Scribd
Upload
123 views2 pages

AQUINO v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AK

The Supreme Court denied Crisostomo Aquino's petition challenging the demolition of his hotel in Boracay Island by the Municipality of Malay, Aklan. The Court found that while the hotel was not a nuisance per se, it could still be considered a nuisance per accidens because it was constructed in a designated "no build zone". Furthermore, the Local Government Code authorizes local chief executives like mayors to issue demolition orders for illegally constructed buildings using their quasi-judicial powers, without requiring a prior court order. Therefore, the Municipality of Malay acted within its authority in ordering the closure and demolition of Aquino's hotel.

Uploaded by

Reino Cabitac
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
123 views2 pages

AQUINO v. MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AK

The Supreme Court denied Crisostomo Aquino's petition challenging the demolition of his hotel in Boracay Island by the Municipality of Malay, Aklan. The Court found that while the hotel was not a nuisance per se, it could still be considered a nuisance per accidens because it was constructed in a designated "no build zone". Furthermore, the Local Government Code authorizes local chief executives like mayors to issue demolition orders for illegally constructed buildings using their quasi-judicial powers, without requiring a prior court order. Therefore, the Municipality of Malay acted within its authority in ordering the closure and demolition of Aquino's hotel.

Uploaded by

Reino Cabitac
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

AQUINO v.

MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN

NATURE:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the Decision1 and the Resolution
of the Court of Appeals. The assailed rulings denied Crisostomo Aquino’s Petition for
Certiorari for not being the proper remedy to question the issuance and implementation
of Executive Order No. 10, Series of 2011 (EO 10), ordering the demolition of his hotel
establishment.

FACTS:
Boracay Island West Cove Management Philippines, Inc. applied for a building permit
covering the construction of a three-storey hotel over a parcel of land in Malay, Aklan,
which is covered by a Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT)
issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The
Municipal Zoning Administrator denied petitioner’s application on the ground that the
proposed construction site was within the “no build zone” demarcated in Municipal
Ordinance 2000-131.

Petitioner appealed the denial action to the Office of the Mayor but despite follow up, no
action was ever taken by the respondent mayor.

A Cease and Desist Order was issued by the municipal government, enjoining the
expansion of the resort, and on June 7, 2011, the Office of the Mayor of Malay, Aklan
issued the assailed EO 10, ordering the closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove’s
hotel.

EO 10 was partially implemented on June 10, 2011. Thereafter, two more instances
followed wherein respondents demolished the improvements introduced by Boracay
West Cove.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief with the CA
Alleging that the order was issued and executed with grave abuse of discretion

Contentions of West Cove:


1) The hotel cannot summarily be abated because it is not a nuisance per se, given the
hundred million peso-worth of capital infused in the venture.
2) Municipality of Malay, Aklan should have first secured a court order before
proceeding with the demolition.

Contention of the Mayor: The demolition needed no court order because the municipal
mayor has the express power under the Local Government Code (LGC) to order the
removal of illegally constructed buildings

The CA dismissed the petition solely on procedural ground, i.e., the special writ
of certiorari can only be directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions and since the issuance of EO 10 was done in the exercise of
executive functions, and not of judicial or quasi-judicial functions, certiorari will not lie.

ISSUE:
Whether the judicial proceedings should first be conducted before the LGU can order
the closure and demolition of the property in question.

HELD:
The Court ruled that the property involved cannot be classified as
a nuisance per se which can therefore be summarily abated. Here, it is merely the
hotel’s particular incident, its location and not its inherent qualities that rendered it a
nuisance. Otherwise stated, had it not been constructed in the no build zone, Boracay
West Cove could have secured the necessary permits without issue. As such, even if
the hotel is not a nuisance per se, it is still a nuisance per accidens

Generally, LGUs have no power to declare a particular thing as a nuisance unless such
a thing is a nuisance per se. Despite the hotel’s classification as a
nuisance per accidens, however, the LGU may nevertheless properly order the hotel’s
demolition. This is because, in the exercise
of police power and the general welfare clause,
property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill
the objectives of the government. Moreover, the Local Government Code authorizes city
and municipal governments, acting through their local chief executives, to issue
demolition orders. The office of the mayor has quasi-judicial powers to order the closing
and demolition of establishments.

FALLO:

Petition is denied

You might also like