Francisco vs.

CA
[July 25, 1991]

FACTS: Litigated herein is a Quonset building initially purchased by Gregoria Francisco and standing on a
lot owned by the Philippine Ports Authority. Some years after Francisco’s death, PPA issued a permit to
occupy to Tan Gin San, Francisco’s surviving spouse, valid for one year, which he used for storage of
copra. Respondent Mayor, through respondent Municipal Action Officer, notified petitioner to remove
or relocate the Quonset building citing Zoning Ordinance No. 147 of the municipality; noting its
antiquated and dilapidated structure; and. stressing the "clean-up campaign on illegal squatters and
unsanitary surroundings along Strong Boulevard." Since the notifications remained unheeded by
petitioner, Respondent Mayor ordered its demolition. Petitioner sought a Writ of Prohibition which was
denied by the trial court, and later on also denied by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE(s): Whether or not Respondent Mayor could summarily, without judicial process, order the
demolition of petitioner's quonset building.

RULING: Respondent Mayor may not summarily order the demolition of petitioner’s Quonset building
without judicial process. It is without a doubt that under the Municipal Ordinance being cited, it is
referred to as a non-conforming structure which should be relocated, and that section 16 of the
ordinance states that the non-conforming use may be condemned or removed at the owner’s expense.
However, violation of such provision does not give the Mayor the power to avail of extra-judicial
remedies because this constitutes a contravention on the requirements of due process. The Local
Government Code imposes upon the Mayor duty "to cause to be instituted judicial proceedings in
connection with the violation of ordinances.

Furthermore, respondents cannot seek cover under the general welfare clause authorizing the
abatement of nuisances without judicial proceeding. The storage of copra in the quonset building is a
legitimate business. By its nature, it cannot be said to be injurious to rights of property, of health or of
comfort of the community. If it be a nuisance per accidens it may be so proven in a hearing conducted
for that purpose. Lastly, while the Sangguniang Bayan may provide for the abatement of a nuisance, the
nuisance can only be adjudged by judicial determination.