25. ALOLINO VS. FLORES, G.R. No.

198774

FACTS

Alolino is the registered owner of 2 contiguous parcels of land where he constructed a bungalow-type
house then he added a second floor to the structure. He also extended his two-storey house up to the
edge of his property. In 1994, the respondent spouses Fortunato and Anastacia (Marie) Flores
constructed their house/sari-sari store on the vacant municipal/barrio road immediately adjoining the
wall of Alolino's house. Since they were constructing on a municipal road, the respondents could not
secure a building permit. The respondents' construction deprived Alolino of the light and ventilation he
had previously enjoyed and prevented his ingress and egress to the municipal road through the rear
door of his house.

Alolino demanded that the respondent spouses remove their structure but the latter refused. Thus, he
complained to the Building Official of the Municipality. The Building Official issued a Notice of Illegal
Construction against the respondents, directing them to immediately stop further construction.

However, the respondents began constructing a second floor to their structure, again without securing a
building permit. The construction prompted Alolino to file another complaint.

The building official ordered the respondents to desist from their illegal construction.

ISSUES

Whether or not respondent’s house was built on a government property.

HELD

The respondents’ house/sari sari store is built on a government property. Properties of Local
Government Units (LGUs) are classified as either property for public use or patrimonial property.

Article 424 of the Civil Code distinguishes between the two classifications:

Article 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and municipalities, consist of the

Provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters,
promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or
municipalities.

All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code,
without prejudice to the provisions of special laws.

From the foregoing, the barrio road adjacent to Alolino's house is property of public dominion devoted
to public use. We find no merit in the respondents' contention that the Local Government of Taguig had
already withdrawn the subject barrio road from public use and reclassified it as residential lot. The Local
Government Code authorizes an LGU to withdraw local road from public use under the following
conditions:

Section 21. Closure and Opening of Roads

(a)A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or open
any local road, alley, park, or square falling within its jurisdiction; Provided, however, That in case of
permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the members of
the Sanggunian, and when necessary, inadequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to
closure is provided.
(b) No such way or place or any part thereof shall be permanently closed without making provisions for
the maintenance of public safety therein.

A property thus permanently withdrawn from public use may be used or conveyed for any purpose for
which other real property belonging to the local government unit concerned may be lawfully used or
conveyed.

In this case, the Sanggunian did not enact an ordinance but merely passed a resolution. Properties of the
local government that are devoted to public service are deemed public and are under the absolute
control of Congress.

We must distinguish between the respondents' house and the land it is built on. The land itself is public
property devoted to public use. It is not susceptible to prescription and cannot be burdened with
voluntary easements. On the other hand, the respondents' house is private property, albeit illegally
constructed on public property. It can be the object of prescription and can be burdened with voluntary
easements. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the respondents have not voluntarily burdened their
property with an easement in favor of Alolino.

On the other hand, an easement of light and view can be acquired through prescription counting from
the time when the owner of the dominant estate formally prohibits the adjoining lot owner from
blocking the view of a window located within the dominant estate.

Notably, Alolino had not made (and could not have made) a formal prohibition upon the respondents
prior to their construction in 1994; Alolino could not have acquired an easement of light and view
through prescription. Thus, only easements created by law can burden the respondents' property.

A barrio road is designated for the use of the general public who are entitled to free and unobstructed
passage thereon. Permanent obstructions on these roads, such as the respondents' illegally constructed
house, are injurious to public welfare and convenience. The occupation and use of private individuals of
public places devoted to public use constitute public and private nuisances and nuisance per se

The CA clearly erred when it invoked Section 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act as a ground
to deny the demolition of respondents' illegal structure. The invoked provision itself allows the
demolition of illegal structures on public roads and sidewalks because these nuisances are injurious to
public welfare. Evidently, the respondents have no right to maintain their occupation and permanent
obstruction of the barrio road. The interests of the few do not outweigh the greater interest of public
health, public safety, good order, and general welfare.