Documents

186 PerezvMadrona Cheng

Description
CONSTI CASE
Categories
Published
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Perez v. Madrona668 SCRA 696March 21, 2012“No person shall be deprved o! l!e, lber # or proper # $ ho% d%e process o! la$, norshall an# person be dened he e&%al pro ec on o! he la$s'(AC)S* Respondent-spouses (or %n o Madrona and +olanda . Pan e  are the registered owners of a residential property located in Greenheights Subdivision, Phase 2, Marikina City which is covered by C !o #$%&$' of the Registry of (eeds of Marikina City )n #%*%, the respondents built their house onthe aforesaid property which they had enclosed with a concrete fence and steel gate )n May 2', #%%%, the respondents received the following letter fro+ petitioner -ae S. Perez, Chief of the Marikina (e+olition )ffice, stating that the fence they built encroached on the sidewalk  which was a violation of P( #%$ of the !ational uilding Code, .Progra+a sa /alinisan at (isiplina saangketa0 and R1 %# on 3llegally occupied4constructed i+prove+ents within the road right-of-way herespondent-spouses are given  days to re+ove the aforesaid structure  1s a response, Madrona sent a letter to the petitioner stating that the May 2', #%%% letter 5#6contained an accusation libelous in nature as it is conde+ning hi+ and his property without due process7526 has no basis and authority since there is no court order authori8ing hi+ to de+olish their structure75&6 cited legal bases which do not e9pressly give petitioner authority to de+olish7 and 5:6 contained a falseaccusation since their fence did not in fact e9tend to the sidewalk )n ;une %, #%%%, the respondents received another letter re<uesting the+ to provide a relocationsurvey of the property which the respondents did not reply to believing that the petitioner was fishing forevidence because he was the one accusing of such )n =ebruary 2*, 2#, petitioner sent another letter with the sa+e contents as the May 2',#%%% letter but this ti+e giving the respondents ten days fro+ receipt thereof to re+ove the structureallegedly protruding to the sidewalk his pro+pted the respondents to file a co+plaint for in>unction before the Marikina City RCon March #2, 2# and likewise sought the issuance of a te+porary restraining order 5R)6 and a writ of preli+inary in>unction to en>oin petitioner and all persons acting under hi+ fro+ doing any act of de+olition on their property and that after trial, the in>unction be +ade per+anent )n March #$, 2#, the RC issued a R) against petitioner )n ;uly 2, 2:, the RC rendereda (ecision in favor of respondents he RC decision per+anently en>oined the defendant Pere8 fro+perfor+ing any act which would tend to destroy or de+olish the peri+eter fence and steel gate of therespondents? property he RC held that respondents, being lawful owners of the sub>ect property, areentitled to the peaceful and open possession of every inch of their property and petitioner?s threat tode+olish the concrete fence around their property is tanta+ount to a violation of their rights as property owners who are entitled to protection under the Constitution and laws )he R)C also r%led ha here s no sho$n/ ha responden s !ence s an%sance    per se   and presents an i++ediate danger to the co++unity?s welfare, nor is there basis forpetitioner?s clai+ that the fence has encroached on the sidewalk as to >ustify its su++ary de+olition C1 affir+ed the RC?s decision SS3S*  #6 @4! the re<uisites for the issuance of a writ of in>unction are presentA26 @4! respondents? structure is a nuisance  per se  which presents an i++ediate danger to theco++unity?s welfare and can be re+oved without need of >udicial intervention since the clearing of thesidewalks is an infrastructure pro>ect of the Marikina City Govern+ent and canno be res raned b#  he co%r s as provded n Presden al 4ecree No. 18185 1  374* # Bes =or an in>unction to be issued, $o re&%s es %s conc%r* !rs , here %s be a r/h o be pro ec ed and second, he ac s a/ans $hch he n%nc on s o be drec ed are vola ve o! he sad r/h . he respondents? rights over their concrete fence and steel gate whichcannot be re+oved without due process7 and the act of using a su++ary abate+ent for the de+olition of the concrete fence would violate the said right he SC said that if the petitioner had indeed found therespondent?s fence to have encroached on the sidewalk, his re+edy is !) to de+olish the sa+esu++arily, but should go to court and prove the respondents? violations in the construction of theconcrete fence 3t is )!B when the ob>ect to be re+oved is a nuisance  per se  that the court allows it to besu++arily abated as seen in the case of  Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. JAC Liner, Inc. 2 !o he SC ruled in  Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. JAC Liner, Inc.  that a% horzn/ heaba een o! n%sance $ ho% %dcal proceedn/s  only applies to a nuisance per se, or one which affects the i++ediate safety of persons and property and +ay be su++arly abated under theundefined law of necessity 5Monteverde v Generoso, '2 Phil #2& D#%*2E6 3n  Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v. Municipality of Tarlac  where the appellant-+unicipality si+ilarly argued that the ter+inal involved therein is a nuisance that +ay be abated by the Municipal Council viaan ordinance, this Court heldF .Suffice it to say that in the abate+ent of nuisances the provisions of theCivil Code 51rticles $%:-6 +ust be observed and followed his appellant failed to do Respondents? fence is not a nuisance    per se y its nature, it is not in>urious to the health,co+fort, safety of the co++unity 3t was built pri+arily to secure the property of respondents andprevent intruders fro+ entering it 1s pointed out by the respondents, the sidewalk still e9ists 3f petitioner still believes that respondents? fence indeed encroaches on the sidewalk, it +ay be so proven ina hearing conducted for that purpose !ot being a nuisance  per se , but at +ost a nuisance    per accidens 5according to the SC6, its su++ary abate+ent without >udicial intervention is unwarranted 2
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks