–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Alolino v Flores
[G.R. No. 198774] | [April 4, 2016] | [BRION, J]

Petitioner: TEOFILO ALOLINO

Respondent: FORTUNATO FLORES and ANASTACIA MARIE FLORES

Doctrine:
 NCC
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. 14 (emphasis supplied)

Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything
else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or
(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of
water; or
(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property. (emphasis supplied)

 Local Government Code

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, an adequate 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 A property thus permanently withdrawn from public use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. . . .

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
CASE SUMMARY

Trigger word/s: barrio road

FACTS: Respondent spouses Flores constructed their house/sari sari store on the vacant municipal/barrio
road immediately adjoining the rear perimeter wall of petitioner Alolino's house. The structure was constructed
without a permit, deprived Alolino of the light and ventilation he had previously enjoyed and prevented his
access to the municipal road through the rear door of his house so he sought the removal of the structure and
the payment of damages.
HELD: Alolino’s petition was granted. The respondent spouses were ordered to remove and demolish their
illegal structure and pay the petitioner attorney’s fees. The respondents built their house/sari-sari store on a
barrio road which is classified as property for public use under Art. 424 of the NCC. The reclassification of the
barrio road to a residential lot by the LGU of Taguig was ineffective because it failed to comply with the
conditions in Sec. 21 of the Local Government Code on the enactment of an ordinance approved by at least
2/3 of the Sanggunian members. Moreover, the respondents’ house was a nuisance as defined in Art. 694 of
the NCC because it obstructed passage of the barrio road.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
FACTS

 1977 – Petitioner Teofilo Alolino was the registered owner of 2 adjoining parcels of land situated at No.
47 Gen. Luna Street, Barangay Tuktukan, Taguig
 1980 – Petitioner Alolino extended his two-storey house up to the edge of his property
 1994 - the respondent spouses Fortunato and Anastacia (Marie) Flores constructed their house/sari
sari store on the vacant municipal/barrio road immediately adjoining the rear perimeter wall of Alolino's
house
 The house/sari-sari store was:
o constructed on a municipal road so the respondent spouses could not secure a building permit
o only about 2 to 3 inches away from the back of Alolino's house, covering 5 windows and the exit
door
o 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
 2003 - Alolino filed a complaint against the respondents with the RTC praying for: (1) the removal of the
encroaching structure; (2) the enforcement of his right to easement of light and view; and (3) the
payment of damages.
CASE TRAIL
[RTC]: Complaint was affirmed, in favor of petitioner Alolino
● Respondents’ house/sari-sari store blocked petitioner’s easement of light and view and prevented him
from using the back portion of his property. It was also a public nuisance (illegally constructed on a
barrio road which is a government property without a building permit).
CA: Complaint was dismissed, in favor of respondent Spouses Flores.
● Lack of merit.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
ISSUES & HELD

1. W/N the respondents built their house/sari-sari store on government property - YES
● [Respondent]’s argument/s: The Local Government of Taguig had already withdrawn the subject barrio
road from public use and reclassified it as a residential lot.
● SC: The barrio road adjacent to Alolino's house is property of public dominion devoted to public use.
o Basis: Classification of properties of Local Government Units under Art. 424 of the NCC

o Respondents’ argument has no merit because the Sec. 21 of the Local Government Code
requires the LGU to enact an ordinance, approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of the Sanggunian
members, permanently closing the road to convert a barrio road into patrimonial property. In this
case, the Sanggunian did not enact an ordinance but merely passed a resolution. An
ordinance is a law but a resolution is only a declaration of sentiment or opinion of the legislative
body.

o Barrio road, features (outside the commerce of man and for public use):
 it is not alienable or disposable
 it is not subject to registration under Presidential Decree No. 1529 and cannot be the
subject of a Torrens title
 it is not susceptible to prescription
 it cannot be leased, sold, or otherwise be the object of a contract
  it is not subject to attachment and execution
 it cannot be burdened by any voluntary easements.
2. W/N Petitioner Alolino has an easement of light and view or an easement of right of way over the
respondents' property or the barrio road it stands on – NO

3. W/N the respondents’ house is a nuisance – YES

 Basis: Art. 694 of the NCC
 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.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
RULING: Petition granted.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94524 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 153 in Civil Case
No. 69320 is REINSTATED.

The respondents, and all persons claiming rights under them, are ORDERED to remove and demolish their
illegal structure. The respondents are also ORDERED to pay the petitioner the sum of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00) as attorney's fees. Costs against the respondents. SO ORDERED.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
NOTES