G.R. No. 174143 ; November 28, 2011
SPOUSES RICARDO HIPOLITO, JR. and LIZA HIPOLITO, Petitioners, vs. TERESITA CINCO, CARLOTA BALDE CINCO and ATTY. CARLOS CINCO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner-spouses inherited a three-storey apartment building on a property at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila. The building was constructed in 1989 by Edeltrudis Hipolito (Ricardo Hipolito, Jr.’s mother and predecessor-in-interest) pursuant to a 20-year rental agreement with Francisco Villena, an heir of a co-owner, but without a building permit. In 2002, petitioners and other occupants were informed that respondent Atty. Carlos Cinco had acquired the property via a 1976 deed of sale. Respondents filed a verified request with the Office of the Building Official (OBO) of Manila for a structural inspection. After an initial inspection and referral, the OBO’s Committee on Buildings conducted hearings and an ocular inspection. The inspection report found extensive deterioration (60-80%) due to weathering, termite infestation, and poor maintenance, citing structural unsafety, fire and electrical hazards, and inadequate sanitary facilities. Based on this, the OBO issued a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, declaring the buildings dangerous and ruinous under the National Building Code and ordering demolition, with a copy furnished to petitioners. Petitioners appealed to the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), which conducted another ocular inspection. The DPWH Inspectorate Team’s report confirmed the poor condition of both buildings, noting severe deterioration of structural components, electrical hazards, and termite infestation. The DPWH, in a Resolution dated May 19, 2004, affirmed the OBO’s findings and demolition order. Petitioners then appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which dismissed their appeal and affirmed the DPWH Resolution in its February 28, 2005 Resolution. The Court of Appeals, in its May 19, 2006 Decision, dismissed petitioners’ petition and affirmed the OP’s Resolution, finding no grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the resolutions of the Office of the President, the Department of Public Works and Highways, and the Office of the Building Official, which declared the subject buildings dangerous and ruinous and ordered their demolition.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that findings of fact by administrative agencies, like the OBO, DPWH, and OP, are generally accorded great respect and finality, provided they are supported by substantial evidence. The technical findings of the OBO Committee and the DPWH Inspectorate Team, based on ocular inspections, conclusively established that the buildings suffered extensive deterioration (60-80%), making them structurally unsafe, fire hazards, and architectural eyesores. The reports detailed specific defects: corroded roofing, deteriorated wooden components, termite infestation, open wiring, inadequate water and sanitary systems, and felt vibrations on floors. The Court found these findings to be supported by evidence and issued in accordance with the National Building Code (PD 1096). Petitioners’ claim that the condemnation petition was a scheme to circumvent their rights as builders in good faith was deemed irrelevant to the purely technical issue of the buildings’ structural safety and habitability. The administrative agencies acted within their jurisdiction and expertise, and their consistent rulings contained no grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized it is not a trier of facts and will not re-examine the administrative bodies’ factual determinations, which were affirmed by the OP and the CA.