Case Digest: Albon v. Fernando G.R. No. 148357 June 30, 2006

Taxation | Inherent Limitation: Public Purpose

Facts: 
  • In 1999, the City of Marikina initiated a public works project to widen, clear, and repair sidewalks in Marikina Greenheights Subdivision.
    • It was undertaken by the city government pursuant to Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993 like other infrastructure projects relating to roads, streets and sidewalks previously undertaken by the city.
  • Aniano A. Albon filed a taxpayer's suit against Marikina officials, arguing that it was unconstitutional and unlawful.
    • He alleged that the sidewalks were private property because Marikina Greenheights Subdivision was owned by V.V. Soliven, Inc. Hence, the city government could not use public resources on them.
  • Albon alleged violations of constitutional proscriptions against using public funds for private purposes and relevant provisions of RA 7160 and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, claiming there was no appropriation for the project.
  • RTC-Marikina: Ruled that Marikina was authorized to carry out the contested undertaking pursuant to its inherent police power.
    • White Plains Association v. Legaspi:
      • The roads and sidewalks inside the subdivision were deemed public property.
Issue: Whether a local government unit (LGU) validly use public funds to undertake the widening, repair and improvement of the sidewalks of a privately-owned subdivision. NO

Held:
Like all LGUs, the City of Marikina is empowered to enact ordinances for the purposes set forth in the Local Government Code (RA 7160). It is expressly vested with police powers delegated to LGUs under the general welfare clause of RA 7160. With this power, LGUs may prescribe reasonable regulations to protect the lives, health, and property of their constituents and maintain peace and order within their respective territorial jurisdictions.

Cities and municipalities also have the power to exercise such powers and discharge such functions and responsibilities as may be necessary, appropriate or incidental to efficient and effective provisions of the basic services and facilities, including infrastructure facilities intended primarily to service the needs of their residents and which are financed by their own funds.10 These infrastructure facilities include municipal or city roads and bridges and similar facilities.

There is no question about the public nature and use of the sidewalks in the Marikina Greenheights Subdivision. One of the "whereas clauses" of PD 1216 (which amended PD 957) declares that open spaces, roads, alleys and sidewalks in a residential subdivision are for public use and beyond the commerce of man. In conjunction herewith, PD 957, as amended by PD 1216, mandates subdivision owners to set aside open spaces which shall be devoted exclusively for the use of the general public.

Thus, the trial and appellate courts were correct in upholding the validity of Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993. It was enacted in the exercise of the City of Marikina’s police powers to regulate the use of sidewalks. 

However, both the trial and appellate courts erred when they invoked our 1991 decision in White Plains Association and automatically applied it in this case.

This Court has already resolved three interrelated White Plains Association cases:
  1. G.R. No. 5568516 resolved in 1985;
  2. G.R. No. 9552217 decided in 1991 and
  3. G.R. No. 12813118 decided in 1998.

The ruling in the 1991 White Plains Association decision relied on by both the trial and appellate courts was modified by this Court in 1998 in White Plains Association v. Court of Appeals. 

Citing Young v. City of Manila, this Court held in its 1998 decision that subdivision streets belonged to the owner until donated to the government or until expropriated upon payment of just compensation.

The word "street," in its correct and ordinary usage, includes not only the roadway used for carriages and vehicular traffic generally but also the portion used for pedestrian travel. The part of the street set aside for the use of pedestrians is known as a sidewalk.

Moreover, under subdivision laws, lots allotted by subdivision developers as road lots include roads, sidewalks, alleys and planting strips. Thus, what is true for subdivision roads or streets applies to subdivision sidewalks as well. Ownership of the sidewalks in a private subdivision belongs to the subdivision owner/developer until it is either transferred to the government by way of donation or acquired by the government through expropriation.

Section 335 of RA 7160 is clear and specific that no public money or property shall be appropriated or applied for private purposes. This is in consonance with the fundamental principle in local fiscal administration that local government funds and monies shall be spent solely for public purposes.

In Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, the Court laid down the test of validity of a public expenditure: it is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity and not the magnitude of the interests to be affected nor the degree to which the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion. Incidental advantage to the public or to the State resulting from the promotion of private interests and the prosperity of private enterprises or business does not justify their aid by the use of public money.

In Pascual, the validity of RA 920 ("An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works") which appropriated P85,000 for the construction, repair, extension and improvement of feeder roads within a privately-owned subdivision was questioned. The Court held that where the land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged to a private person, an appropriation made by Congress for that purpose was null and void.

In Young v. City of Manila, the City of Manila undertook the filling of low-lying streets of the Antipolo Subdivision, a privately-owned subdivision. The Court ruled that as long as the private owner retained title and ownership of the subdivision, he was under the obligation to reimburse to the city government the expenses incurred in land-filling the streets.

Moreover, the implementing rules of PD 957, as amended by PD 1216, provide that it is the registered owner or developer of a subdivision who has the responsibility for the maintenance, repair and improvement of road lots and open spaces of the subdivision prior to their donation to the concerned LGU. The owner or developer shall be deemed relieved of the responsibility of maintaining the road lots and open space only upon securing a certificate of completion and executing a deed of donation of these road lots and open spaces to the LGU.

Therefore, the use of LGU funds for the widening and improvement of privately-owned sidewalks is unlawful as it directly contravenes Section 335 of RA 7160. This conclusion finds further support from the language of Section 17 of RA 7160 which mandates LGUs to efficiently and effectively provide basic services and facilities. The law speaks of infrastructure facilities intended primarily to service the needs of the residents of the LGU and "which are funded out of municipal funds." It particularly refers to "municipal roads and bridges" and "similar facilities."

Applying the rules of ejusdem generis, the phrase "similar facilities" refers to or includes infrastructure facilities like sidewalks owned by the LGU. Thus, RA 7160 contemplates that only the construction, improvement, repair and maintenance of infrastructure facilities owned by the LGU may be bankrolled with local government funds.

Clearly, the question of ownership of the open spaces (including the sidewalks) in Marikina Greenheights Subdivision is material to the determination of the validity of the challenged appropriation and disbursement made by the City of Marikina. Similarly significant is the character of the direct object of the expenditure, that is, the sidewalks.

Whether V.V. Soliven, Inc. has retained ownership of the open spaces and sidewalks or has already donated them to the City of Marikina, and whether the public has full and unimpeded access to the roads and sidewalks of Marikina Greenheights Subdivision, are factual matters. There is a need for the prior resolution of these issues before the validity of the challenged appropriation and expenditure can be determined.

WHEREFORE, this case is hereby ordered REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City for the reception of evidence to determine 
  1. whether V.V. Soliven, Inc. has retained ownership of the open spaces and sidewalks of Marikina Greenheights Subdivision or has donated them to the City of Marikina and 
  2. whether the public has full and unimpeded access to, and use of, the roads and sidewalks of the subdivision. The Marikina City Regional Trial Court is directed to decide the case with dispatch.

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 75

Special Rules and Proceedings RULE 75 Production of Will; Allowance of Will Necessary Section 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive as to execution. — No will shall pass either real or personal estate  unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court.  Subject to the right of appeal,  such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due execution. Probate  A special proceeding to establish the validity of a will. Kinds of wills A will has been defined as a species of conveyance whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree thze disposition of his estate after his death.   Under the Civil Code, there are two kinds of wills which a testator may execute.  The first is the notarial will , which must be acknowledged before a notary public by a testator and the attesting witness and is governed by Articles 804 to 809 of the Civil Code. The second is the holographic will , which Article 810 ...
Read more