Gancayco vs. City Government of Quezon City and Mmda

GANCAYCO VS.
CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY AND MMDA

GANCAYCO VS. CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY AND MMDA – JULY 18, 2006 (G.R.
NO. 177807) MMDA VS. GANCAYCO – MAY 10 2007 (G.R. NO. 177933)
FACTS: The consolidated petitions of Retired Justice Emilio Gancayco, City Government of
Quezon City and the Metro Manila Development Authority stemmed from a local ordinance
pertaining to Construction of Arcades, and the clearing of Public Obstructions. Gaycanco owns
a property, of which he was able to obtain a building permit for a two-storey commercial
building, which was situated along EDSA, in an area which was designated as part of a
Business/Commercial Zone by the Quezon City Council. The Quezon City Council also issued
Ordinance No. 2904, which orders the construction of Arcades for Commercial Buildings. The
ordinance was amended to not require the properties located at the Quezon City - San Juan
boundary, and commercial buildings from Balete - Seattle Street to construct the arcades,
moreover, Gancayco had been successful in his petition to have his property, already covered
by the amended ordinance, exempted from the ordinance. MMDA on April 28, 2003, sent a
notice to Gancayco, under Ordinance no. 2904, part of his property had to be demolished, if he
did not clear that part within 15 days, which Gancayco did not comply with, and so the MMDA
had to demolish the party wall, or “wing walls.” Gancayco then filed a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Quezon City, seeking to prohibit
the demolition of his property, without due process and just compensation, claiming that
Ordinance no. 2904 was discriminatory and selective. He sought the declaration of nullity of
the ordinance and payment for damages. MMDA contended that Gancayco cannot seek
nullification of an ordinance that he already violated, and that the ordinance had the
presumption of constitutionality, and it was approved by the Quezon City Council, taking to
note that the Mayor signed the ordinance. The RTC, however, declared that the Ordinance was
unconstitutional, invalid and void ab initio. MMDA appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the
CA partly granted the appeal, with the contention that the ordinance was to be modified; it was
constitutional because the intention of the ordinance was to uplift the standard of living, and
business in the commercial area, as well as to protect the welfare of the general public passing
by the area, however the injunction against the enforcement and implementation of the
ordinance is lifted. With that decision, the MMDA and Gancayco filed Motions for
Reconsideration, which the CA denied, as both parties have no new issues raised. Therefore
they petitioned to the Court.
ISSUES: Whether or not the wing wall of Gancayco’s property can be constituted as a public
nuisance. Whether or not MMDA was in their authority to demolish Gancayco’s property.
HELD: The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court decided that the
wing wall of Gancayco’s building was not a nuisance per se, as under Art. 694 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines, nuisance is defined as any act, omission, establishment, business, condition
or property, or anything else that (1) injures of endangers the health or safety of the others; (2)
annoys or offends the senses; (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; (4) obstruct
or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5)
hinders or impairs the use of property. A nuisance may be a nuisance per se or a nuisance per
accidens. A nuisance per se are those which affect the immediate safety of persons and
property and may summarily be abated under the undefined law of necessity. As Gaycanco was
able to procure a building permit to construct the building, it was implied that the city engineer
did not consider the building as such of a public nuisance, or a threat to the safety of persons
and property. The MMDA was only to enforce Authoritative power on development of Metro
Manila, and was not supposed to act with Police Power as they were not given the authority to
do such by the constitution, nor was it expressed by the DPWH when the ordinance was
enacted. Therefore, MMDA acted on its own when it illegally demolished Gancayco’s property,
and was solely liable for the damage.

Gancayco vs. City Government of Quezon City and Mmda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gancayco vs. City Government of Quezon City and Mmda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gancayco vs. City Government of Quezon City and Mmda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GANCAYCO VS.

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY AND MMDA

You might also like