Spouses Ricardo Hipolito, Jr. and Liza Hipolito vs. Teresita Cinco, Carlota Balde Cinco and Atty. Carlos Cinco

A Building Official has the authority to order the condemnation and demolition of buildings found to be in a dangerous or ruinous condition under Sections 214 and 215 of the National Building Code (P.D. No. 1096), and such authority is not precluded by the fact that the buildings may also constitute nuisances under the Civil Code. The Building Official is not required to order repair before demolition; the provision authorizes repair, vacation, or demolition depending on the degree of danger to life, health, and safety.

Petitioners-spouses Ricardo Hipolito, Jr. and Liza Hipolito inherited a three-storey apartment building from Edeltrudis Hipolito y Mariano, who had constructed it in 1989 on a portion of property located at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila, pursuant to a 20-year lease agreement with Francisco Villena. Respondents Atty. Carlos D. Cinco, Teresita Cinco, and Dr. Carlota Balde Cinco acquired the subject property through a deed of sale in 1976. The dispute arose within the framework of the National Building Code (Presidential Decree No. 1096), which empowers Building Officials to act on dangerous and ruinous buildings, and the Civil Code provisions on abatement of nuisances (Articles 482 and 694 to 707).

On June 15, 1989, Edeltrudis Hipolito y Mariano, mother and predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Ricardo Hipolito, Jr., entered into an agreement with Francisco Villena, an heir of Apolonia Villena and co-owner of the property at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila, to rent a portion of the property and construct an apartment-style building adjacent to the existing house thereon. The contract was for a period of 20 years. Pursuant to the agreement, Edeltrudis built a three-storey apartment building without securing a building permit. Petitioners inherited the apartment building upon the death of Edeltrudis.

In 2002, or 13 years after the execution of the agreement, petitioners and the heirs of Francisco Villena, all residing in the property, were informed that respondent Atty. Carlos D. Cinco had acquired the subject property through a deed of sale sometime in 1976. On June 17, 2002, respondents Atty. Cinco, Teresita Cinco, and Dr. Carlota Balde Cinco filed with the OBO a verified request for structural inspection of the old structure. Acting on the request, Building Inspector Engineer Leonardo B. Rico conducted an initial inspection and reported that two old and dilapidated buildings made of wooden materials were found in the premises, recommending referral to the Committee on Buildings for further appropriate action.

Deemed as a petition for condemnation/abatement pursuant to the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the request was referred to the Committee for Hearing/Investigation. With prior notices to the parties and tenants, three hearings were held from August 12, 2002 to September 20, 2002 to resolve the issue of structural stability, architectural presentability, and electrical and fire safety. On September 20, 2002, Victoria Villena, wife and heir of Francisco Villena and owner of one of the two buildings, filed a counter manifestation questioning respondents' personality to file the petition and refuting the technical evaluation reports. The Committee scheduled an ocular inspection on October 7, 2002, and submitted a report dated October 8, 2002, finding extensive deterioration and dilapidation of the buildings by 60-80%, constituting an architectural eyesore, structurally unsafe, and a fire and electrical hazard.

On March 26, 2003, the OBO issued a Resolution declaring the buildings dangerous and ruinous and recommending their demolition, finding that remedial rehabilitation was no longer practical and economical. A Demolition Order was issued on even date. Petitioners appealed to the DPWH, contending that the petition for condemnation was an attempt to circumvent their rights as builders in good faith and praying for a separate inspection by an impartial body. The DPWH Inspectorate Team conducted another ocular inspection and reported that both buildings had structural, sanitary, plumbing, and electrical defects of up to 80%, recommending that the Demolition Order be sustained. On May 19, 2004, the Secretary of the DPWH dismissed the appeal, holding that the Building Official's authority is confined to assessing the physical condition of the building and that issues affecting contracts involving the property are within the competence of the courts.

Petitioners appealed to the Office of the President, asserting that the findings of the DPWH Inspectorate Team were erroneous and that they were builders in good faith. The OP dismissed the appeal on February 28, 2005, and denied reconsideration on April 25, 2005. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and affirmed the OP Resolution without addressing the issue of ownership. The CA denied reconsideration on August 15, 2006, prompting petitioners to file the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

• Due Process Violation: Petitioners argued that the OBO gravely erred in not observing the cardinal primary rights and due process requirements in the conduct of the hearing and in the contents of the inspection report submitted by the inspection team, including the Resolution of the OBO.

• OBO Overstepped Authority: Petitioners argued that the OBO overstepped the bounds of its authority in not applying Article 482 and Articles 694 to 707 of the New Civil Code in implementing the provisions of Section 215 of the Building Code (P.D. 1096).

• Builder in Good Faith: Petitioners argued that they or their predecessor in interest were builders in good faith of the three-storey apartment building located at the rear portion of the property, referred to as Building 2.

• Improper Abatement Action: Petitioners argued that the action for extrajudicial abatement of nuisance was not proper in this case.

• Circumvention of Rights: Petitioners contended that respondents' petition for condemnation was actually an attempt to circumvent their rights as builders in good faith, and that the initiation of the proceedings was calculated to oust them from the property.

• Erroneous Findings: Petitioners asserted that the findings of the DPWH Inspectorate Team were erroneous and that the CA erred in relying on the report of the OBO in affirming the resolution of the OP.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondents' specific arguments before the Supreme Court.

• CA Error in Affirming Administrative Resolutions: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Resolution of the administrative authorities sustaining the recommendations of the Office of the Building Official of Manila.

• Due Process Violation: Whether the Office of the Building Official gravely erred in not observing the cardinal primary rights and due process requirements in the conduct of the hearing and in the contents of the inspection report submitted by the inspection team, including the Resolution of the OBO.

• OBO Overstepped Authority: Whether the Office of the Building Official of Manila overstepped the bounds of its authority in not applying Article 482 and Articles 694 to 707 of the New Civil Code in implementing the provisions of Section 215 of the Building Code (P.D. 1096).

• Builder in Good Faith: Whether the petitioners or their predecessor in interest are builders in good faith of the three-storey apartment building located at the rear portion of the property and referred to as Building 2.

• Propriety of Extrajudicial Abatement: Whether the action for extrajudicial abatement of nuisance is proper in this case.

• CA Error in Affirming Administrative Resolutions: No. The CA correctly affirmed the OP Resolution, as the administrative agencies' findings were supported by substantial evidence and the OBO had authority to issue the challenged issuances under Sections 214 and 215 of P.D. No. 1096.

• Due Process Violation: No. No irregularity in the process was evident, as the OBO issued the Resolution and Demolition Order only after ocular inspections and hearings were conducted, with prior notices to the parties and tenants.

• OBO Overstepped Authority: No. The fact that the buildings could also constitute nuisances under the Civil Code does not preclude the Building Official from issuing the Demolition Order, as the authority under P.D. No. 1096 is without prejudice to further action under the Civil Code.

• Builder in Good Faith: No longer necessary to determine. The 20-year lease agreement expired in 2009, and with no provision for renewal or extension, petitioners no longer have basis to keep hold of Building 2.

• Propriety of Extrajudicial Abatement: Yes, the extrajudicial abatement was proper. Section 215 of the National Building Code does not require the OBO to take actions in the same order enumerated; it authorizes the Building Official to order repair, vacation, or demolition depending on the degree of danger to life, health, and safety.

• CA Error in Affirming Administrative Resolutions: The Court emphasized that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the scope of judicial review is confined to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained. The determination of who owns the subject property, the authenticity of evidence, and whether petitioners are builders in good faith are questions of fact requiring examination of evidence that should be ventilated in a separate action before a proper forum. The administrative agencies' jurisdiction is confined to assessing the physical condition of the building sought to be condemned and issuing the appropriate order relative thereto. The Court declined to act on matters that have not run the proper legal course, lest it become a court of first instance instead of a court of last resort.

• Due Process Violation: The Court found that the OBO issued the Resolution and Demolition Order only after ocular inspections and hearings were conducted. The Inspectorate Team of the DPWH came up with the same conclusion as the OBO when it conducted its own ocular inspection, finding that both Buildings 1 and 2 had structural, sanitary, plumbing, and electrical defects of up to 80%. Both the DPWH and the OP found no irregularities in the manner that officials of the OBO performed their duties. The CA correctly relied on the findings of fact of the OBO and the other administrative bodies, as the powers granted by law to the Building Official regarding demolition of buildings are executive and administrative in nature, and purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts.

• OBO Overstepped Authority: The Court held that the authority of the Building Official to order condemnation and demolition emanates from Sections 214 and 215 of the National Building Code. Section 215 provides that when any building or structure is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the Building Official shall order its repair, vacation, or demolition depending upon the degree of danger to life, health, or safety, without prejudice to further action under Articles 482 and 694 to 707 of the Civil Code. The fact that the buildings could also constitute nuisances under the Civil Code does not preclude the Building Official from issuing the Demolition Order.

• Builder in Good Faith: The Court noted that petitioners' purported right to occupy the property had already ended when the 20-year period of the lease agreement expired in 2009. There being no provision in the contract, tacit or otherwise, for renewal or extension of the lease, petitioners no longer have basis to keep hold of Building 2. Hence, the determination of whether petitioners are builders in good faith is no longer necessary.

• Propriety of Extrajudicial Abatement: The Court rejected petitioners' position that the OBO is duty-bound to first order the repair of ruinous and dangerous buildings. A careful reading of Section 215 shows that it does not require the OBO to take actions in the same order or sequence that the provision enumerates them. Instead, it authorizes the Building Official to order either the repair, vacation, or demolition of the building depending on the circumstances presented, particularly on the degree of danger to life, health, and safety. In this case, the OBO deemed it necessary to order demolition, having found the buildings dilapidated and deteriorated by up to 80%.

• Finality of Administrative Findings of Fact — Findings of fact by administrative agencies are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts, by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of said administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction. Such findings must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant. The Court applied this doctrine in affirming the demolition order, as the administrative agencies conducted thorough ocular inspections and hearings and considered all pieces of evidence presented before them.

• Building Official's Authority to Order Demolition — A Building Official has the authority to order the condemnation and demolition of buildings found to be in a dangerous or ruinous condition, emanating from Sections 214 and 215 of the National Building Code (P.D. No. 1096). Section 215 authorizes the Building Official to order repair, vacation, or demolition depending on the degree of danger to life, health, or safety, and does not require these actions to be taken in any particular sequence.

• Non-Interference with Administrative Discretion — Purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts. Courts have no supervising power over the proceedings and actions of the administrative departments of the government, except where the issuing authority has gone beyond its statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers, or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to its duty or with grave abuse of discretion.

• Scope of Judicial Review under Rule 45 — In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the scope of the Supreme Court's judicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below.

• "Findings of fact by administrative agencies are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of said administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction." — This opening statement establishes the controlling doctrine of the case, which the Court applied to affirm the administrative demolition order.

• "A Building Official has the authority to order the condemnation and demolition of buildings which are found to be in a dangerous or ruinous condition." — This passage states the core legal principle affirming the OBO's authority under Sections 214 and 215 of the National Building Code.

• "A careful reading of the provision shows that it does not require the OBO to take actions in the same order or sequence that Section 215 enumerates them. Instead, it authorizes the Building Official to order either the repair, vacation, or demolition of the building depending on the circumstances presented before it, particularly on the degree of danger to life, health and safety." — This passage rejects petitioners' argument that the OBO was duty-bound to first order repair before demolition, clarifying the discretionary nature of the Building Official's authority.

• "By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of said administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon; thus, their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts." — This passage reinforces the doctrine of finality of administrative findings and explains why the Court declined to disturb the factual findings of the administrative agencies.

• Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 524 (1997) — Cited as controlling precedent for the doctrine that findings of fact by administrative agencies are accorded great respect and finality by the courts due to their special knowledge and expertise.

• Amigo Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Cluett Peabody Co., Inc., 406 Phil. 905 (2001) — Cited in support of the principle that administrative findings of fact are generally respected by the courts.

• Diokno vs. Cacdac, G.R. No. 168475, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 440 — Cited for the rule that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the scope of judicial review is confined to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained.

• Umpoc vs. Mercado, 490 Phil. 118 (2005) — Cited for the proposition that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below.

• Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 1150 (1997) — Cited for the rule that points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court adequately and on time need not be considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

• Chua Huat vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 53851 and 63863, July 9, 1991, 199 SCRA 1 — Cited as authority for the proposition that the Building Official has the authority to order the condemnation and demolition of buildings found to be in a dangerous or ruinous condition.

• Spouses Genoblazo vs. Court of Appeals, 255 Phil. 832 (1989) — Cited for the principle that the fact that buildings could also constitute nuisances under the Civil Code does not preclude the Building Official from issuing a demolition order under P.D. No. 1096.

• Section 214, National Building Code (P.D. No. 1096) — Defines dangerous buildings as those declared as such or structurally unsafe, not provided with safe egress, constituting a fire hazard, or otherwise dangerous to human life, or constituting a hazard to safety or health or public welfare because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, or abandonment. The Court applied this provision in affirming the OBO's declaration of the subject buildings as dangerous and ruinous.

• Section 215, National Building Code (P.D. No. 1096) — Provides that when any building or structure is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the Building Official shall order its repair, vacation, or demolition depending upon the degree of danger to life, health, or safety, without prejudice to further action under Articles 482 and 694 to 707 of the Civil Code. The Court interpreted this provision as not requiring the OBO to take actions in any particular sequence, but rather authorizing the Building Official to order repair, vacation, or demolition depending on the circumstances.

• Articles 482 and 694 to 707, Civil Code of the Philippines — These provisions on abatement of nuisances were cited in Section 215 of the National Building Code as supplementary remedies. The Court held that the fact that the buildings could also constitute nuisances under the Civil Code does not preclude the Building Official from issuing the Demolition Order under P.D. No. 1096.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Court applied this rule in limiting its review to errors of law, declining to entertain questions of fact raised by petitioners.

• Rule 43, Rules of Court — Governs appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals. Petitioners filed their Petition for Review with the CA under this rule.

• Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (Chairperson)
• Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
• Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin
• Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the provided case text.