G.R. No. 104786 January 27, 1994
ALFREDO PATALINGHUG, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RICARDO CRIBILLO, MARTIN ARAPOL, CORAZON ALCASID, PRIMITIVA SEDO, respondents.

FACTS

On November 17, 1982, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance No. 363, the “Expanded Zoning Ordinance of Davao City.” Section 8 thereof permits the establishment of funeral parlors/memorial homes in C-2 (commercial) districts, provided they are “established not less than 50 meters from any residential structures, churches and other institutional buildings.” Petitioner Alfredo Patalinghug was issued Building Permit No. 870254 on February 10, 1987, after prior approval and certification of zoning compliance, for the construction of a funeral parlor named Metropolitan Funeral Parlor at Cabaguio Avenue, Agdao, Davao City. He commenced construction thereafter. Private respondents, residents of Barangay Agdao, complained that the construction violated Ordinance No. 363 as it was allegedly within a 50-meter radius from an Iglesia ni Kristo Chapel and several residential structures. An investigation by the Sangguniang Panlungsod found that the nearest residential structure, owned by Wilfred G. Tepoot, was only 8 inches away. Despite this finding, petitioner completed the funeral parlor on November 3, 1987. Private respondents filed a case for declaration of nullity of the building permit with the trial court. After an ocular inspection, the trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the residential building of respondent Cribillo and the Iglesia ni Kristo chapel were 63.25 meters and 55.95 meters away, respectively. It also found that although the Tepoot building was adjacent, it was being rented and used for a laundry business with machinery, and thus was commercial. The trial court also ruled the suit was premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, annulling the building permit. It ruled that the Tepoot building, despite its use for laundry business, was a residential lot as reflected in its tax declaration, thus bringing the funeral parlor within the prohibited 50-meter radius from a residential structure.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Tepoot building adjacent to petitioner’s funeral parlor is residential simply because it was declared as such for taxation purposes, thereby finding a violation of Section 8 of Davao City Ordinance No. 363.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the ruling of the trial court. The Court held that a tax declaration is not conclusive of the nature of property for zoning purposes. A property declared as residential for real estate tax purposes may well be within a commercial zone. The trial court’s factual determination that the Tepoot building was commercial, based on its actual use for a laundry business with machinery, must prevail. This finding is strengthened by the fact that the Sangguniang Panlungsod, through Ordinance No. 363, had declared the area in question as a C-2 district, dominantly for commercial and compatible industrial uses. The declaration of the area as a commercial zone through a municipal ordinance is a valid exercise of police power to promote the general welfare. Since the operation of a funeral parlor constitutes a commercial purpose under the ordinance, and the area is zoned as commercial, the petitioner did not violate Section 8 of Ordinance No. 363.