You are on page 1of 1

NEW SUN VALLEY office of the City of Paranaque, the public

HOMEOWNERS and was perfectly within the facility that is


ASSOCIATION, INC. V. judicial notice of the Courts. subject to
SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY, closure is
BARANGAY SUN VALLEY, provided.
ISSUE: Whether or not the BSV
PARANAQUE CITY
Sangguniang Barangay should
G.R. No. 156686; July 27, 2011
have passed an ordinance instead Section 21 of the LGC, which
J. Leonardo-De Castro
of a resolution to open the requires the passage of an
subject roads ordinance by a local government
unit to effect the opening of a local
FACTS: Respondent
road, does not apply to the instant
BSV Sangguniang Barangay RULING: No, it is not necessary
case. The Rosemallow and Aster
issued Resolution No. 98-096, for BSV Sangguniang Barangay to
Streets have already been donated
directing the opening of pass an ordinance to open the
by the Sun Valley Subdivision to,
Rosemallow and Aster Streets to subject roads.
and the titles thereto already issued
vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
in the name of, the City
Petitioner NSVHAI filed a Petition The local government units power
Government of Paraaque since
for a Writ of Preliminary to close and open roads within its
1964. Petitioner did not deny this
Injunction/Permanent Injunction jurisdiction is clear under the Local
fact. Hence, the road lots have
with prayer for issuance of TRO Government Code (LGC), Section
already been placed beyond the
with the RTC of Paraaque City. 21 of which provides:
private rights or claims of
Petitioner claimed therein that the
Petitioner.
implementation of BSV Resolution
Section
No. 98-096 would cause grave
21. Closure and Therefore, an ordinance is not
injustice and irreparable injury as
Opening of necessary to open the roads lots if
the affected homeowners acquired
Roads. (a) A their titles are already in the name
their properties for strictly
local of the local government unit,
residential purposes. Executive
government which is the Barangay Sun Valley
Judge Helen Bautista-Ricafort of
unit in this case.
the RTC issued a TRO.
may, pursuant
to an
In the Amended Petition, Petitioner
ordinance, per
argued that
manently or te
a Barangay Resolution cannot
mporarily close
validly cause the opening of the
or open any
subject roads because under the
local road,
law, an ordinance is required to
alley, park, or
effect such an act. The RTC
square falling
dismissed the Petition. The CA
within its
denied the appeal and affirmed the
jurisdiction: Pr
Orders of the RTC.
ovided,
however, That
Petitioner alleged that the CA
in case of
should not have relied on
permanent
respondent’s claim of ownership,
closure, such
as this led to the erroneous
ordinance must
conclusion that there was no need
be approved by
to pass an ordinance. Petitioner
at least two-
also argued that the supposed titles
thirds (2/3) of
to the subject roads were never
all the members
submitted to the RTC. On the other
of the
hand, Respondents alleged that the
sanggunian,
issuance of the titles in favor
and when
of Paraaque over all the roads in
necessary, an
Sun Valley Subdivision was an
adequate
official act by the land registration
substitute for