man.
• 4. Bishop of Calbayog v. Director of Lands: Cited to reinforce that public properties are not subject to Torrens title registration.
• 5. Ronquillo v. Roco; Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals: Cited regarding the nature of easement of right of way as discontinuous.
• 6. Stitchon v. Aquino; Dacanay v. Asistio: Cited regarding the definition and examples of nuisance, and the principle of nuisance per se in the context of public places.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article 424, Civil Code: Defines property for public use and patrimonial property of provinces, cities, and municipalities.
• 2. Article 668, Civil Code: Discusses the prescription for acquisition of easement of light and view.
• 3. Article 670, Civil Code: Sets distances for openings in walls to afford direct view to adjoining properties.
• 4. Article 694, Civil Code: Defines nuisance.
• 5. Section 21, Local Government Code: Outlines the procedure for closure and opening of local roads, requiring an ordinance for permanent closure.
• 6. Section 708, National Building Code: Sets minimum requirements for dwelling location and lot occupancy, including setbacks from property lines.
• 7. Section 28, Urban Development and Housing Act: Discusses eviction and demolition, allowing demolition for illegal structures in danger areas and public places.
• 8. Articles 649-657, Civil Code: Governs legal easements of right of way.
• 9. Articles 667-673, Civil Code: Governs legal easements of light and view.
• 10. Articles 613, 614, Civil Code: General provisions regarding easements.
• 11. Articles 620, 622, Civil Code: Deals with continuous and apparent easements, and continuous non-apparent and discontinuous easements respectively.
• 12. Article 682, Civil Code: General reference to nuisance.
• 13. Articles 1108, 1113, 1347, 1409 Civil Code: Provisions related to prescription and commerce of man.