GR L 5559; (October, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5559
ANACLETO BERNARDINO and BALTASARA ZAPLAN, plaintiffs, vs. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF CAVITE and THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CAVITE, defendants.
October 7, 1910
FACTS:
Plaintiffs Anacleto Bernardino and Baltasara Zaplan constructed a bamboo fence across an alleged callejon (small street) in the barrio of San Rafael, Cavite, claiming ownership of the land. They asserted that local residents had been permitted to pass over the area out of convenience, not right. However, residents, supported by the Provincial Governor and Provincial Board of Cavite, claimed the callejon was a public street, having been used as such for over fifty years.
When the plaintiffs built the fence, the Provincial Governor, under a resolution from the Provincial Board, tore it down to open the way for public passage. The plaintiffs rebuilt the fence, and to prevent its second destruction, filed this action for prohibition. The Provincial Board also argued that the fence impeded the flow of surface waters to the bay, causing stagnation and health concerns for the community.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Provincial Governor and Provincial Board of Cavite had the authority or jurisdiction to order the tearing down of the fence erected by the plaintiffs, even assuming the callejon was a public highway or posed a public health risk.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, prohibiting the Provincial Governor and Provincial Board of Cavite from tearing down or destroying the fence.
The Court held that a careful examination of the statutes governing the functions and powers of provincial governors and boards revealed they had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the resolution or commit the act of tearing down the fence. This lack of authority stood regardless of whether the callejon was a public highway or if the action was taken for reasons of public health.
The Court clarified that the relevant legal provisions outlining the powers of provincial boards pertained primarily to the construction, repair, and maintenance of roads and bridges, and certain appropriations, but did not grant them the power to remove obstructions or abate nuisances on highways within a municipality. Instead, the Court found that the removal of obstructions and the destruction of nuisances on highways within the municipality of Cavite were matters solely within the purview of the municipal council of that municipality, as per Act No. 82, as amended, which delineates the powers of municipal councils to make ordinances for public health, safety, and the general welfare, and to enforce obedience thereto.
The Court explicitly stated that it would not decide the question of ownership of the land or whether the alleged street was a public highway, as it was immaterial to the core issue of the provincial board’s authority.