University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021

Topic Gen Prov.>Basic Principles>Gen. Power & Attributes> General Welfare Clause
Case Name Patalinhug vs CA
Case No. & Date G.R. No. 104786/(1994)
Ponente ROMERO, J.
Petitioners ALFREDO PATALINGHUG,
Respondents HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RICARDO
CRIBILLO, MARTIN ARAPOL, CORAZON ALCASID, PRIMITIVA SEDO

Summary (recit- Petitioner Patalinhug applied for and got a building permit for constructing a funeral home in a certain
friendly) avenue in Davao. Private respondents opposed saying he violated a city ordinance which disallows
construction of funeral homes within 50 meters from any residential structures, churches and other
institutional buildings. It is near and within a building which respondents claim to be residential and according
to its tax declaration is residential, but is rented out to a laundry shop. RTC ruled it was commercial, CA ruled
it was residential, and SC reversed the CA, stating that a tax declaration is not conclusive of the nature of the
property for zoning purposes. Even if the building was declared for taxation purposes as residential, once a
local government has reclassified an area as commercial, that determination for zoning purposes must
prevail. This was deemed by the SC as an exercise of police power. Therefore, the funeral home may be built.
Doctrine/s The declaration of the said area as a commercial zone thru a municipal ordinance is an exercise of police
power to promote the good order and general welfare of the people in the locality. Corollary thereto, the
state, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with
business and occupations.

RELEVANT FACTS
1. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance No. 363 “Expanded Zoning Ordinance of Davao
City(Yr.1982)
2. Sec. 8 of said ordinance stated that funeral homes may be located in C-2 districts (dominantly commercial and
compatible industrial uses.) provided that they shall be established not less than 50 meters from any residential
structures, churches and other institutional buildings.
3. A building permit was issued by the City Zoning Administrator to petitioner for the construction of a funeral parlor
(Metropolitan Funeral Parlor) at Cabaguio Avenue, Agdao, Davao City. Petitioner proceeded with the construction.
4. Acting on the complaint of several residents that petitioner violated Ordinance 363, Sang. Panlusod conducted an
investigation and found that it was built near a residential building and an INC church.
5. Petitioner still continued and finished the construction; private respondents filed a case for the declaration of nullity of
a building permit with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and/or restraining order with the trial court.
6. RTC ruled for the petitioner, finding the INC church outside of the ordinance’s stated proximity limits; and that the
residential building near said location was actually being used as a laundry shop instead.
7. CA reversed, and ruled for respondents, mainly due to finding that the residential building was within the 50-m limit
and was declared a residential lot in its tax declaration.(despite being rented for a laundry business)

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
whether or not In this case, SC held that because the findings of the RTC and the CA were conflicting, it can delve into
petitioner’s operation the factual issues. SC examined the pleadings and transcripts submitted to the trial court and found:
of a funeral home 1. testimony of City Councilor Vergara shows that the residential building was used for a dual
constitutes purpose both as a dwelling and as a place where a laundry business was conducted, but while
permissible use within its commercial aspect has been established by the presence of machineries and laundry
a particular district or paraphernalia, its use as a residence, other than being declared for taxation purposes as such,
zone in Davao City was not fully substantiated.
(YES, permissible)
A tax declaration is not conclusive of the nature of the property for zoning purposes. A property may
have been declared by its owner as residential for real estate taxation purposes but it may well be
within a commercial zone. A discrepancy may thus exist in the determination of the nature of property
for real estate taxation purposes vis-à-vis the determination of a property for zoning purposes.
 University of the Philippines College of Law | LocGov | D2021

RTC’s finding that the residential building was indeed commercial was strengthened by the ordinance in
question as it has declared the area as commercial. Even if the building was declared for taxation
purposes as residential, once a local government has reclassified an area as commercial, that
determination for zoning purposes must prevail. While the commercial character of the questioned
vicinity has been declared thru the ordinance,
private respondents have failed to present convincing arguments to substantiate their claim that
Cabaguio Avenue, where the funeral parlor was constructed, was still a residential zone.

The declaration of the said area as a commercial zone thru a municipal ordinance is an exercise of
police power to promote the good order and general welfare of the people in the locality. Corollary
thereto, the state, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with personal liberty, with
property, and with business and occupations.

 Thus, persons may be subjected to certain kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the
general welfare of the state and to this fundamental aim of government, the rights of the individual
may be subordinated. The ordinance which regulates the location of funeral homes has been
adopted as part of comprehensive zoning plans for the orderly development of the area covered
thereunder.

Dispositive: Decision reversed; RTC order reinstated.