SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

187378 September 30, 2013

RAMONITO O. ACAAC, PETALFOUN ATION, INC., APOLINARIO M. ELOR E, !ECTOR ACAAC, "#$ ROMEO %ULA&IN, Petitioners, vs. MEL'UIA ES . A(CUNA, )R., *# +*, -"p"-*t. ", M".or, "#$ MARIETES %. %ONALOS, *# +er -"p"-*t. ", M/#*-*p"0 E#1*#eer "#$ %/*0$*#1 O22*-*"03 e,*1#"te, bot+ o2 Lope4 )"e#" M/#*-*p"0*t., M*,"m*, O--*$e#t"0,Respondents. RESOLUTION PERLAS3%ERNA%E, J.: Assailed in this petition for revie on !ertiorari " are the De!ision# dated Septe$%er &', #''( and Resol)tion& dated *ar!h +, #''+ of the Co)rt of Appeals ,CA- in CA./.R. CV No. ''#(0.*IN hi!h reversed and set aside the De!ision0 dated Nove$%er #1, #''0 of the Re2ional Trial Co)rt of Oro3)ieta Cit4, 5ran!h # ,RTC- in Civil Case No. 01(0 for in6)n!tion. The 7a!ts Petitioner People8s E!o.To)ris$ and Livelihood 7o)ndation, In!.,PETAL- is a non.2overn$ental or2ani9ation, fo)nded %4 petitioner Ra$onito O. A!aa!, hi!h is en2a2ed in the prote!tion and !onservation of e!olo24, to)ris$, and livelihood pro6e!ts ithin *isa$is O!!idental. : In line ith its o%6e!tives, PETAL %)ilt so$e !otta2es $ade of indi2eno)s $aterials on Capa4as Island ,a ",1': s3)are $eter islet- in "++: as ell as a se$inar !otta2e in #''" 1 hi!h it rented o)t to the p)%li! and %e!a$e the so)r!e of livelihood of its %enefi!iaries,; a$on2 ho$ are petitioners <e!tor A!aa! and Ro$eo 5)la in. On April "" and *a4 #', #''#, ho ever, respondents *a4or *el3)iades D. A9!)na, =r. ,A9!)na- and 5)ildin2 Offi!ial *arietes 5. 5onalos iss)ed separate Noti!es of Ille2al Constr)!tion a2ainst PETAL for its fail)re to appl4 for a %)ildin2 per$it prior to the !onstr)!tion of its %)ildin2s in violation of Presidential De!ree No. "'+1,( other ise >no n as the ?National 5)ildin2 Code of the Philippines,? orderin2 it to stop all ille2al %)ildin2 a!tivities on Capa4as Island. @hen PETAL failed to !o$pl4 ith the re3)ire$ents for the iss)an!e of a %)ildin2 per$it, a Third and 7inal Noti!e of Ille2al Constr)!tion as iss)ed %4 respondents a2ainst it on =)l4 (, #''#,+ %)t still the sa$e re$ained )nheeded. It as also on =)l4 (, #''# that the San22)nian2 5a4an of Lope9 =aena ,S5- adopted *)ni!ipal Ordinan!e No. '#, Series of #''#"' ,s)%6e!t ordinan!e- hi!h prohi%ited, a$on2 othersA ,a- the entr4 of an4 entit4, asso!iation, !orporation or or2ani9ation inside the san!t)ariesB "" and ,%- the !onstr)!tion of an4 str)!t)res, per$anent or te$porar4, on the pre$ises, eC!ept if a)thori9ed %4 the lo!al 2overn$ent."# On =)l4 "#, #''#, A9!)na approved the s)%6e!t ordinan!eB hen!e, the sa$e as s)%$itted to the San22)nian2 Panlala i2an of *isa$is O!!idental ,SP-, hi!h in t)rn, !ond)!ted a 6oint hearin2 on the $atter. Thereafter, noti!es ere posted at the desi2nated areas, in!l)din2 Capa4as Island, de!larin2 the pre$ises as 2overn$ent propert4 and prohi%itin2 in2ress and e2ress thereto. "& On A)2)st #&, #''#, a Noti!e of Vol)ntar4 De$olition as served )pon PETAL dire!tin2 it to re$ove the str)!t)res it %)ilt on Capa4as Island. A$on2 the reasons !ited as its violation of the s)%6e!t ordinan!e. A si$ilar noti!e as also served a2ainst individ)al petitioners on O!to%er #:, #''#. On O!to%er #+, #''#, petitioners filed an a!tion pra4in2 for the iss)an!e of a te$porar4 restrainin2 order, in6)n!tion and da$a2es": a2ainst respondents %efore the RTC, do!>eted as Civil Case No. 01(0, alle2in2 that the4 have prior vested ri2hts to o!!)p4 and )tili9e Capa4as Island. PETAL !lai$ed that its

prede!essors.in.interest have %een in possession thereof sin!e "+1", ith ho$ it entered into a *e$orand)$ of A2ree$ent for the operation of the said island as a !a$pin2, to)ris$, and re!reational resortB th)s, the iss)an!e of the s)%6e!t ordinan!e as pre6)di!ial to their interest as the4 ere deprived of their livelihood. *oreover, PETAL assailed the validit4 of the s)%6e!t ordinan!e on the follo in2 2ro)ndsA ,a- it as adopted itho)t p)%li! !ons)ltationB ,%- it as not p)%lished in a ne spaper of 2eneral !ir!)lation in the provin!e as re3)ired %4 Rep)%li! A!t No.;"1', "1 other ise >no n as ?The Lo!al /overn$ent Code of "++"? ,L/C-Band ,!- it as not approved %4 the SP. Therefore, its i$ple$entation sho)ld %e en6oined."; In their Ans er,"( respondents averred that petitioners have no !a)se of a!tion a2ainst the$ sin!e the4 are not the la f)l o ners or lessees of Capa4as Island, hi!h as !lassified as ti$%erland and propert4 %elon2in2 to the p)%li! do$ain. 7)rther, the4 $aintained that the4 have !o$plied ith all the p)%li!ation and hearin2 re3)ire$ents for the passa2e of the s)%6e!t ordinan!e, hi!h as dee$ed approved %4 operation of la for fail)re of the SP to ta>e an4 positive a!tion thereon as provided )nder the L/C. As s)!h, it is valid and enfor!ea%le. The RTC R)lin2 On Nove$%er #1, #''0, the RTC rendered a De!ision"+ de!larin2 the s)%6e!t ordinan!e as invalidDvoid %ased on the follo in2 2ro)ndsA ,a- PETAL8s protest has not %een resolved and that the s)%6e!t ordinan!e as not d)l4 approved %4 the SPB ,%- the said ordinan!e as not p)%lished in a ne spaper of 2eneral !ir!)lation nor as it posted in p)%li! pla!esB ,!- Capa4as Island is !lassified as ti$%erland, hen!e, not s)ited to %e a %ird or fish san!t)ar4B and ,d- the a)thorit4 and !ontrol over ti$%erlands %elon2 to the national 2overn$ent, thro)2h the Depart$ent of Environ$ent and Nat)ral Reso)r!es ,DENR-.#' 5ased on the fore2oin2, respondents ere ordered, a$on2 others, to desist fro$ !losin2 Capa4as Island to the p)%li!.#" <o ever, the petitioners ere ordered to re$ove the str)!t)res the4 %)ilt thereon itho)t valid %)ildin2 per$its##sin!e the4 ere fo)nd to have no title over the disp)ted propert4. #& A22rieved, respondents appealed the fore2oin2 prono)n!e$ent %efore the CA, do!>eted as CA./.R. CV No. ''#(0.*IN. The Pro!eedin2s 5efore the CA On Septe$%er &', #''(, the CA rendered a De!ision #0 2rantin2 respondents8 appeal. Contrar4 to the RTC8s r)lin2, it held that the s)%6e!t ordinan!e as dee$ed approved )pon fail)re of the SP to de!lare the sa$e invalid ithin&' da4s after its s)%$ission in a!!ordan!e ith Se!tion :1 of the L/C.#: It also 2ave !reden!e to A9!)na8s testi$on4 that the s)%6e!t ordinan!e as posted and p)%lished in !onspi!)o)s pla!es in their $)ni!ipalit4, and in the %)lletin %oard. #1 *oreover, p)%li! !ons)ltations ere !ond)!ted ith vario)s 2ro)ps %efore the s)%6e!t ordinan!e as passed. #; The CA f)rther r)led that the *)ni!ipalit4 of Lope9 =aena as vested ith s)ffi!ient po er and a)thorit4 to pass and adopt the s)%6e!t ordinan!e )nder Se!tion 00; in relation to Se!tion "1 of the L/C. #( Therefore, it is not onl4 the DENR that !o)ld !reate and ad$inister san!t)aries.#+ <avin2 ena!ted the s)%6e!t ordinan!e ithin its po ers as a $)ni!ipalit4 and in a!!ordan!e ith the pro!ed)re pres!ri%ed %4 la , the CA prono)n!ed that the s)%6e!t ordinan!e is valid.&' On the other hand, the CA )pheld the RTC8s findin2 that petitioner shave no proprietar4 ri2hts over the Capa4as Island, there%4 renderin2 their a!tion for in6)n!tion i$proper. &" Petitioners8 $otion for re!onsideration&# therefro$ as denied %4 the CA in a Resol)tion&& dated *ar!h +, #''+. <en!e, the instant petition. The Iss)e 5efore the Co)rt

The essential iss)e in this !ase is hether or not the s)%6e!t ordinan!e is valid and enfor!ea%le a2ainst petitioners.&0 The Co)rt8s R)lin2 The petition la!>s $erit. Se!tion :1 of the L/C providesA SEC. :1. Revie of Co$ponent Cit4 and *)ni!ipal Ordinan!es or Resol)tions %4 the San22)nian2 Panlala i2an. E ,a- @ithin three ,&- da4s after approval, the se!retar4 to the San22)nian2 Panl)n2sod or San22)nian2 5a4an shall for ard to the San22)nian2 Panlala i2an for revie , !opies of approved ordinan!es and the resol)tions approvin2 the lo!al develop$ent plans and p)%li! invest$ent pro2ra$s for$)lated %4 the lo!al develop$ent !o)n!ils.

,%- @ithin thirt4 ,&'- da4s after re!eipt of !opies of s)!h ordinan!es and resol)tions, the San22)nian2 Panlala i2an shall eCa$ine the do!)$ents or trans$it the$ to the provin!ial attorne4, or if there %e none, to the provin!ial prose!)tor for pro$pt eCa$ination. The provin!ial attorne4 or provin!ial prose!)tor shall, ithin a period of ten ,"'- da4s fro$ re!eipt of the do!)$ents, infor$ the San22)nian2 Panlala i2an in ritin2 his !o$$ents or re!o$$endations, hi!h $a4 %e !onsidered %4 the San22)nian2 Panlala i2an in $a>in2 its de!ision. ,!- If the San22)nian2 Panlala i2an finds that s)!h an ordinan!e or resol)tion is %e4ond the po er !onferred )pon the San22)nian2 Panl)n2sod or San22)nian2 5a4an !on!erned, it shall de!lare s)!h ordinan!e or resol)tion invalid in hole or in part. The San22)nian2 Panlala i2an shall enter its a!tion in the $in)tes and shall advise the !orrespondin2 !it4 or $)ni!ipal a)thorities of the a!tion it has ta>en. ,d- If no a!tion has %een ta>en %4 the San22)nian2 Panlala i2an ithin thirt4 ,&'- da4s after s)%$ission of s)!h an ordinan!e or resol)tion, the sa$e shall %e pres)$ed !onsistent ith la and therefore valid.
In this !ase, petitioners $aintain that the s)%6e!t ordinan!e !annot %e dee$ed approved thro)2h the $ere passa2e of ti$e !onsiderin2 that the sa$e is still pendin2 ith the Co$$ittee on 7isheries and A3)ati! Reso)r!es of the SP.&: It, ho ever, %ears to note that $ore than &' da4s have alread4 elapsed fro$ the ti$e the said ordinan!e as s)%$itted to the latter for revie %4 the S5B &1 hen!e, it sho)ld %e dee$ed approved and valid p)rs)ant to Se!tion :1 ,d- a%ove. As properl4 o%served %4 the CAA Par. ,d- sho)ld %e read in !on6)n!tion ith par. ,!-, in order to arrive at the $eanin2 of the disp)ted ord, ?a!tion.? It is !lear, %ased on the fore2oin2 provision, that the a!tion that $)st %e entered in the $in)tes of the san22)nian2 panlala i2an is the de!laration of the san22)nian2 panlala i2an that the ordinan!e is invalid in hole or in part. C C C. This !onstr)!tion o)ld %e $ore in !onsonan!e ith the r)le of stat)tor4 !onstr)!tion that the parts of a stat)te $)st %e read to2ether in s)!h a $anner as to 2ive effe!t to all of the$ and that s)!h parts shall not %e !onstr)ed as !ontradi!tin2 ea!h other. C C C la s are 2iven a reasona%le !onstr)!tion s)!h that apparentl4 !onfli!tin2 provisions are allo ed to stand and 2iven effe!t %4 re!on!ilin2 the$, referen!e %ein2 had to the $ovin2 spirit %ehind the ena!t$ent of the stat)te. &; Neither !an the Co)rt 2ive !reden!e to petitioners8 !ontentions that the s)%6e!t ordinan!e as not p)%lished nor posted in a!!ordan!e ith the provisions of the L/C. &( It is note orth4 that petitioners8 o n eviden!e reveals that a p)%li! hearin2&+ as !ond)!ted prior to the pro$)l2ation of the s)%6e!t ordinan!e.

*oreover, other than their %are alle2ations, petitioners failed to present an4 eviden!e to sho that no p)%li!ation or postin2 of the s)%6e!t ordinan!e as $ade. In !ontrast, A9!)na had testified that the4 have !o$plied ith the p)%li!ation and postin2 re3)ire$ents. 0' @hile it is tr)e that he li>e ise failed to s)%$it an4 other eviden!e thereon, still, in a!!ordan!e ith the pres)$ption of validit4 in favor of an ordinan!e, its !onstit)tionalit4 or le2alit4 sho)ld %e )pheld in the a%sen!e of an4 !ontrovertin2 eviden!e that the pro!ed)re pres!ri%ed %4 la as not o%served in its ena!t$ent. Li>e ise, petitioners had the %)rden of provin2 their o n alle2ation, hi!h the4, ho ever, failed to do. In the si$ilar !ase of 7i2)erres v. CA,0" !itin2 United States v. Cristo%al,0# the Co)rt )pheld the pres)$ptive validit4 of the ordinan!e therein despite the la!> of !ontrovertin2 eviden!e on the part of the lo!al 2overn$ent to sho that p)%li! hearin2s ere !ond)!ted in li2ht ofA ,a- the oppositor8s e3)al la!> of !ontrovertin2 eviden!e to de$onstrate the lo!al 2overn$ent8s non.!o$plian!e ith the said p)%li! hearin2B and ,%- the fa!t that the lo!al 2overn$ent8s non.!o$plian!e as a ne2ative alle2ation essential to the oppositor8s !a)se of a!tionA <o ever, it is note orth4 that apart fro$ her %are assertions, petitioner 7i2)erres has not presented an4 eviden!e to sho that no p)%li! hearin2s ere !ond)!ted prior to the ena!t$ent of the ordinan!es in 3)estion. On the other hand, the *)ni!ipalit4 of *andal)4on2 !lai$s that p)%li! hearin2s ere indeed !ond)!ted %efore the s)%6e!t ordinan!es ere adopted, altho)2h it li>e ise failed to s)%$it an4 eviden!e to esta%lish this alle2ation. <o ever, in a!!ordan!e ith the pres)$ption of validit4 in favor of an ordinan!e, their !onstit)tionalit4 or le2alit4 sho)ld %e )pheld in the a%sen!e of eviden!e sho in2 that the pro!ed)re pres!ri%ed %4 la as not o%served in their ena!t$ent. In an analo2o)s !ase, United States v. Cristo%al, it as alle2ed that the ordinan!e $a>in2 it a !ri$e for an4one to o%str)!t ater a4s had not %een s)%$itted %4 the provin!ial %oard as re3)ired %4 FF##&#.##&& of the Ad$inistrative Code. In re6e!tin2 this !ontention, the Co)rt heldA 7ro$ the 6)d2$ent of the Co)rt of 7irst Instan!e the defendant appealed to this !o)rt )pon the theor4 that the ordinan!e in 3)estion as adopted itho)t a)thorit4 on the part of the $)ni!ipalit4 and as therefore )n!onstit)tional. The appellant ar2)es that there as no proof add)!ed d)rin2 the trial of the !a)se sho in2 that said ordinan!e had %een approved %4 the provin!ial %oard. Considerin2 the provisions of la that it is the d)t4 of the provin!ial %oard to approve or disapprove ordinan!es adopted %4 the $)ni!ipal !o)n!ils of the different $)ni!ipalities, e ill ass)$e, in the a%sen!e of proof to the !ontrar4, that the la has %een !o$plied ith. @e have a ri2ht to ass)$e that offi!ials have done that hi!h the la of positive proof to the !ontrar4. re3)ires the$ to do, in the a%sen!e

7)rther$ore, the la!> of a p)%li! hearin2 is a ne2ative alle2ation essential to petitionerGs !a)se of a!tion in the present !ase. <en!e, as petitioner is the part4 assertin2 it, she has the %)rden of proof. Sin!e petitioner failed to re%)t the pres)$ption of validit4 in favor of the s)%6e!t ordinan!es and to dis!har2e the %)rden of provin2 that no p)%li! hearin2s ere !ond)!ted prior to the ena!t$ent thereof, e are !onstrained to )phold their !onstit)tionalit4 or le2alit4. 0& ,E$phases s)pplied, !itation o$ittedAll told, the Co)rt finds no reversi%le error !o$$itted %4 the CA in )pholdin2 the validit4 of the s)%6e!t ordinan!e. In an4 event, petitioners have not sho n an4 valid title 00 to the propert4 in disp)te to %e entitled to its possession. 5esides, the RTC8s order dire!tin2 the re$oval of the str)!t)res %)ilt %4 petitioners on Capa4as Island itho)t %)ildin2 per$its as not appealed. As s)!h, the sa$e sho)ld no %e dee$ed as final and !on!l)sive )pon the$. @<ERE7ORE, the petition is DENIED. The De!ision dated Septe$%er &', #''( and Resol)tion dated *ar!h +, #''+ of the Co)rt of Appeals in CA./.R. CV No. ''#(0.*IN are here%4 A77IR*ED. SO ORDERED.

ESTELA M. PERLAS3%ERNA%E Asso!iate =)sti!e @E CONCURA ANTONIO T. CARPIO Asso!iate =)sti!e Chairperson

ARTURO . %RION Asso!iate =)sti!e

MARIANO C. EL CASTILLO Asso!iate =)sti!e

)OSE PORTUGAL PERE( Asso!iate =)sti!e ATTESTATION I attest that the !on!l)sions in the a%ove Resol)tion had %een rea!hed in !ons)ltation %efore the !ase as assi2ned to the riter of the opinion of the Co)rtGs Division. ANTONIO T. CARPIO Asso!iate =)sti!e Chairperson, Se!ond Division CERTI7ICATION P)rs)ant to Se!tion "&, Arti!le VIII of the Constit)tion, and the Division ChairpersonGs Attestation, I !ertif4 that the !on!l)sions in the a%ove Resol)tion had %een rea!hed in !ons)ltation %efore the !ase as assi2ned to the riter of the opinion of the Co)rtGs Division. MARIA LOUR ES P. A. SERENO Chief =)sti!e