No.

A. Doctrine:

Section 56 (d) of the LGC provides : If no action has been taken by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan within thirty (30) days after submission of such an ordinance or resolution,
the same shall be presumed consistent with law and therefore valid. Par. (d) should be
read in conjunction with par. (c), in order to arrive at the meaning of the disputed word,
"action." It is clear, based on the foregoing provision, that the action that must be
entered in the minutes of the sangguniangpanlalawigan is the declaration of the
sangguniangpanlalawigan that the ordinance is invalid in whole or in part. x xx.

This construction would be more in consonance with the rule of statutory construction
that the parts of a statute must be read together in such a manner as to give effect to all
of them and that such parts shall not be construed as contradicting each other. x xx
laws are given a reasonable construction such that apparently conflicting provisions are
allowed to stand and given effect by reconciling them, reference being had to the
moving spirit behind the enactment of the statute.(IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 7 OF
THE CIVIL CODE)

B. Case Title: Ramonito O. Acaacvs. Melquiades D. Azcuna, G.R. No. 187378 (J.
Sereno) (30September 2013)

C. Facts:

Petitioner People’s Eco-Tourism and Livelihood Foundation, Inc. (PETAL Foundation) is

a non-governmental organization, which is engaged in the protection and conservation
of ecology, tourism, and livelihood projects within Misamis Occidental.PETAL built some
cottages on Capayas Island which it rented out to the public and became the source of
livelihood of its beneficiaries,among whom are petitioners Hector Acaac and Romeo
Bulawin.

Respondents Mayor Azcuna and Building Official Bonalos issued Notices of Illegal
Construction against PETAL for its failure to apply for a building permit prior to the
construction of its buildings in violation of the Building Code ordering it to stop all illegal
building activities on Capayas Island. On July 8, 2002 the Sangguniang Bayan of Jaena
Lopez adopted a Municipal Ordinance which prohibited, among others : (a) the entry of
any entity, association, corporation or organization inside the sanctuaries;and (b) the
construction of any structures, permanent or temporary, on the premises, except if
authorized by the local government.

On July 12, 2002, Azcuna approved the subject ordinance; hence, the same was
submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Misamis Occidental (SP), which in turn,
conducted a joint hearing on the matter. Thereafter, notices were posted at the
designated areas, including Capayas Island, declaring the premises as government
property and prohibiting ingress and egress thereto.
A Notice of Voluntary Demolition was served upon PETAL directing it to remove the
structures it built on Capayas Island.

Petitioners filed an action praying for the issuance of a TRO, injunction and
damagesagainst respondents alleging that they have prior vested rights to occupy and
utilize Capayas Island. Moreover, PETAL assailed the validity of the subject ordinance
on the following grounds : (a) it was adopted without public consultation; (b) it was not
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the province as required by the Local
Government Code (LGC); and (c) it was not approved by the SP. Therefore, its
implementation should be enjoined.

Respondents averred that petitioners have no cause of action against them since they
are not the lawful owners or lessees of Capayas Island, which was classified as
timberland and property belonging to the public domain.

The RTC declared the ordinance as invalid/void.

On appeal, the CA held that the subject ordinance was deemed approved upon failure
of the SP to declare the same invalid within 30 days after its submission in accordance
with Section 56 of the LGC. Having enacted the subject ordinance within its powers as a
municipality and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, the CA
pronounced that the subject ordinance is valid.

D. Issue/s:

Whether or not the subject ordinance is valid and enforceable against petitioners.

E. Held:

Section 56 (d) of the LGC provides : If no action has been taken by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan within thirty (30) days after submission of such an ordinance or resolution,
the same shall be presumed consistent with law and therefore valid.

It is noteworthy that petitioner's own evidence reveals that a public hearing

was conducted prior to the promulgation of the subject ordinance. Moreover, other than
their bare allegations, petitioners failed to present any evidence to show that no
publication or posting of the subject ordinance was made.

While it is true that he likewise failed to submit any other evidence thereon, still, in
accordance with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance, its constitutionality
or legality should be upheld in the absence of any controverting evidence that the
procedure prescribed by law was not observed in its enactment. Likewise, petitioners
had the burden of proving their own allegation, which they, however, failed to do.

In the similar case of Figuerres v. CA, 364 Phil. 683(1999) citing United States v.
Cristobal, 34 Phil. 825 (1916), the Court upheld the presumptive validity of the
ordinance therein despite the lack of controverting evidence on the part of the local
government to show that public hearings were conducted in light of : (a) the oppositors
equal lack of controverting evidence to demonstrate the local governments non-
compliance with the said public hearing; and (b) the fact that the local governments non-
compliance was a negative allegation essential to the oppositors cause of action.
Hence, as petitioner is the party asserting it, she has the burden of proof. Since
petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of validity in favor of the subject ordinances
and to discharge the burden of proving that no public hearings were conducted prior to
the enactment thereof, we are constrained to uphold their constitutionality or legality.

WHEREFORE the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 30, 2008 and
Resolution dated March 9, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 00284-MIN
are hereby AFFIRMED.