Gancayco vs.

City Government of Quezon City

G.R. No. 177807 & 177933
Ponente: SERENO, J
Decision Date: Oct 11, 2011
Retired Justice Emilio Gancayco challenges the constitutionality of a Quezon City
ordinance requiring the construction of arcades, leading to a legal battle with the
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and the City Government of
Quezon City over the demolition of his property.
Facts:
Retired Justice Emilio Gancayco challenged the constitutionality of a Quezon City
ordinance requiring the construction of arcades. In the early 1950s, Justice Gancayco
purchased a parcel of land in Quezon City. In 1956, the Quezon City Council issued
Ordinance No. 2904, which mandated property owners to construct arcades for
commercial buildings in designated business zones. The ordinance specified the
dimensions of the arcades along a certain stretch of road. In 1965, Justice Gancayco
requested an exemption from the ordinance for a two-storey building he was
constructing on his property. The City Council granted his request, with the condition
that he demolish the arcade if public interest demanded it. In 2003, the Metropolitan
Manila Development Authority (MMDA) sent a notice of demolition to Justice Gancayco,
alleging that a portion of his building violated the National Building Code in relation to
Ordinance No. 2904. The MMDA proceeded to demolish the wing walls of the building.
Issue:
The main issues raised in the case were: (1) whether Justice Gancayco was estopped
from challenging the validity of the ordinance; (2) whether the ordinance was
constitutional; (3) whether the wing walls of Justice Gancayco's building were a public
nuisance; and (4) whether the MMDA legally demolished the property.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Justice Gancayco on the first issue, declaring that
he was not estopped from challenging the ordinance. On the second issue, the Court
upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance, stating that it was a valid exercise of police
power by the City Government of Quezon City. On the third issue, the Court held that
the wing walls of the building were not nuisances per se, as evidenced by the
exemption granted to Justice Gancayco in 1966. Finally, on the fourth issue, the Court
ruled that the MMDA illegally demolished Justice Gancayco's property, as the MMDA
did not have the authority to order the demolition and there was no valid delegation of
powers from the City Government of Quezon City to the MMDA.
Ratio:
The Court reasoned that Justice Gancayco was not estopped from challenging the
ordinance because he was only deprived of his property in 2003, after being granted an
exemption in 1966. The Court further explained that the ordinance was a valid exercise
of police power by the City Government of Quezon City. Zoning and the regulation of
building construction are considered valid exercises of police power.
Regarding the issue of the wing walls being a public nuisance, the Court emphasized
that only courts of law have the power to determine whether a thing is a nuisance. In
this case, the exemption granted to Justice Gancayco in 1966 indicated that the wing
walls were not nuisances per se.
Lastly, the Court held that the MMDA did not have the authority to order the demolition
of Justice Gancayco's property. The power to order demolition lies with the Building
Official, and there was no valid delegation of powers from the City Government of
Quezon City to the MMDA. Therefore, the MMDA's actions in demolishing the property
were deemed illegal.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals,
upholding the validity of the ordinance but lifting the injunction against its enforcement.
The Court held that Justice Gancayco was not estopped from challenging the
ordinance, that the ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, that the wing walls
were not nuisances per se, and that the MMDA illegally demolished the property.