Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
NESTORIO W. LAYA
and |
|
G.R. No. 158965 |
|
RUDY MARTIN, |
|
|
|
Petitioners, |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
|
|
Chairperson, |
|
-
versus - |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
|
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
|
|
NACHURA, and |
|
|
|
DE CASTRO,* JJ. |
|
SPOUSES EDWIN and |
|
|
|
|
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
April 14, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Assailed
in the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court is the Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 66923 promulgated on
The
antecedents of the case, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:
Petitioners [herein respondents]
Edwin and Lourdes Triviño are the registered owners
of a residential unit within the La Pacita Complex
Subdivision, San Pedro, Laguna.
Since 1987, said spouses are
utilizing a portion of their residence as a mini-grocery store. By the year
2000, the store had occupied more than half of their house,
hence, the Triviños saw the need to renovate the
same.
Corollarily,
petitioners [herein respondents] applied for a building permit with the Office
[of the] Zoning Administrator Pablito Tolentino who issued a Zoning Certification dated
1.
A Certification/Endorsement dated 05 June 2000 from Mr. Danilo Berciles, the Board
Chairman and President of Pacita Complex I Homeowners
Association, Inc. interposing no objection to a house construction;
2.
Construction Clearance/Certification dated
3.
Tax Declaration No. 17-29691 on
4.
Endorsement Letter dated
On
On
On
“2.1 The
construction of a commercial building in an RI residential area is strictly
prohibited under the Zoning Ordinance promulgated by the Sangguniang
Bayan of San Pedro, Laguna. The Avowed purpose of the
prohibition is to maintain the peace and quiet of the area;
2.2 Our
subdivision is classified as an RI district or low density residential zone.
This can be verified in the Official Zoning Map, x x x;
2.3 As we have
consistently raised in our objection before the
Mayor's Office and the deputized Zoning Administrator, Engr.
Tolentino, the proposed commercial building, once
completed, will create tremendous problems to the residents of our subdivision,
not only in terms of traffic congestion, but also, its effect on environmental
sanitation and noise and other pollution.
x x x x
On
Undaunted, private respondents
[which include herein petitioners], on
On
The temporary restraining order
was made permanent by the respondent HLURB on
The dispositive
portion of the May 30, 2001 Order of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
Board of Commissioners reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
respondents and all other persons acting under their control or direction are
hereby ENJOINED pending resolution of the main complaint from using the newly
constructed premises for commercial activities other than those previously
existing and on a scale engaged in prior to the renovation of the building and
deemed compatible with the character of the area as a low-[density] residential
zone conditioned upon the posting by complainants [herein petitioners] of an injunction
bond in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) within
ten (10) days from receipt of this Order. Non-filing of said bond shall result
in the automatic lifting of this injunction.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Respondents filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the
Respondents then filed
a special civil action for certiorari with the CA contending that both
the HLURB Regional Field Office and the HLURB Board of Commissioners did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the Petition is GRANTED and the
SO ORDERED.[5]
Petitioners filed a
Motion for Reconsideration but the CA denied it via its Resolution dated
Hence, the present
petition with the following assignment of errors:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PETITION (RIV6-012601-1512) FILED BY
PETITIONERS WITH THE HLURB REGIONAL FIELD OFFICE IV WAS LODGED IN THE WRONG
FORUM, THEREFORE NO JURISDICTION AND BEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF THIRTY
(30) DAYS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 6, ARTICLE X OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF SAN
PEDRO, LAGUNA;
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONERS CHALLENGED THE ZONING
CERTIFICATION ONLY ON
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE FILING OF RIV6-012601-1512 IS AN
AFTERTHOUGHT;
IV
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HAS
BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY;
V
THE COURT OF APPEALS
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE
CONSTRUCTION IS IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF SAN PEDRO.[6]
Petitioners claim that respondents
are estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the
HLURB because they never questioned such jurisdiction during the proceedings
before the Regional Field Office of the HLURB, where they obtained a favorable
judgment; and that it was
only when the HLURB Board of Commissioners issued its May 30, 2001 Order that
petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the HLURB.
Petitioners contend that pursuant
to the provisions of Executive Order No. 648 which was promulgated on February
7, 1981, the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (now HLURB) has
jurisdiction to take cognizance of their petition/appeal.
Petitioners further aver that the
Zoning Certification issued by the Zoning Administrator is not the Certificate
of Zoning Compliance contemplated and required under the Zoning Ordinance of
San Pedro, Laguna and which is appealable to the
Local Zoning Board. As such,
petitioners maintain that the remedy of appeal, including the prescriptive
period provided for under the subject Ordinance, is not applicable.
Petitioners also contend that at the
time their petition was filed with the HLURB, there is no existing Zoning
Appeals Board and in such a case, Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance provides
that appeals from decisions of the Zoning Administrator shall be made directly
with the HLURB.
Petitioners
further
argue that even assuming that the decision of the Zoning Administrator to issue
a Zoning Certification could have been appealed, such decision could not have
become final and executory in view of the Zoning
Administrator's issuance of a Work Stoppage Order on August 25, 2000, which was
never lifted, directing herein respondents to stop their construction
activities until they have settled the complaints of herein petitioners.
Petitioners also contend that the
burden of proof is on the respondents to show that the construction they have
undertaken falls under any of the exceptions to the prohibitions under the
subject Zoning Ordinance.
Respondents counter that it is clear
that under the applicable municipal ordinance of San Pedro, Laguna, the reglementary period for filing an appeal from the issuance
of a Zoning Certification by the Office of the Zoning Administrator is 30 days
from receipt of notice of such issuance or certification; that respondents
admit having received notice of the subject Zoning Certification on July 29,
2000,
and that it was only on January 12, 2001 that they filed their petition/appeal
with the Regional Field Office of HLURB; and that petitioners' petition/appeal
was filed out of time. In addition,
respondents aver that petitioners should have filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Zoning Administrator and not a petition/appeal with the HLURB Regional Field
Office. Respondents contend that
appeal is a statutory privilege and it must be exercised within the period and
in the manner provided by law.
Lastly, respondents contend that the
CA did not commit error in dismissing HLURB Case No. REM-A-010320-0091
(RIV6-012601-1512) since petitioners failed to prove that the construction
undertaken by respondents is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance of San Pedro,
Laguna.
The Court finds the petition
meritorious.
As to the first assigned error,
respondents raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction only in their Comment
and/or Opposition to the Petition for Review filed with the HLURB Board of
Commissioners. After
participating in all stages of the case before the Regional Field Office of the
HLURB, respondents are effectively barred by estoppel
from challenging its jurisdiction. While it is a rule that a jurisdictional
question may be raised any time, this, however, admits of an exception where,
as in this case, estoppel has supervened.[7]
Assuming that petitioners'
petition/appeal with the HLURB Regional Field Office was filed out of time and
before the wrong forum, respondents should have pointed out these defects at
the earliest opportunity instead of actively participating in several stages of
the proceedings before the Regional Field Office and discussing the case on its
merits. It is settled that the active
participation of a party against whom the action was brought, coupled with his
failure to object to the jurisdiction of the court or quasi-judicial body where
the action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that jurisdiction and
a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar said party
from later on impugning the court or body’s jurisdiction.[8]
In the instant case, respondents cannot
belatedly reject or repudiate the jurisdiction of the HLURB Regional Field
Office after voluntarily submitting to it. They never questioned the jurisdiction of the
said Office despite several opportunities to do so. It was only when petitioners appealed the
decision of the Regional Field Office with the HLURB Board of Commissioners did
respondents raise such question. Respondents are already estopped
from doing so.
Respondents also
question the jurisdiction of the HLURB Board of Commissioners. However, it is
clear that under the law, the Board of Commissioners has competent jurisdiction
to take cognizance of the Verified Petition for Review filed by petitioners and
to issue orders in the exercise of such jurisdiction owing to its authority to
determine appeals from decisions of its Regional Offices.
As correctly pointed
out by petitioners, among the powers and duties of the HLURB, as provided for,
respectively, under Article IV, Section 5 (f) and (p) of E.O. No. 648, are to:
1) “[a]ct as the appellate body on decisions and actions of local and regional
planning and zoning bodies and of the deputized officials of the Commission, on
matters arising from the performance of these functions;” and 2) [i]ssue orders after conducting
the appropriate investigation for the cessation or closure of any use or
activity and to issue orders to vacate or demolish any building or structure
that is determined to have violated or failed to comply with any of the laws,
presidential decrees, letters of instructions, executive orders and other
presidential issuances and directives being implemented by it, either on its
own or upon complaint of any interested party.”
Moreover, Rule XII,
Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the HLURB, as amended by Section 9 of
HLURB Resolution No. R-655, Series of 1999,[9]
specifically provides that decisions of a Regional Officer of the HLURB may be
elevated for review before the Board of Commissioners, to wit:
Petition for Review.
- Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Officer, on any legal
ground and upon payment of the review fee may file with the Regional Office a
verified Petition for Review of such decision within thirty (30) calendar days
from receipt thereof. In cases decided by the Executive Committee pursuant to
Rule II, Section 2 of these Rules as amended, the
verified petition shall be filed with the Executive Committee within thirty
(30) calendar days from receipt of the Committee's decision. Copy of such
petition shall be furnished the other party and the Board of Commissioners. No
motion for reconsideration or mere notice of petition for review of the
decision shall be entertained.
Within ten (10) calendar days
from receipt of the petition, the Regional Officer, or the Executive Committee,
as the case may be, shall elevate the records to the Board of Commissioners
together with the summary of proceedings before the Regional Office. The
petition for review of a decision rendered by the Executive Committee shall be
taken cognizance of by the Board en banc.
Having concluded that
respondents are estopped from questioning the
jurisdiction of the HLURB Field Office and that the Board of Commissioners has
power and authority to take cognizance of the Verified Petition for Review
filed before it, this Court finds it no longer necessary to address the second,
third and fourth issues raised in the present petition as the resolution of
these issues hinges on the determination of the question whether the HLURB may
decide the petition for review filed by respondents.
With respect to the
last assigned error, the Court finds that this is one of the issues raised in
the Verified Petition for Review filed by petitioners with the HLURB Board of
Commissioners, which is pending resolution by the said Board. Moreover, the issue involves a determination
of factual matters, which would determine whether or not the provisions of the
subject Zoning Ordinance have been complied with, which, generally, is beyond
the province of this Court. Hence, this
issue must first be settled by the HLURB.
WHEREFORE, the
instant petition is GRANTED. The
September 27, 2002 Decision and July 4, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 66923 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order of the HLURB Board of Commissioners
dated
SO
ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* In
lieu of Justice Ruben T. Reyes, per Raffle dated
[1] Penned
by Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with the concurrence of Justices Ruben T. Reyes
(now a member of this Court) and Danilo B. Pine, rollo, pp. 8-18.
[2]
[3] CA
rollo, pp. 253-256.
[4]
[5] CA
rollo, p. 262.
[6] Rollo, p. 33.
[7] David v. Cordova, G.R. No. 152992,
[8] Heirs
of the Late Panfilo V. Pajarillo
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 155056-57, October 19, 2007.
[9] Issued by the HLURB Board of Commissioners on