ESTATE OF GREGORIA FRANCISCO v CA [GR No.
95279 (July 25, 1991)]
Quick facts: Quonset used for copra storage demolished by virtue of Ordinance No.
147 which states that structures that do not conform to the Zoning regulations
should be relocated and failure to do so would entail condemnation or removal at
owner’s expense.
Nature: Petition to review the judgment of the CA.
Ponente: J. Melencio-Herrera
Facts:
 A Quonset in Basilan – constructed in 1944 by the American Liberation
Forces; purchased by Gregoria Francisco (died in 1976) in 1946; stands on
land owned by the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) – was ordered
demolished by the Municipal Mayor, Valencia.
 Proc. No. 83 issued by Pres. Quirino declared land for the exclusive use of
port facilities.
 January 10, 1989: PPA issued to Tan Gin San, the husband of deceased
Francisco, a permit to occupy the building for a year, until December 31,
1989.
 May 8L Mayor notified Tan Gin San by mail to relocate or remove his
Quonset by virtue of Zoning Ord. 147 stressing the “clean-up campaign on
illegal squatters and unsanitary surroundings along Strong Boulevard.”
 May 19, another notice was sent. May 24: demolition was ordered by
Mayor.
 Petitioner filed with RTC suit for a Writ of Prohibition with Injunction and
damages.
 RTC: denied writ, upheld power of Mayor to order demolition without
judicial authority
 Sept. 6: Quonset was completely demolished
 CA (1st decision): reversed TC; Quonset not a nuisance per se; Mayor
needed judicial decision
 CA (2nd decision): reversed itself; deficiency (lack of judicial declaration)
cured when petitioner filed the petition for prohibition and was heard on
oral argument.
Issue: WON Mayor could summarily, without judicial process, order the demolition
of petitioner’s Quonset building.
Held/Ratio:
NO. There is no doubt that the Quonset is a non-conforming structure as per the
Municipal Ordinance; and that in the event that an immediate relocation of the
building cannot be accomplished, section 16 of the Ordinance provides that “… the
non-conforming use may be condemned or removed at the owner’s expense.”
a. This provision does not empower the Municipal Mayor to order a summary
removal of the structure. If it does, it must be struck down for being in
contravention to the requirements of due process.
b. Violation of the ordinance neither empowers the Municipal Mayor to avail of
extra-judicial remedies.
The Local Government Code imposes upon the Mayor the duty “to cause to be
instituted judicial proceedings in connection with the violation of ordinances.”
NOT ABATEMENT OF NUISSANCE (police power) without judicial
proceedings.
a) Only applies to nuisance per se – affects the immediate safety of persons
and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of
necessity (Monteverde v Generoso).
b) Storage of copra in the Quonset is a legitimate business, cannot be said to
be injurious to rights of property, of health or of comfort of the community.
c) If it is a nuisance per accidens, it must be proven in a hearing conducted
for that purpose.
d) Sanguniaang Bayan cannot DECLARE a particular thing as a nuisance
per se – can ONLY BE adjudged by judicial determination.
Judgment set aside. CA (1st decision) reinstated, remanded to RTC to determine just
compensation for petitioner for the demolished Quonset.
ESTATE OF GREGORIA FRANCISCO v CA [GR No. 95279 (July 25, 1991)]
Quick facts: Quonset used for copra storage demolished by virtue of Ordinance No.
147 which states that structures that do not conform to the Zoning regulations
should be relocated and failure to do so would entail condemnation or removal at
owner’s expense.
Nature: Petition to review the judgment of the CA.
Ponente: J. Melencio-Herrera
Facts:
 A Quonset in Basilan – constructed in 1944 by the American Liberation
Forces; purchased by Gregoria Francisco (died in 1976) in 1946; stands on
land owned by the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) – was ordered
demolished by the Municipal Mayor, Valencia.
 Proc. No. 83 issued by Pres. Quirino declared land for the exclusive use of
port facilities.
 January 10, 1989: PPA issued to Tan Gin San, the husband of deceased
Francisco, a permit to occupy the building for a year, until December 31,
1989.
 May 8L Mayor notified Tan Gin San by mail to relocate or remove his
Quonset by virtue of Zoning Ord. 147 stressing the “clean-up campaign on
illegal squatters and unsanitary surroundings along Strong Boulevard.”
 May 19, another notice was sent. May 24: demolition was ordered by
Mayor.
 Petitioner filed with RTC suit for a Writ of Prohibition with Injunction and
damages.
 RTC: denied writ, upheld power of Mayor to order demolition without
judicial authority
 Sept. 6: Quonset was completely demolished
 CA (1st decision): reversed TC; Quonset not a nuisance per se; Mayor
needed judicial decision
 CA (2nd decision): reversed itself; deficiency (lack of judicial declaration)
cured when petitioner filed the petition for prohibition and was heard on
oral argument.
Issue: WON Mayor could summarily, without judicial process, order the demolition
of petitioner’s Quonset building.
Held/Ratio:
NO. There is no doubt that the Quonset is a non-conforming structure as per the
Municipal Ordinance; and that in the event that an immediate relocation of the
building cannot be accomplished, section 16 of the Ordinance provides that “… the
non-conforming use may be condemned or removed at the owner’s expense.”
 c. This provision does not empower the Municipal Mayor to order a summary
removal of the structure. If it does, it must be struck down for being in
contravention to the requirements of due process.
d. Violation of the ordinance neither empowers the Municipal Mayor to avail of
extra-judicial remedies.

The Local Government Code imposes upon the Mayor the duty “to cause to be
instituted judicial proceedings in connection with the violation of ordinances.”

NOT ABATEMENT OF NUISSANCE (police power) without judicial

proceedings.
e) Only applies to nuisance per se – affects the immediate safety of persons
and property and may be summarily abated under the undefined law of
necessity (Monteverde v Generoso).
f) Storage of copra in the Quonset is a legitimate business, cannot be said to
be injurious to rights of property, of health or of comfort of the community.
g) If it is a nuisance per accidens, it must be proven in a hearing conducted
for that purpose.
h) Sanguniaang Bayan cannot DECLARE a particular thing as a nuisance
per se – can ONLY BE adjudged by judicial determination.

Judgment set aside. CA (1st decision) reinstated, remanded to RTC to determine just
compensation for petitioner for the demolished Quonset.