This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
MOA does not guarantee the dumpsite’s permanent closure. An order for closure is in order. FACTS Garbage was on the rise. At the height of the garbage crisis plaguing Metro Manila and its environs, parts of the Marikina Watershed Reservation were set aside by the Office of the President, through Proclamation No. 635 dated 28 August 1995, for use as a sanitary landfill and similar waste disposal applications. In fact, this site, extending to more or less 18 hectares, had already been in operation since 19 February 1990 for the solid wastes of Quezon City, Marikina, San Juan, Mandaluyong, Pateros, Pasig, and Taguig. A petition filed by the Province of Rizal, the municipality of San Mateo, and various concerned citizens for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 41330, denying, for lack of cause of action, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with application for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction assailing the legality and constitutionality of Proclamation No. 635. A case to the CA for the closure of the landfill stalled. ISSUE Whether or not the landfill is contrary to law HELD: SC held that the San Mateo Landfill will remain permanently closed. Although the petitioners may be deemed to have waived or abandoned the issues raised in their previous pleadings but not included in the memorandum,certain events we shall relate below have inclined us to address some of the more pertinent issues raised in the petition for the guidance of the herein respondents, and pursuant to our symbolic function to educate the bench and bar. The law and the facts indicate that a mere MOA does not guarantee the dumpsite’s permanent closure. The rally and barricade staged by the people of Antipolo on 28 January 1999, with the full support of all the mayors of Rizal Province caused the MMDA to agree that it would abandon the dumpsite after six months. In return, the municipal mayors allowed the use of the dumpsite until 20 July 1999. Were it not for the TRO, then President Estrada’s instructions would have been lawfully carried out, for as we observed in Oposa v. Factoran, the freedom of contract is not absolute.
Baguio City vs Masweng feb 4, 2009
which enjoined PEZA to cease and desist from threatening respondents with the demolition of their house before respondents’ prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction can be heard. On appeal. On June 20. Before long. with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Baguio City. Unlike No. 1997. ISSUE: WHether the Petitioner or the City Engineer has the power to issue permits HELD SC ruled in the negative. Article VII of the same DENR DAO. respondents’ action for injunction must fail. the appellate court echoed the trial court’s declaration that the subject lots have been set aside from the lands of the public domain. On September 19. their right to possess the subject land is limited to occupation in relation to cultivation. rules and regulations . Rose Carantes and the heirs of Maximino Carantes are in possession of a 30. Respondents being holders of a mere CALC. occupy and cultivate the subject lots on the basis of their CALC. the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. they cannot simply put up fences or build structures thereon without complying with applicable laws. respondents filed a petition for injunction. rules and regulations FACTS Respondents Joseph Jude Carantes. 2001. respondents secured a building permit from the Building Official of Baguio City. the Zone Administrator of the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA). 2007. Section 1.DOCTRINE Even if respondents had established ownership of the land. much less the right to build permanent structures on ancestral lands – an act of ownership that pertains to one (1) who has a recognized right by virtue of a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title. Soon. By Order dated April 8. 1. 1. they obtained Certificate of Ancestral Land. Torres. Teodoro G. 1999. which expressly allows ancestral domain claimants to reside peacefully within the domain. Torres advised respondents to demolish the same within sixty (60) days from notice.368-square meter parcel of land . Even if respondents had established ownership of the land. Par. Without answering PEZA’s letter. On the strength of said CALC. PEZA would undertake its demolition at respondents’ expense. On this score alone. In the assailed Decision dated October 26. nothing in Section 2 grants ancestral land claimants a similar right. respondents received a letterdated February 9. Otherwise. Barrozo. the RTC likewise issued an Order. the RTC of Baguio City issued a TRO. they cannot simply put up fences or build structures thereon without complying with applicable laws. which directed the parties to maintain the status quo pending resolution of the case The trial court ruled that respondents are entitled to possess. 1999 from Digna D. they fenced the premises and began constructing a residential building thereon. informing them that the house they built had overlapped PEZA’s territorial boundary.