G.R. No. 206423 , July 1, 2015.
LEONCIO ALANGDEO, ARTHUR VERCELES, and DANNY VERGARA, Petitioners, vs. The City Mayor of Baguio, HON. BRAULIO D. YARANON (to be substituted by incumbent City Mayor, HON. MAURICIO DO MOGAN), JEOFREY MORTELA, Head Demolition Team, CITY ENGINEER’S OFFICE, and ERNESTO LARDIZABAL, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Leoncio Alangdeo, Arthur Verceles, and Danny Vergara constructed a residential structure and garage extension on a parcel of land at Barangay Atok Trail, Baguio City. Respondent Ernesto Lardizabal filed a complaint for demolition before the City Engineer’s Office, alleging the land was owned by Mariano Pangloy and his father, Juanito Lardizabal. An investigation found the construction had no building permit. Consequently, the City Mayor issued Demolition Order No. 05, series of 2005 (DO No. 05), directing the summary demolition of the structures pursuant to Section 3, par. 2.5(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations governing summary eviction issued under Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992). Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting them to file a complaint for injunction and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin the order’s implementation. The RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction.
During trial, Verceles testified he had a Tax Declaration and a pending Ancestral Land Claim application with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) for the property, which he had occupied and paid taxes on since 1977. He also stated that Ernesto had previously filed a case with the DENR-CAR questioning his possession, which was dismissed but appealed to the DENR Secretary. He further testified that Barangay Atok Trail is covered by Proclamation No. 414, s. 1957, declaring it a mineral reservation, preventing him from obtaining a title. The Punong Barangay testified that a 2003 census found 230 houses in the area, none with building permits, and that the City Council had requested the area’s release for housing. Respondents’ witnesses testified the structures lacked building permits, and Ernesto confirmed the possession issue was pending appeal with the DENR Secretary.
The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, enjoining the demolition until resolution of all cases/issues involving the property by appropriate agencies, finding that Proclamation 414 made the entire area a buffer zone where all structures lacked permits, and allowing demolition would violate equal protection. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC, finding petitioners failed to show any right to be protected, citing a DENR Secretary Decision that recognized the ancestral rights of Mariano Pangloy and the Heirs of Juanito Lardizabal over the property pending NCIP determination. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, which raised a subsequent NCIP Regional Hearing Office Decision favoring petitioners’ ancestral claim, maintaining petitioners had no right in esse and the demolition was proper due to the lack of a building permit.

ISSUE

The issues are: (a) whether the CA should have dismissed respondents’ appeal as it involves pure questions of law and/or for lack of merit; and (b) whether the issuance of a writ of injunction is warranted.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court ruled that the appeal to the CA involved pure questions of law—specifically, whether the demolition order was authorized by law and whether the RTC’s grant of injunction based on equal protection was proper—and thus should have been dismissed by the CA under Section 2, Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, as it was filed with the wrong tribunal; such appeals should be brought directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to review the substantive merits.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that the issuance of a writ of injunction was warranted. It found that Demolition Order No. 05 was issued under the Summary Eviction IRR, which applies only to new squatter families (structures built after RA 7279’s effectivity) or professional squatters/squatting syndicates. The Order did not allege petitioners fell under these categories. Furthermore, the structures were not situated in a danger area or public place as enumerated in Section 28 of RA 7279, which is a prerequisite for summary eviction. The lack of a building permit alone does not justify summary demolition under RA 7279; the proper procedure is under the National Building Code (PD 1096), which requires notice and hearing, not summary action. The Court also noted the peculiar circumstances: the property is within a proclaimed mineral reservation (Proclamation 414), explaining the absence of building permits for all 230 houses in the area, and there are pending administrative determinations on ancestral claims before the NCIP and DENR. Thus, the RTC correctly enjoined the demolition to prevent a violation of the equal protection clause, as selectively demolishing petitioners’ structures while leaving others untouched would be arbitrary. The CA decision was reversed, and the RTC decision granting the injunction was reinstated.