Alolino vs. Flores

A structure illegally constructed on public property (barrio road) without authority constitutes a nuisance per se and may be ordered demolished even if adjoining landowners have not acquired easement rights over the public property.

Dispute arose from construction on a municipal/barrio road in Taguig City, where respondents built a commercial/residential structure without building permits, affecting the light, ventilation, and access of the adjoining registered owner.

• RTC: Civil Case No. 69320 filed February 14, 2003; Decision rendered April 20, 2009 ordering removal of structure and recognizing easement of light and view
• CA: CA-G.R. CV No. 94524; Decision rendered July 8, 2011 reversing RTC and dismissing complaint; Motion for Reconsideration denied September 28, 2011
• SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari filed November 15, 2011; Granted April 4, 2016

• Petitioner: Teofilo Alolino, registered owner of two contiguous parcels (TCT Nos. 784 and 976) at Gen. Luna Street, Taguig, totaling 121 sqm
• Respondents: Spouses Fortunato and Anastacia Marie Flores
• Alolino constructed a two-storey house with terraces and six windows on the perimeter wall facing the boundary line
• 1994: Respondents constructed a house/sari-sari store on the vacant municipal/barrio road immediately adjoining the rear perimeter wall of Alolino's house (2-3 inches away), covering five windows and the exit door
• The construction deprived Alolino of light, ventilation, and access to the municipal road
• 1995: Building Official issued Notice of Illegal Construction directing respondents to stop
• 2001-2002: Respondents constructed a second floor without permits
• 2002: Second Notice of Illegal Construction issued May 6, 2002
• 2003: Barangay certification issued confirming no settlement; Alolino sent demand letter and filed complaint
• 2004: Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 15 (not an ordinance) reclassifying the road as residential
• Ocular Inspection (December 6, 2007): Confirmed respondents' property blocked light and air to Alolino's house

• Acquired easement of light and view by virtue of a title because respondents constructed on a barrio road
• National Building Code (Sec. 708) and Article 670 of the Civil Code (setback requirements) inapplicable because property is adjacent to a barrio road, not another private estate
• Has easement of right of way over the lot because it is a barrio road
• Respondents' structure is a nuisance per se obstructing public property

• Alolino acquired no easement of light/view or right of way by prescription or title
• Alolino is at fault for constructing without required setbacks under Article 670 and the National Building Code
• Structure is not a nuisance because it poses no serious threat to public safety and the Sanggunian already reclassified the lot as residential via resolution

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Alolino acquired an easement of light and view over the respondents' property
  • Whether Alolino acquired an easement of right of way over the barrio road
  • Whether the respondents' structure constitutes a nuisance per se
  • Whether Section 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA) bars the demolition of the structure

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • Easement of light and view: No. Alolino did not acquire this easement. Public property devoted to public use cannot be burdened by voluntary easements. Prescription was impossible because Alolino could not have made a formal prohibition prior to the 1994 construction (Art. 668).
  • Easement of right of way: No. Right of way is discontinuous and cannot be acquired by prescription (Art. 622). None of the legal easements under Articles 649, 652, 653, 656, or 657 apply to the facts.
  • Nuisance: Yes. The structure is a nuisance per se. It obstructs a public barrio road, injuring public welfare and convenience. Occupation of public places by private individuals constitutes nuisance per se.
  • UDHA Section 28: No. Section 28 actually allows demolition of structures on public roads and sidewalks as they are nuisances injurious to public welfare. The provision discourages eviction only when safety is not compromised, but structures on public roads are expressly included in the exceptions allowing demolition.

• Property for Public Use vs. Patrimonial Property — Under Article 424 of the Civil Code, provincial roads, city streets, and municipal streets are property for public use. Such properties are outside the commerce of man: they are (1) inalienable and indisposable; (2) not subject to registration under PD 1529; (3) imprescriptible (Art. 1113); (4) cannot be leased, sold, or contracted; (5) not subject to attachment and execution; and (6) cannot be burdened by voluntary easements.
• Conversion of Public Road to Patrimonial Property — Under Section 21 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160), withdrawal of a road from public use requires: (1) an ordinance (not merely a resolution) approved by at least two-thirds of the Sanggunian members; and (2) provision of adequate substitute for the public facility. A resolution is merely a declaration of sentiment; an ordinance is a law. The Sanggunian's failure to comply renders the reclassification ineffective.
• Easement of Light and View — Acquired through prescription (10 years) counted from the time of formal prohibition upon the adjoining landowner (Art. 668), or by virtue of a title. Cannot be acquired over public property.
• Easement of Right of Way — Discontinuous easements (including right of way) cannot be acquired by prescription (Art. 622). Legal easements under Articles 649, 652, 653, 656, and 657 are strictly construed and apply only to specific factual scenarios (landlocked estates, isolated pieces from sale/exchange/partition/donation, etc.).
• Nuisance per se — Under Article 694 of the Civil Code, anything that obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street is a nuisance. Structures built on public roads without authority are nuisances per se regardless of whether they endanger safety, because they impair public use and welfare.
• UDHA Section 28 — Eviction/demolition is allowed when persons occupy "public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds." The provision does not protect illegal structures on public roads; rather, it expressly permits their demolition as nuisances.

• "Properties of the local government that are devoted to public service are deemed public and are under the absolute control of Congress."
• "The Sanggunian's failure to comply with Section 21 renders ineffective its reclassification of the barrio road."
• "Every building is subject to the easement which prohibits the proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance."
• "Permanent obstructions on these roads, such as the respondents' illegally constructed house, are injurious to public welfare and convenience."
• "The interests of the few do not outweigh the greater interest of public health, public safety, good order, and general welfare."

• Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation (354 Phil. 684) — Distinguished an ordinance (a law) from a resolution (merely a declaration of sentiment)
• Macasiano v. Diokno (G.R. No. 97764) — LGU properties devoted to public service are under absolute control of Congress; LGUs cannot regulate without specific authorization
• Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo v. Municipality of Buruanga (520 Phil. 753) — Public property is inalienable and indisposable
• Bishop of Calbayog v. Director of Lands (150-A Phil. 806) — Public property not subject to registration under Torrens system
• Villarico v. Sarmiento-Del Mundo (484 Phil. 724) — Public property not subject to attachment and execution
• Ronquillo v. Roco (103 Phil. 84) and Costabella Corporation v. Court of Appeals (271 Phil. 350) — Right of way is discontinuous and cannot be acquired by prescription
• Stitchon v. Aquino (98 Phil. 458) and Dacanay v. Asistio (G.R. No. 93654) — Occupation of public places by private individuals constitutes nuisance per se

• Article 424, Civil Code — Property for public use (municipal streets)
• Article 668, Civil Code — Prescription for easement of light and view (formal prohibition requirement)
• Article 670, Civil Code — Distances for windows and openings (inapplicable to buildings separated by public roads under Article 672)
• Article 682, Civil Code — Easement against nuisance
• Article 694, Civil Code — Definition of nuisance (obstruction of public highways)
• Articles 1108 and 1113, Civil Code — Prescription (public property not susceptible)
• Article 622, Civil Code — Discontinuous easements (right of way) cannot prescribe
• Section 21, RA 7160 (Local Government Code) — Requirements for closure/withdrawal of roads from public use (ordinance, 2/3 vote, adequate substitute)
• Section 28, RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act) — Eviction and demolition allowed for structures on public roads/sidewalks
• Section 708, National Building Code — Setback requirements (inapplicable to public roads)

• N/A (Carpio, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concurred without separate opinions)