Digested by: Salman M.

Johayr

RP v. Mijares
[GR No. 170615; July 9, 2009]

Facts:

This case against respondents started from a controversy involving a parcel of land owned
by the Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) located in Barangay
Pinugay, Baras, Rizal. Claiming that the subject land is covered by the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), members of the Southern Pinugay Farmers Multi-
Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (SPFMPCI) occupied about 100 hectares thereof. They
introduced improvements such as houses, fruit-bearing trees, vegetables, palay and other
crops.

PHILCOMSAT filed a protest before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)

claiming that the land was exempt from CARP coverage since it was an integral part of the
Philippine Space Communications Operation. The DAR denied the protest. PHILCOMSAT
then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the petition,
respondent Mayor Roberto G. Ferrera issued an order directing respondent Engr. Romeo
Querubin to demolish the said houses and improvements. Meanwhile, in a pending case
between PHILCOMSAT and SPFMPCI before the Commission on the Settlement of Land
Problems, respondent Commissioner Rufino V. Mijares issued an order interposing no
objection to the order of demolition. Ferrera then directed Querubin to implement the order.
He also sought police assistance. On March 24, 2000, the houses and improvements on the
subject land were demolished and destroyed. As a result, SPFMPCI filed an administrative
case for grave misconduct and harassment against respondents before the Office of the
Ombudsman. In their Joint Counter-Affidavit, respondents argued that the SPFMPCI
members were not in the list of occupants/potential farmer-beneficiaries Thus, they were
illegal entrants whose houses and improvements constituted a nuisance that may be abated.

Issue:

Whether or not the summary demolition of the houses owned by farmer-members of

the SPFMPCI violated RA 7279 and PD 1096 and thus, constituted nuisance

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court instead finds the reliance of both parties on the provisions of
Rep. Act No. 7279 and P.D. No. 1096 misplaced and that the demolition implemented by
respondents in order. If under Rep. Act No. 7279, demolition and eviction are allowed when
individuals have been identified as professional squatters and squatting syndicates or when
they occupy danger areas and other public places, and under P.D. No. 1096, they construct
dangerous and ruinous buildings or structures, thus, more reason the SPFMPCI members
should be summarily evicted and their structures and dwellings demolished. The parcel of
land involved in this case is a security zone whose operations must be protected from any
form of disruption. It must be protected from all types of squatters, including the SPFMPCI
members, who might create danger to a very important national telecommunications facility.
Hence, Clearly, respondents acted within the limits of the law when they implemented the
demolition.
Digested by: Salman M. Johayr

Telmo v. Bustamante

[GR No. 182567; July 13, 2009]

Facts:

The complaint alleged that respondent is a co-owner of a real property of 616 square
meters in Brgy. Halang, Naic, Cavite, known as Lot 952-A and covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-957643 of the Register of Deeds of Cavite. Petitioner and Elizalde
Telmo (Telmos) are the owners of the two (2) parcels of land denominated as Lot 952-B and
952-C, respectively, located at the back of respondents lot. When his lot was transgressed
by the construction of the Noveleta-Naic-Tagaytay Road, respondent offered for sale the
remaining lot to the Telmos. The latter refused because they said they would have no use for
it, the remaining portion being covered by the roads 10-meter easement. The complaint
further alleged that, on May 8, 2005, respondent caused the resurvey of Lot 952-A in the
presence of the Telmos

On May 10, 2005, respondent put up concrete poles on his lot. However, around 7:00
p.m. of the same day, the Telmos and their men allegedly destroyed the concrete poles. The
following day, respondents relatives went to Brgy Chairman Consumo to report the
destruction of the concrete poles. Consumo told them that he would not record the same,
because he was present when the incident occurred. Consumo never recorded the incident
in the barangay blotter. Respondent complained that he and his co-owners did not receive
any just compensation from the government when it took a portion of their property for the
construction of the Noveleta-Naic-Tagaytay Road. Worse, they could not enjoy the use of
the remaining part of their lot due to the abusive, Illegal, and unjust acts of the Telmos and
Consumo.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner’s contention that the concrete posts erected by respondent
were a public nuisance under Article 694

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court held in negative and finds no merit on the contention of the
petitioner that respondent’s concrete posts were in the nature of a nuisance per se, which
may be the subject of summary abatement sans any judicial proceedings

It should be noted that a nuisance per se is that which affects the immediate safety of
persons and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity.
Evidently, the concrete posts summarily removed by petitioner did not at all pose a hazard to
the safety of persons and properties, which would have necessitated immediate and
summary abatement. What they did, at most, was to pose an inconvenience to the public by
blocking the free passage of people to and from the national road.