You are on page 1of 8

BONIFACIO NAKPIL, petitioner,

vs.
MANILA TOWERS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.
x--------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 160886 September 20, 2006
MANILA TOWERS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
BONIFACIO NAKPIL, respondent.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
This is a consolidation of two Petitions for Review, assailing the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 72289 dated August 25, 2003 and the Resolution
dated November 19, 2003 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
The Antecedents
A 14-storey high rise building was constructed at 777 Ongpin St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. Sometime in 1964, its owner, Cheong Kiao Ang, leased the building to about 200 Filipino
Chinese tenants who used the same for either residential or commercial purposes. One of these tenants was Atty. Bonifacio Nakpil who leased Room 204 in the mezzanine
floor. He used the unit as his law office.2 The tenants of the building later formed the House International Building Tenants Association, Inc. (HIBTAI).
The property was mortgaged with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) as security for a loan Ang had earlier obtained. Upon failure to pay the loan, the GSIS
had the real estate mortgage foreclosed and the property sold at public auction, with GSIS as the winning bidder. The latter, in turn, sold the property to the Centertown
Marketing Corporation (CMC) which assigned all its rights to its sister-corporation, the Manila Tower Development Corporation (MTDC) for P21,000,000.00. The HIBTAI
protested, claiming that its members had the priority to buy the property.3 The tenants refused to pay their rentals and instead remitted them to HIBTAI.
On June 29, 1981, the City Engineer wrote the MTDC, through Luis Javellana, requesting that the defects of the building be corrected. The City Engineer warned the MTDC
that the defects were serious and would endanger the lives of the tenants if not immediately corrected. The City Engineer reiterated his request in a letter dated July 10, 1981
to MTDC urging that the building be immediately repaired. However, before the MTDC could make the necessary repairs, the HIBTAI, on October 2, 1982, filed a complaint
against the GSIS for injunction and damages in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila.
On January 31, 1983, the court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint. However, on February 23, 1983, HIBTAI filed another complaint for annulment of contract and
damages in the CFI of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 83-15875, against the CMC, MTDC and GSIS. It averred that under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1517, the
tenants had the priority right to purchase the property. The court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint, prompting HIBTAI to appeal the decision to the appellate court.
The ruling of the trial court was later affirmed on February 4, 1986. HIBTAI assailed the ruling in this Court via petition for review. On June 30, 1987, this Court rendered
judgment affirming the decision of the CA.4 According to the Court, the tenants of the building, not the HIBTAI, were the real parties-in-interest as parties-plaintiffs.
About eight (8) years later, on October 12, 1995, Atty. Samuel S. Samuela, the building administrator, wrote Architect Juan A. Maravillas, Jr., then Officer-in-Charge (OIC),
Office of the Building Official, City of Manila, requesting for an immediate ocular inspection of the building to determine its safety. The letter mentioned that, as far back as
1981, the City Engineer and Building Official had ordered the building condemned after inspection. Atty. Samuela stated that when the MTDC was about to initiate the repairs
on the building, the tenants filed several suits against it; this prevented MTDC from complying with the said order. During the pendency of these cases, the tenants likewise
took control of the building and even illegally put up structures in the building without MTDC's consent. He pleaded to the Building Official to give priority to his request to
prevent undue injuries and protect the lives of the tenants.5
The City Building Official granted the request and scheduled an ocular inspection of the building at 2:00 p.m. on October 24, 1995.6
With prior notices to the tenants and in the presence of a representative of HIBTAI, Amado Ramoneda, the representatives of the Office of the Building Official conducted an
ocular inspection of the building.7 On November 3, 1995, they submitted a Building Inspection Report with the following findings:
I. STRUCTURAL ASPECT (Sec. 3.1 Rule VII-IRR)
1. Cracks on the exterior interior walls are prominent which manifest earthquake movement and decrease in seismic resistance. Damages to beams
and columns are feasible.
II. ELECTRICAL ASPECT (Sec. 3.3 Rule VII-IRR)
2. Wiring system are already old, obsolete and not properly maintained;
3. Some junction boxes are not properly covered thus exposing the wiring connections;
4. Usage of dangling extension cords and octopus wiring connections were likewise observed.
III. SANITARY/PLUMBING ASPECT (Sec. 3.5 Rule VII-IRR)
5. Defective sanitary/plumbing installations;
6. Poor drainage system that caused the stagnation of waste water within the back part (Ground Floor) of the building;
7. All sanitary/plumbing fixtures on vacated 9th, 10th & 11th floors, due to lack of proper maintenance has los[t] their trap seals, this allowed the escape
of toxicating sewer gas from the system.
IV. ARCHITECTURAL ASPECT (Sec. 3.6 Rule VII-IRR).
8. Steel frames and roofings at deck are rusted/corroded and inadequately maintained;
9. Broken window glass panes and rusted steel casement;
10. Inadequate light and ventilation resulting from illegal constructions at the required open space areas;
11. Illegal use of 14th floor as sauna bath parlor which is non-conforming to City Ordinance.
OTHERS
12. Non-compliance with the provisions of BP 344, the Law to Enhance Mobility of Disabled Persons;
13. Illegal construction at the estero easement area and at the required open spaces in violations of Section 3.8 Rule VII-IRR.8 (Underscoring supplied)
The City Building Official recommended that the windows glass/frames be repaired and the illegally appended structures removed. It was also recommended that the use of
the sauna bath be discontinued and the old electrical wiring system and fixtures be replaced. He also stated that the structural integrity of the building was questionable, and
that structural testing was needed.9
Consequently, on November 10, 1995, the City Building Official wrote a letter to the building administrator, ordering him to cause the tenants to vacate the building and
undertake the necessary repairs and rehabilitation of the building. The following warning was also issued:
Failure to comply herewith shall constrain this Office to impose further administrative sanctions in accordance with the provisions of the National Building Code PD.
1096, as well as the other existing laws and ordinances. This is without prejudice to further legal action that may be taken under the provisions of Articles 482 and
694 to 707 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.10
However, the MTDC did not respond to the letter. On January 24, 1996, the City Building Official issued a Closure Order to the MTDC and ordered the building administrator
to cause the tenants to vacate the building within fifteen (15) days from notice and to commence its repair. He also directed MTDC to file an application for the necessary
permits before the start of the actual repairs, together with a certification on structural stability from the building's structural designer and to attach thereto the results of the
structural testing as well as the recommendation/evaluation reports, scope of project activities, repair/renovation plans and retrofitting plans. The order would only be lifted
after the defects or deficiencies of the subject building or structure shall have been corrected or substantially complied with in accordance with Section 21, Rule VIII-IRR, P.D.
No. 1096, without prejudice to further action that may be taken under the provisions of Articles 482, and 694 to 707 of the Civil Code, as well as other existing laws and
ordinances.11
The City Building Official conducted a reinspection of the building and, on March 26, 1996, made the following recommendation:
It is recommended that because of:
1) the adamant refusal of the owners of the building to correct the serious defects noted by this Office as early as 1981 up to the present, notwithstanding notices
to this effect;
2) the directive of national as well as local leaders to intensify the campaign against buildings which are dangerous to life and limb as exemplified in the tragic
Ozone case in Quezon City; and
3) the possibility of City officials incurring criminal as well as administrative liabilities for failure to take positive steps to protect the lives of the people against
ruinous or dangerous buildings.
The persistence of the owners of the building in not undertaking the required urgent repairs allegedly because of suits filed against them, gives this Office no better
alternative but to recommend that the City Engineer be authorized and directed to make the necessary repairs and all expenses thereto be shouldered by the
owners of the building and also to order the occupants of the building to immediately vacate the premises to give way to the repair and to ensure the protection of
their lives and property.
Approval of this request is urgently needed.12
The City Mayor approved the recommendation and directed the repairs of the building by the City Building Official with the expenses therefor to be charged against the
account of MTDC.13
On June 28, 1996, notices were sent to the tenants, giving them fifteen (15) days within which to vacate the building to give way to its general repair.14 However, at the time,
Atty. Nakpil was in the United States for medical treatment, and his secretary was left behind to take care of the law office.
Felix Ong, one of the tenants in the building and the President of the HIBTAI, filed a petition for prohibition with a plea for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a temporary
restraining order (TRO) with damages against the MTDC, City Engineer and Police Major Franklin Gacutan, docketed as Civil Case No. 96-79267. Ong prayed that a TRO be
issued to enjoin respondents from conducting repair and rehabilitation work within the building, which the court granted.
Clemente Sy, who claimed to be the Barangay Captain of Barangay No. 297, Zone 29 where the building was located and the incumbent President of the House International
Building Tenants Association, filed a similar petition against the same respondents, including MTDC.15
At about 4:00 p.m. on July 19, 1996, a group of men led by Engr. Melvin Balagot, the Chief Slum Clearance and Demolition Services of the Office of the City Building Official,
entered the building and, in compliance with the order of the City Mayor as recommended by the City Building Official, commenced the repairs and tore down some of the
structures. However, the repair works were temporarily suspended on July 22, 1996 as a result of the TRO issued by the court in favor of Ong in Civil Case No. 96-79267.
On July 23, 1996, Engr. Balagot submitted the following Report:
1. That all the occupants thereat already vacated the premises to give way for the repair work of the subject structure except for the unit occupied by the security
guards at the ground floor;
2. That most of the interior walls were already dismantled by this Office to give way for immediate replacement.
3. It is likewise reported that the said building is not safe for occupancy for the meantime.
For your information and further instruction.
(SGD)
MELVIN Q. BALAGOT
Engineer V
Chief, Slum Clearance and Demolition Services.16
Upon his arrival in the Philippines, Atty. Nakpil filed, on November 5, 1996, a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against the MTDC, seeking for actual,
moral, and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs of suit and other reliefs. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 65980. He alleged that the
MTDC, through its agents and representatives and the policemen who accompanied the demolition team, forced the guard to open the gate to the building, and, thereafter,
200 people armed with hammer and crowbars started destroying the mezzanine floor of the building on July 19, 1996. His room was destroyed, the walls and partitions were
completely hammered down, and the electricity was cut off. His personal belongings were either scattered, thrown away, or stolen. He pointed out that he had been renting
the premises and complying with the conditions of the lease since 1965. The MTDC violated his right as lessee to the possession of the premises, unlawfully depriving him of
said possession without any lawful authority or court order.17
Atty. Nakpil prayed that MTDC be ordered to pay the following:
a) P100,000 for actual damages, representing the value of the personal belongings and important papers which were lost and/or stolen by the representatives of
the defendant during the actual demo[li]tion and tearing or hammering down of the walls and partitions of the room of the plaintiff;
b) The sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages;
c) The sum of P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
d) The sum equivalent to 20% of the amount due to the plaintiff as attorney's fees; and
e) The sum of P50,000 as litigation expenses, plus costs of suit.
Plaintiff prays for such other relief and remedies he is entitled to in the premises.18
Meantime, the trial court dismissed the complaint of Ong in Civil Case No. 96-79267. In view of this development, the Office of the Mayor sent a letter dated March 6, 1998 to
the President and officers of the MTDC, and the owners of the building, directing them to undertake immediate repairs within three (3) days from receipt thereof, otherwise, it
will undertake the repair and all expenses shall be charged against them.19 The Office of the Mayor made it clear that the order became necessary to protect the people from
any injury as a consequence of the dilapidated and serious deterioration of the building. The MTDC forthwith applied for a demolition permit with the Office of the Building
Official which was granted on March 30, 1998.20 The MTDC later had the building demolished.
In due course, the complaint and summons were served on MTDC on April 14, 1998 in Civil Case No. 65980. 21 In its answer to the complaint, MTDC alleged that it was the
City of Manila which caused the repair of the building, following the tragic Ozone fire incident in Quezon City. Consequently, it was not liable for Atty. Nakpil's claims.
Atty. Nakpil testified that he had been a lessee of Room 204 and used the room as a law office; on July 19, 1996, he was in the United States for treatment when his daughter
informed him, through phone, that his place was being demolished. He rushed back home and arrived in Manila on July 30, 1996, and discovered that he had no more office
to speak of. The demolition team (the sheriff, policemen and laborers), armed with crowbars, looted the room and destroyed the pipes and cabinets and scattered his
things.22 He lost some of his books, a tanguile table, three paintings, two manual typewriters, all valued at P100,000.00. He averred that he had been in the law practice for 30
years, all spent in Room 204; because of the demolition of his office, he could not resume his law practice.
For his part, Joseph Villanueva declared that, since 1973, he had leased a portion of the mezzanine floor, Room 200, which he used as his clinic. At around 3:00 p.m. on July
19, 1996, a group of employees of the City Engineer's Office, accompanied by policemen and sheriffs, gained entry into the building, cut the electric current, and destroyed the
pipes with the use of heavy equipments and crowbars. They demolished the mezzanine and upper floors and other parts of the building. Around 20 members of the demolition
crew entered the office of Atty. Nakpil. Some members of the demolition crew looted the room and took everything they could carry. He stated that what he and the tenants
received were notices to repair and not notice of demolition.
Atty. Nakpil presented Engr. Guillermo de Leon who testified that he was requested to conduct an ocular inspection of the building. As per his report dated August 9, 1990, he
assessed the building to be safe, sound and stable. The building was not destroyed by the earthquake on July 6, 1990. He found hairline cracks, caused probably by
temperature. He never used any instrument to determine the structural stability because there was no danger. He stated that upon inspection, he found no hairline cracks and
that the building could be saved by plastering; in fact, it could withstand any earthquake.
Carmelita Tan, a member of the HIBTAI, testified that she owned a grocery store in the ground floor and in the mezzanine. At about 4:00 p.m. on July 19, 1996, 100 persons,
carrying hammers and crowbars and long irons, gained entry into the building. She rushed to the mezzanine and saw that ten of them were in the law office of Atty. Nakpil and
that the door and partitions were damaged. The lights were off at the time.
MTDC adduced testimonial and documentary evidence that the Office of the City Engineer, through Engr. Melvin Balagot, Jr., commenced the repairs of the building on July
19, 1996, with the assistance of the employees of the City Engineer's Office, laborers and policemen who were tasked to check the flow of traffic. They removed the cracked
interior walls of the building with crowbars, hammers and other instruments, and some portions of the ceiling which needed to be replaced.23 However, they did not remove the
walls and partitions in the mezzanine floor.24 They started the work on the 9th and 10th floors of the building,25 but had to stop due to the temporary restraining order from the
RTC of Manila on the complaint of Felix Ong. During the ocular inspection of the building on August 8, 1996 conducted by the Clerk of Court in connection with Civil Case No.
96-79267, the Office of Atty. Nakpil was unoccupied.26
On May 20, 2001, the court rendered judgment in favor of MTDC and ordered the dismissal of the complaint. The trial court declared that Atty. Nakpil failed to prove that the
building was demolished on July 30, 1996 and failed to link MTDC to the incident on July 19, 1996 and the loss of the personal properties of Atty. Nakpil. As admitted by one
of his witnesses (Villanueva), the employees of the City Engineer's office were the ones who demolished the building, while Carmelita Tan declared that she did not know who
those people were.27
Atty. Nakpil appealed to the CA. On August 25, 2003, the CA rendered judgment granting the appeal and reversing the decision of the RTC. The fallo of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE premises considered, the appealed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 152 in Civil Case No. is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A
new one is hereby rendered ordering defendant-appellee, Manila Towers to pay herein plaintiff-appellant Bonifacio Nakpil the amount of P50,000.00 as nominal
damages.
SO ORDERED.28
The CA held that MTDC was remiss in its duty as lessor under Article 1654, that is, to make the necessary repairs on the building. This led to the demolition of the leased
premises, thereby disturbing the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lessee. Thus, the failure of MTDC to fulfill such obligation entitled Atty. Nakpil to damages. The
appellate court cited Goldstein v. Roces.29 However, the CA also ruled that no actual damages could be awarded to Atty. Nakpil since he failed to present competent evidence
to prove the actual damages sustained. Neither can moral damages be awarded to him since he likewise failed to prove bad faith or any fraudulent act on the part of MTDC.
Thus, no exemplary damages could likewise be awarded, and, consequently, he was not entitled to attorney's fees. According to the CA, the most that could be adjudged in
his favor was nominal damages for violation of his right.30
The parties filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the decision, which the CA denied in its Resolution dated November 19, 2003.31
The parties filed their respective petitions for review on certiorari in this Court, seeking to reverse the decision and resolution of the appellate court.
In G.R. No. 160867, Nakpil, petitioner therein, contends that, while actual damages must be proven as a general rule and the amount of damages must possess at least a
degree of certainty, it is not necessary to prove exactly how much the loss was; it is enough that loss is proven. He insists that he has presented proof that he suffered losses
when his office was demolished and the value he gave was a fair and reasonable assessment thereof. He maintains that as of June 1995, there were already 245 volumes of
the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA). In 1998, the value of each volume of the SCRA was P520.00; hence, the value of 245 volumes would be P127,400.00, a
matter which the court can take judicial notice of. Assuming that the evidence he presented is not sufficient to entitle him to an award of actual damages, the P50,000.00
nominal damages awarded to him is too minimal. He maintains that he is entitled to moral damages because the MTDC had the building demolished to have him evicted from
his office; he suffered mental anguish and was embarrassed by his eviction; he had his law office for more than 30 years and considered it his second home.
On the other hand, in G.R. No. 160886, MTDC, petitioner therein, avers that it cannot be made liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages because it had not been
remiss in its duty to make the necessary repairs; it was prohibited from taking possession of the property by the tenants who had filed several suits against it.32 It alleged that it
acquired the building from the GSIS in 1981, and it was the HIBTAI that had been managing the affairs of the said building and collected the rentals from the tenants. It
pointed out that in CA-G.R. No. 04393, the CA ruled that the HIBTAI had no right to collect the rentals. Moreover, HIBTAI did not use the rentals to make the necessary
repairs but used it instead to pay its accounts and obligations. By their own actions, the tenants of the subject building prevented MTDC from performing its duty to maintain
them in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Moreover, Nakpil failed to prove that it had anything to do with the demolition/repairs and the loss of his
personal property.
Nakpil counters that while MTDC may have failed to make the necessary repairs because it was prevented by the tenants' association from doing so, there is no showing that
it failed to maintain him in the peaceful and adequate possession of the leased premises for the same reason. He contends that MTDC allowed the city to demolish the
building even when the order was only for its repair. He posits that the MTDC is liable for damages because the MTDC, not a third person, deprived him of his possession of
the leased premises.33
The threshold issues are: (1) whether or not the MTDC is liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages to Nakpil; and (2) whether the award of P50,000.00 for nominal
damages has factual and legal basis.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition of the MTDC in G.R. No. 160886 is meritorious. The petition of Nakpil in G.R. No. 160867 is denied for lack of merit.
Article 1654 of the Civil Code enumerates the obligations of the lessor:
(1) To deliver the thing which is the object of the contract in such a condition as to render it fit for the use intended;
(2) To make on the same during the lease all the necessary repairs in order to keep it suitable for the use for which it has been devoted, unless there is a
stipulation to the contrary;
(3) To maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the contract.
Failure of the lessor to fulfill any of these obligations will render the lessor liable for damages. 34 In contracts, the obligor (lessor) who acted in good faith is liable for damages
that are the material and probable consequence of the breach of the obligation and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the
obligation was contracted. In case of fraud, bad faith, malice or wanton attitude, he shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-
performance of the obligation.35
We do not agree with the ruling of the CA that the MTDC committed a breach of its lease contract with Nakpil when it failed to comply with its obligation as lessor, and that the
MTDC is liable for nominal damages. Breach of contract is the failure without legal reason to comply with the terms of a contract. It is also defined as the failure, without legal
excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole or part of the contract.36 There is no factual and legal basis for any award for damages to respondent.
The duty to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the duration of the contract is merely a warranty that the lessee shall not be disturbed
in his legal, and not physical, possession.37 In the early case of Goldstein v. Roces,38 the Court, citing the commentaries of Manresa, pointed out that the obligation to maintain
the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the leased property seeks to protect the lessee not only from acts of third persons but also from the acts of the lessor,
thus:
The lessor must see that the enjoyment is not interrupted or disturbed, either by others' acts [save in the case provided for in the article 1560 (now Article 1664)],
or by his own. By his own acts, because, being the person principally obligated by the contract, he would openly violate it if, in going back on his agreement, he
should attempt to render ineffective in practice the right in the thing he had granted to the lessee; and by others' acts, because he must guarantee the right he
created, for he is obliged to give warranty in the manner we have set forth in our commentary on article 1553, and, in this sense, it is incumbent upon him to
protect the lessee in the latter's peaceful enjoyment.39
When the act of trespass is done by third persons, it must be distinguished whether it is trespass in fact or in law because the lessor is not liable for a trespass in fact or a
mere act of trespass by a third person.40 In the Goldsteincase, trespass in fact was distinguished from legal trespass, thus: "if the act of trespass is not accompanied or
preceded by anything which reveals a juridic intention on the part of the trespasser, in such wise that the lessee can only distinguish the material fact, stripped of all legal form
or reasons, we understand it to be trespass in fact only (de mero hecho)."41 Further, the obligation under Article 1654(3) arises only when acts, termed as legal trespass
(perturbacion de derecho), disturb, dispute, object to, or place difficulties in the way of the lessee's peaceful enjoyment of the premises that in some manner cast doubt upon
the right of the lessor by virtue of which the lessor himself executed the lease.42
What is evident in the present case is that the disturbance on the leased premises on July 19, 1996 was actually done by the employees under the City Engineer of Manila
and the City Building Official on orders of the City Mayor without the participation of the MTDC. It bears stressing that the City Building Official is authorized and mandated
under Section 214 of the National Building Code to order the repair, maintenance or demolition of the building found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, depending upon
the degree of danger to life, health, safety and/or well-being of the general public and its occupants as provided in Section 215 thereof. This is without prejudice to the
provisions of Articles 482, 694 and 707 of the New Civil Code. Sections 214 and 215 of the National Building Code read:
SECTION 214. Dangerous and Ruinous Buildings or Structures
Dangerous buildings are those which are herein declared as such or are structurally unsafe or not provided with safe egress, or which constitute a fire hazard, or
are otherwise dangerous to human life, or which in relation to existing use, constitute a hazard to safety or health or public welfare because of inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, obsolescence, or abandonment; or which otherwise contribute to the pollution of the site or the community to an intolerable degree.
SECTION 215. Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
When any building or structure is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the Building Official shall order its repair, vacation or demolition depending upon
the degree of danger to life, health, or safety. This is without prejudice to further action that may be taken under the provisions of Articles 482 and 694 to 707 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines.
When the personnel of the City Building Official/City Engineer in coordination with the Philippine National Police undertook the repair/rehabilitation of the building, they did so
in the lawful performance of their duties, independently of and separate from the obligation of the MTDC to effect the required immediate repair/rehabilitation of the building.
Admittedly, the MTDC requested the City Building Official for the inspection of the building to determine its safety, conformably with its obligation under Article 1654 of the
New Civil Code to maintain peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the tenants of the leased premises, and to insure the personal safety of the tenants and their properties. At
the time, the Ozone Bar and Grill in Quezon City had just been burned down, and many lives were lost.
There is no question that the possession by respondent of the leased premises had been disturbed by the attempt of the personnel of the City Building Official to repair and
rehabilitate the building due to MTDC's failure to undertake the same. Any act or omission by the lessor which causes a substantial interference with the actual possession of
the lessee will constitute a breach of the obligation of quiet enjoyment. In some jurisdictions, the lessor's failure to make repairs or alterations to the leased premises as
required by public authorities, particularly those that are substantial and structural in nature, constitutes constructive eviction, which makes the lessor liable for
damages.43Such conclusion is grounded on the fact that the lessors, in those cases, were obliged to make structural and substantial repairs on the leased property. The same
doctrine could very well be applied in our jurisdiction considering that, under our laws, the lessor is likewise obliged to make the necessary repairs on the leased premises
which would undoubtedly include those that are structural and substantial in nature. In fact, there may be a constructive eviction if the landlord does a wrongful act or is guilty
of any default or neglect whereby the leased premises are rendered unsafe, unfit, or unsuitable for occupancy, in whole, or in substantial part, for the purposes for which they
were leased.44
It bears stressing, however, that two factors must exist before there can be a constructive eviction: (1) an act or omission by the landlord, or someone acting under his
authority, which permanently interferes with the tenant's beneficial enjoyment or use of the leased premises; and (2) an abandonment of possession by the lessee within a
reasonable time.45
Nakpil failed to establish any of the foregoing factors. The City Building Official was tasked merely to repair/rehabilitate the building and not to demolish the same and cause
the placement eviction of the tenants. Neither did respondent abandon the leased premises. Admittedly, the MTDC failed to make the necessary repairs in the building despite
requests of the City Building Official as early as June 29, 1981 and July 10, 1981. However, the MTDC cannot be faulted for such failure. No less than the HIBTAI or its
members prevented MTDC from instituting the necessary repairs. Even Villanueva, Nakpil's witness, admitted that HIBTAI objected to the orders of the City Building Official
for the repair of the building.46
Moreover, a complaint for injunction and damages was filed by the HIBTAI on October 2, 1982 against the MTDC. Even after the dismissal of the complaint, on January 31,
1983, the HIBTAI filed a complaint against the GSIS, CMC and MTDC with the RTC of Manila for the nullification of the deed of conditional sale between the GSIS and the
CMC and the deed of assignment executed by the defendant CMC and the MTDC over the property. Plaintiff alleged therein that its members, presumably including Nakpil,
the tenants in the building had the priority right under P.D. No. 1517 to purchase the property; that the CMC was not qualified to purchase the property from the GSIS under its
Articles of Information and, hence, the deed of conditional sale was ultra vires; consequently, the deed of assignment executed by the CMC and its sister corporation was null
and void. The tenants in the building, including Nakpil, refused to pay rentals and remitted the same to the HIBTAI which used the money partly to finance its suits against the
MTDC, thus depriving the latter from generating funds for the repair of the building. In fine, the tenants, through the HIBTAI, already controlled the premises. The RTC
dismissed the complaint of HIBTAI. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal on February 4, 1986. The HIBTAI filed a petition for review in this Court and, on
June 30, 1987, the petition was denied for lack of merit.47 The Court ruled that the HIBTAI had no personality to assail the contracts and to invoke P.D. No. 1517 for its
members, including Nakpil. Shortly, thereafter, in 1988, a complaint was filed against the GSIS by one of the tenants entitled Dy v. Government Service Insurance System.48In
1994, a similar complaint was filed against the GSIS by another tenant entitled Cruz v. GSIS.49
Even Nakpil admitted that the MTDC was prevented by the HIBTAI and its members from undertaking any repairs in the building. The only recourse of the MTDC was for the
repair/rehabilitation of the building through the Office of the City Engineer/City Building Official. Thus, in 1995, it requested for an immediate ocular inspection of the building to
determine the condition and safety of the building under Sections 214 and 215 of the National Building Code. The MTDC had no involvement in the actual
repairs/rehabilitation of the building, nor in the selection, supervision and control of the laborers to initially repair/rehabilitate the building.
Moreover, Atty. Nakpil failed to present preponderance of evidence to prove that any of the laborers under the Office of the City Building Official/City Engineer carried away
his books, table, painting, and typewriter. Villanueva merely testified that the laborers carried away "things they could carry." The evidence of Nakpil shows that the mezzanine
floor was dark, as the lights had been turned off to prevent a conflagration. If at all the laborers had taken any of the materials from any of the rooms in the building, these
were building materials which they were authorized to carry away under Section 10, Rule II of the Implementing Rules of the National Building Code which reads:
10. The building/structure as repaired or in case of demolition, the building materials gathered after the demolition thereof shall be held by the OBO until full
reimbursement of the cost of repair, renovation, demolition and removal is made by the owner which, in no case, shall extend beyond thirty (30) days from the date
of completion of the repair, renovation, demolition and removal. After such period, said building materials of the building thus repaired, renovated or removed shall
be sold at public auction to satisfy the claim of the OBO. Any amount in excess of the claim of the government realized from the sale of the building and/or building
materials shall be delivered to the owner.
Assuming that Atty. Nakpil lost any of his personal properties, at the very least, he should have inquired from the office of the City Engineer/City Building Official and
requested that they be returned to him.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition in G.R. No 160867 is DENIED. The petition in G.R. No. 160886 is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
SPOUSES RICARDO HIPOLITO, JR. G.R. No. 174143

and LIZA HIPOLITO,

Petitioners, Present:

CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,

- versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

BERSAMIN,

DEL CASTILLO, and

TERESITA CINCO, VILLARAMA, JR., JJ.

CARLOTA BALDE CINCO

and ATTY. CARLOS CINCO, Promulgated:

Respondents. November 28, 2011

x-------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Findings of fact by administrative agencies are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts[1] by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of said administrative agencies
over matters falling under their jurisdiction.

Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari[2] are the May 19, 2006 Decision[3] and August 15, 2006 Resolution[4] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89783 which
dismissed petitioners Petition for Review and denied their Motion for Reconsideration respectively. Said assailed CA Decision which affirmed the February 28, 2005 Resolution[5] of the Office of the
President (OP), in O.P. Case No. 04-F-262, states, viz:
In fine, we hold that public respondent Office of the President, in affirming the resolution of the Secretary of the DPWH which sustained the resolution and the
demolition order of the OBO, committed no grave abuse of discretion, the same being supported by evidence and having been issued in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolution dated February 28, 2005 of the Office of the President of the Philippines, issued through the
Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs in O.P. Case No. 04-F-262, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.[6]

Petitioners beseech this Court to reverse and set aside said Decision and consequently, to alter a string of consistent Resolutions issued by the OP in the said O.P. Case No. F-262, the
Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in NBC Case No. 17-03-I-MLA,[7] and the Office of the Building Official (OBO) of the City of Manila in NBC Case No. NG-2002-06.[8]

Factual Antecedents

Petitioner-spouses Ricardo Hipolito, Jr. and Liza Hipolito (petitioners) allege that on June 15, 1989, Edeltrudis Hipolito y Mariano (Edeltrudis)[9] entered into an agreement[10] with Francisco
Villena[11] (now deceased) to rent a portion of the property located at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila and to construct an apartment-style building adjacent to the existing house thereon. The
contract was for a period of 20 years. Pursuant to the agreement, Edeltrudis built a three-storey apartment building without securing a building permit. Petitioners inherited the apartment building upon
the death of Edeltrudis.

In 2002 or 13 years after the execution of the agreement, petitioners and the heirs of Francisco Villena, all residing in the property, were informed that respondent Atty. Carlos D. Cinco (Atty.
Cinco) acquired the subject property through a deed of sale sometime in 1976.

On June 17, 2002, herein respondents Atty. Cinco, Teresita Cinco and Dr. Carlota Balde Cinco (respondents) filed with the OBO a verified request[12] for structural inspection of an old
structure located at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila.

Acting on the request, Building Inspector Engineer Leonardo B. Rico (Engr. Rico) conducted an initial inspection. In his memorandum Engr. Rico reported that two old and dilapidated buildings made of
wooden materials were found in the premises and recommended that the matter be referred to the Committee on Buildings (Committee) for further appropriate action and disposition.

Deemed as a petition for condemnation/abatement pursuant to the National Building Code (NBC) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the verified request of the respondents was
referred to the Committee for Hearing/ Investigation.

With prior notices to the parties and the tenants, three hearings were subsequently held from August 12, 2002 to September 20, 2002 for purposes of resolving the focal issue of the structural
stability, architectural presentability, electrical and fire safety aspect to determine [whether] or not the subject buildings are still safe for continued occupancy.[13] On September 20, 2002, Victoria Villena,
wife and heir of Francisco Villena and owner of one of the two buildings, filed a counter manifestation questioning respondents personality to file the petition for condemnation, and refuting the technical
evaluation reports of Engr. Rico and respondents commissioned engineer. Whereupon, the Committee was constrained to schedule an ocular inspection of the subject buildings on October 7, 2002. A
report on the ocular inspection conducted was thereafter submitted through a Memorandum[14] dated October 8, 2002, which states:

x x x The subject structure is a 3-storey at the rear portion and Two (2)[-] storey at the front made up of wooden materials with G.I. sheet roofings.

II. Findings:

1. Corrugated G.I. sheet roofings and its accessories incurred extensive deterioration/[dilapidation] due to weathering.

2. Ceiling boards [bulging] attributed to water leaks from defective roofing.

3. Exterior and interior wooden boards deteriorated.

4. Doors/windows including its jambs deteriorated/[dilapidated].

5. No provisions of firewall on the sides abutting private lot.

6. Rafters, purlins, and girts deteriorated due to neglect of maintenance.

7. Vibrations were felt on the wooden flooring when exerting wt. An indication that its support suffered [material] fatigue due to wear and tear and termite infestation.

8. Wooden columns incurred deterioration/[dilapidation] due to weathering and termite infestation.

9. Open wiring installation/fire hazard.

10. With notices of condemned installation No. 2K3-62042 EPM issued by OIC, City Electrical Division, DEPW.

11. Inadequate water supply and drainage system.

12. Outmoded T & G due to neglect of maintenance.

13. Inadequate sanitary/plumbing installation.


III. RECOMMENDATION:

From the foregoing, the subject buildings [appear] to have incurred extensive deterioration/[dilapidation] [attributed] mainly to long weather exposure, poor maintenance and
termite infestation on its architectural and structural components by 60-80% which constitutes an Architectural eyesore, structurally unsafe as well as fire and electrical hazard
thereby endangering the life, safety, health and welfare [of] the general public specifically the tenants thereat, hence, it is strongly recommended that the subject building be
declared dangerous and ruinous in pursuance of Sec. 214 and 215 and Rules VII and Rule VIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. 1096.

Ruling of the Office of the Building Official

In a Resolution[15] dated March 26, 2003, the OBO declared the buildings dangerous and ruinous, and recommended their demolition, to wit:

xxxx

On the basis of the ocular inspection report submitted by the Committee on Buildings and the findings of the OIC, City Electrical Division DEPW which form part
of this resolution, it appearing that the subject structures incurred an extensive degree of [dilapidation]/deterioration by 60-80% attributed mainly to long weather exposure,
termite infestation and neglect of maintenance on its architectural and structural component which constitute architectural eyesore, structurally unsafe as well as electrical
hazards thereby endangering the life, health property and welfare of the general public particularly the tenants thereat [sic].

Such sorry condition of said structures exist to the extent that remedial/ rehabilitation which is no longer practical and economical as it would entail/ necessitate a
total overdone thereof [sic].

WHEREFORE, premises considered the Committee on Buildings and in consonance with the findings of the OIC, City Electrical Division DEPW the subject
buildings are hereby found and declared Dangerous and Ruinous and strongly recommending the issuance of the corresponding Demolition Order in pursuance of Section[s]
214 and 215 of the National Building Code and Rule VII and VIII of its Implementing Rules and Regulations further directing the tenants/ occupants thereat to vacate the
premises within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof to pave the way for its peaceful and orderly [d]emolition activity.

SO ORDERED.

A Demolition Order[16] addressed to the respondents was accordingly issued on even date with petitioners and their tenants duly furnished with a copy thereof.

Petitioners thus appealed[17] to the DPWH.

Ruling of the Department of Public Works and Highways

In their appeal, petitioners prayed for the reversal of the Resolution of the OBO and for the setting aside of the Demolition Order on the ground that same were anomalously issued. They
likewise contended that respondents petition for condemnation was actually an attempt to circumvent their rights as builders in good faith. Petitioners prayed for a separate inspection of the two buildings
by an impartial body.

Thus, another ocular inspection was conducted by the Inspectorate Team of the DPWH to determine the actual physical condition of the subject buildings. The Inspectorate Team reported
thus:

There are two (2) Buildings/Structures subject of this appeal. For proper identification of the two (2) Storey Residential Building located at front No. 2176 Nakar
Street, San Andres Bukid, is designated as Building I while the Three (3) Storey Residential Building located at the rear portion is designated as [B]uilding 2.

Building 1

Building I is pre-war vintage (t)wo (2)[-](s)torey structure generally made of wooden materials. Corrugated G.I. roofing sheets and its accessories are extensively corroded and
deteriorated due to long existence, weather exposure and improper maintenance. Gutters and [down spouts] are already missing. Interior and exterior wooden board partitions
are deteriorated by about eighty percent (80%). Roof eaves and media agues are deteriorated and some wooden members are ready to collapse. Doors and windows including
[their] jambs are deteriorated by about eighty percent (80%). Wooden stair[s] leading to second floor is rotten and deteriorated due to long existence and termite infestation.
Wooden board floorings are sagging and vibration can be felt when walking on it. Plywood ceiling boards are deteriorated by about eighty percent (80%).

The wooden roof framing parts such as rafters, purlins, and girts are rotten. Majority of the wooden posts are termite infested and deteriorated. The wooden beams and floor
joists are noted to have incurred deterioration. Vibration is felt at the second floor wooden flooring when walked upon, an indication that its wooden structural supports show
signs of material fatigue due to wear and tear and termite infestation. Structural components of the structure were observed to have deteriorated by about seventy five percent
(75%).

Sanitary/Plumbing fixtures and systems within the building are noted outmoded, inadequate and not properly maintained. Inadequate water supply and drainage system within
the building is noted. The comfort room is useable and functioning but is not properly ventilated and unsanitary.

The electrical wiring insulation shows sign of brittleness due to excessive exposure to ambient heat, moisture and time element. Excessive octopus connections and dangling
of wires/extensions [sic] cords are observed. Some switches and convenience outlets are detached and defective. Junction/pullboxes are not properly covered thus exposing
electrical wiring connections. Some electrical wiring installations are attached to deteriorated parts of the building. The electrical wiring installations are already old, not properly
maintained and inadequate to conform to the rules and regulations of the Philippine Electrical Code (PEC).

Building 2

Building 2 is a three (3)[-](s)torey structure located at the back of the Building I, and the usage is purely for residential purposes. The building is constructed [out] of wooden
materials, corrugated G.I. roofing sheets and plain G.I. sheets for its accessories. The said building was constructed sometime in 1989, however, the construction is not in
accordance with the standard and the requirements of the National Building Code (PD 1096). Corrugated G.I. roofing sheets are corroded and deterioration is about seventy
percent (70%). [Down spouts] and gutters are no longer in place. Interior and exterior wooden board sidings have incurred about sixty percent (60%) deterioration. Some rooms
have no proper ventilation due to excessive partitioning. Eaves [have] no ceiling. Wooden board floorings are sagging and vibration is felt when walked upon due to undersized
wooden framing. Substandard ceiling height. Plywood ceiling boards are bulging. No fire resistive wall provided between the two buildings.

As to the Structural, Sanitary/Plumbing and Electrical aspects, Building 2 has the same findings as in Building I.

From the foregoing, it appears that the subject building attained a degree of dilapidation that repair works are no longer practical and economical to undertake.

Therefore, it is recommended that the Demolition Order issued by the OBO, Manila be sustained.[18]

On May 19, 2004, the Secretary of the DPWH rendered a Resolution[19] dismissing the appeal of the petitioners for lack of merit and affirming the Resolution of the OBO and the issuance
of the Demolition Order.

In the same Resolution, the Secretary of the DPWH opined:

xxxx

In condemnation proceedings of dangerous and ruinous building pursuant to the National Building Code (NBC) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR), the authority of the Building Official is confined to the assessment of the physical condition of the building sought to be condemned and abated, and depending on the
degree of its deterioration and dilapidation, to issue appropriate order, taking into consideration the welfare and safety not only of its occupants, but the public in general as well.
Corollary thereto, said official is mandated under the Code, even in the absence of a petitioner or complainant, to motu propio initiate condemnation proceedings of reported
dangerous and ruinous buildings. The inclusion thereof of the 3-storey building which appellant claims to have been built by Ediltrudis Villena on the subject property in the
hearing/investigation of the case was within the bounds of the duties and responsibilities of the OBO. In the said proceedings, the Building Official shall not delve on issues
affecting contract involving the property or of the building subject of the case or of lessee-lessor relationship, since those are matters within the competence of the court to pass
upon.

Appellants allegation that inspection of the premises was done without their participation and [that they were] not given the chance to engage the services of an
engineer deserves scant consideration. Records revealed that appellants who actively participated in the proceedings of the case were duly furnished with copies of appellees
petition for condemnation and the technical evaluation report of their (appellees) commissioned engineer, and were enjoined to submit their counter technical report. They
however failed to comply. Appellants who at the same time are residents of the building subject of the proceedings could have easily participated or hire[d] an engineer to
represent them in the inspection conducted by the Committee on Buildings on the premises as they were duly notified about it and of which they signified their conformity during
the hearing on September 20, 2002. x x x[20]

Undaunted, petitioners filed an appeal[21] with the OP.

Ruling of the Office of the President

Before the OP, the petitioners asserted that the findings of the DPWH Inspectorate Team is erroneous and that they are builders in good faith. However, the OP found no reversible error to
justify the reversal or modification of the DPWH Resolution, and thus resolved to dismiss the appeal in a Resolution[22] dated February 28, 2005.

The OP likewise subsequently denied with finality petitioners Motion for Reconsideration[23] in an Order[24] dated April 25, 2005.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Petition for Review[25] with the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Before the CA, petitioners again raised the issues they advanced before the administrative bodies, particularly the issue regarding the ownership of the lot vis--vis their right as builders in good faith.

However, the CA dismissed the petition for review and affirmed the OP Resolution without addressing the issue of ownership. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[26] but same was
denied in a Resolution[27] dated August 15, 2006 for being a mere rehash or repetition of the issues raised in the petition.

Unwilling to concede, petitioners now come before this Court by way of Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Issues

Petitioners raise the following issues:

A.
WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES SUSTAINING THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF MANILA.

B.
WHETHER X X X THE OFFICE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT OBSERVING THE CARDINAL PRIMARY RIGHTS/DUE PROCESS
REQUIREMENTS IN THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING AND IN THE CONTENTS OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTION TEAM
INCLUDING THE RESOLUTION OF THE OBO.

C.
WHETHER X X X [THE] OFFICE OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL (OBO) OF MANILA OVERSTEPPED THE BOUNDS OF ITS AUTHORITY IN NOT APPLYING ARTICLE
482 AND ARTICLES 694 TO 707 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE IN IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 215 OF THE BUILDING CODE P.D. 1096 IN THIS
CASE.

D.
WHETHER X X X THE PETITIONER[S] OR THEIR PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST [ARE]/IS A BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH OF THE 3[-]STOREY APARTMENT
BUILDING LOCATED AT THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND REFERRED TO AS BLDG. 2.

E.
WHETHER X X X THE ACTION FOR EXTRAJUDICIAL ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE IS PROPER IN THIS CASE.[28]

Our Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

At the outset, [i]t bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari [under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court], the scope of this Courts judicial review of decisions of the [CA] is generally
confined only to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained.[29] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the
proceedings below.[30] More so, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh evidence pertaining to factual issues which have not been subject of any proper proceedings below. Well-entrenched
and settled is the rule that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court adequately and on time need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a
reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[31] The determination of who owns the subject property, the authenticity of the evidence of both parties, and whether petitioners are
builders in good faith are questions of fact, the resolution of which requires the examination of evidence that should be ventilated in a separate action brought before a proper forum.

As correctly stated by the Secretary of the DPWH in its Resolution,[32] the administrative agencies jurisdiction in this case is confined to the assessment of the physical condition of the building
sought to be condemned and the issuance of the appropriate order relative thereto. Issues affecting contract involving the property or of the buildings subject of the case are not within their competence
to rule upon. Lest this Court becomes a court of first instance instead of a court of last resort, we decline to act on matters that have not run the proper legal course.

Nevertheless, we note that petitioners purported right to occupy the property has already ended two years ago when the 20-year period of the lease agreement expired in year 2009. There
being no provision in the contract, tacit or otherwise, for renewal or extension of the lease, petitioners no longer have basis to keep hold of Building 2. Hence, the determination of whether petitioners are
builders in good faith is no longer necessary.

As to the other issues, suffice it to say that they boil down to the question of whether the issuance of the OBO Resolution and Demolition Order was proper, and whether the CA erred when
it affirmed the Resolutions of the OP and the Secretary of the DPWH, which in turn, likewise affirmed the said OBO Resolution.

A Building Official has the authority to order the condemnation and demolition of buildings which are found to be in a
dangerous or ruinous condition.

[I]t is unquestionable that the Building Official has the authority to order the condemnation and demolition of buildings which are found to be in a dangerous or ruinous condition.[33] This
authority emanates from Sections 214 and 215 of the National Building Code (Presidential Decree [P.D.] No. 1096) which provides:

Section 214. Dangerous and Ruinous Buildings or Structures


Dangerous buildings are those which are herein declared as such or are structurally unsafe or not provided with safe egress, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise
dangerous to human life, or which in relation to existing use, constitute a hazard to safety or health or public welfare because of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation,
obsolescence, or abandonment; or which otherwise contribute to the pollution of the site or the community to an intolerable degree.

Section 215. Abatement of Dangerous Buildings

When any building or structure is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the Building Official shall order its repair, vacation or demolition depending upon
the degree of danger to life, health, or safety. This is without prejudice to further action that may be taken under the provisions of Articles 482 and 694 to 707 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines.

There is, therefore, no question as to the authority of the OBO to render the challenged issuances. Here, the Building Official was authorized to issue the questioned Demolition Order in
view of his finding that the disputed structures are dangerous and ruinous buildings within the purview of P.D. No. 1096, in relation to its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Correspondingly, no
irregularity in the process in which the resolution and demolition order were issued is evident. As found by the CA, the records show that the OBO issued the resolution and Demolition Order only after
ocular inspections and hearings were conducted. Notably, the Inspectorate Team of the DPWH came up with the same conclusion as the OBO when it conducted its own ocular inspection of the
premises, that is both Buildings 1 and 2 had structural, sanitary, plumbing and electrical defects of up to 80%.[34]

What is more, contrary to the position of the petitioners that the provisions of the Civil Code on abatement of nuisances should have been applied in their case, the fact that the buildings in question could
also constitute nuisances under the Civil Code does not preclude the Building Official from issuing the assailed Demolition Order. As provided by P.D. No. 1096, the authority of the Building Official to
order the repair, vacation or demolition, as the case may be, is without prejudice to further action that may be undertaken under the relevant provisions of the Civil Code.[35]

The position taken by petitioners that the OBO is duty-bound to first order the repair of ruinous and dangerous buildings is erroneous. Petitioners, in their Memorandum,[36] quoted Section 215 of the
National Building Code, thus:

Section 215. Abatement of Dangerous Buildings

When any building or structure is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the Building Official shall order its repair, vacation or demolition depending upon
the degree of danger to life, health, or safety. This is without prejudice to further action that may be taken under the provisions of Articles 482 and 694 to 707 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines.[37]

A careful reading of the provision shows that it does not require the OBO to take actions in the same order or sequence that Section 215 enumerates them. Instead, it authorizes the Building
Official to order either the repair, vacation, or demolition of the building depending on the circumstances presented before it, particularly on the degree of danger to life, health and safety. In the case at
bench, the OBO, based on its assessment of the buildings, deemed it necessary to recommend and order the demolition of the said buildings, having found them dilapidated and deteriorated by up to
80%.

The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the resolution issued by the Office of the President

Petitioners find error in the CAs reliance on the report of the OBO in affirming the resolution of the OP. Petitioners contend that the initiation of the proceedings in the OBO was calculated to
oust them from the property and to circumvent their rights as builders in good faith thereby making the findings and issuances of the OBO unreliable. Petitioners thus beseech this Court to ascertain facts
that have already been determined by the administrative agencies involved and thereafter reviewed and affirmed by the CA.

We find the contention without merit.


The mandate of the OBO is to act motu proprio, or upon petition validly received, on reported dangerous and ruinous buildings and structures that pose a threat to the life, health and well-
being of the inhabitants, and the general public. Hence, the OBO, based on its findings, can still act on the matter pursuant to such mandate, notwithstanding petitioners claim that respondents initiated
the proceedings to circumvent their rights under the law as builders in good faith. Otherwise stated, respondents motive in initiating the proceedings which led to the issuance of the challenged OBO
Resolution and Demolition Order is immaterial as far as the OBO is concerned, so long as it is satisfied that a building or structure is dangerous and ruinous.

Remarkably, both the DPWH and the OP found no irregularities in the manner that officials of the OBO performed their duties and in coming up with its Resolution and Demolition Order.
This conclusion was affirmed by the CA when it resolved the petition before it.
We find no error on the part of the CA when it relied on the findings of fact of the OBO and the other administrative bodies. As correctly stated by the CA in its Decision:

The powers granted by law, particularly the National Building Code to the Building Official regarding demolition of buildings are executive and administrative in
nature. It is a well-recognized principle that purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts. In general, courts have no supervising
power over the proceedings and actions of the administrative departments of the government. This is generally true with respect to acts involving the exercise of judgment or
discretion and findings of fact. The established exception to the rule is where the issuing authority has gone beyond its statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or
clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion. None of these obtains in the case at bar. (Citations omitted.)[38]

By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of said administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon; thus,
their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts.[39] Such findings must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence, even if such
evidence is not overwhelming or even preponderant.[40] It is not the task of the appellate court to once again weigh the evidence submitted before and passed upon by the administrative body and to
substitute its own judgment regarding sufficiency of evidence.[41]

Similarly, this Court will not disturb these factual findings absent compelling reasons to do so. This Court, in numerous occasions, has cited exceptions to the general rule that it is not a trier
of facts. None of the said exceptions is present in this case. The conclusion reached by the administrative agencies involved after thoroughly conducting their ocular inspections and hearings and
considering all pieces of evidence presented before them, which finding was affirmed by the CA, must now be regarded with great respect and finality by this Court.

We take this opportunity to inform petitioners that the appellate court cannot be expected to actually perform the inspection itself for purposes of validating the findings of the administrative
bodies. Reliance on findings of fact of the lower courts or, in this case, administrative bodies, does not mean that the appellate court does not conduct its own review. In fact, the appellate court painstakingly
studies every piece of document that comes into its hands, putting together every piece of the puzzle to come up with the whole picture of the controversy brought before it. That is no easy task.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 19, 2006 and the Resolution dated August 15, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 89783 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

You might also like