GR 166735; (September, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166735 ; September 5, 2006
SPOUSES NEREO and NIEVA DELFINO, petitioners, vs. ST. JAMES HOSPITAL, INC. and HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, respondents.
FACTS
St. James Hospital, a two-storey, ten-bed facility in a residential subdivision in Santa Rosa, Laguna, applied in 1994 to expand into a four-storey, forty-bed hospital. The HLURB Deputized Zoning Administrator initially issued a temporary clearance and later a Certificate of Locational Viability (CLV) and Locational Clearance, citing the 1981 Municipal Zoning Ordinance. Petitioners, subdivision residents, opposed the expansion. During the proceedings, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan approved the 1991 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which excluded hospitals from the list of permissible uses in residential zones. The HLURB Legal Services Group subsequently revoked the clearances, ordered the demolition of the expansion building, and mandated the hospital’s eventual relocation.
ISSUE
Whether the proposed expansion of St. James Hospital into a four-storey, forty-bed capacity medical institution is permissible under the applicable zoning regulations.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and prohibited the expansion. The legal logic hinges on the proper application of the 1991 Zoning Ordinance, which was already in force when the HLURB Legal Services Group rendered its decision. While the original ten-bed hospital is considered a lawful non-conforming use under the new ordinance, its proposed expansion is expressly prohibited. The Court meticulously examined Section 4, Article VI of the 1991 Ordinance, which lists permissible uses in an Institutional Zone, and hospitals are conspicuously absent from this enumeration. More critically, Section 4, Article VII on Non-Conforming Uses explicitly states that a “non-conforming building shall not be enlarged or extended to occupy a greater area of land.” The Court held that allowing the expansion would contravene this clear statutory prohibition. The ruling balances the protection of vested rights—allowing the existing hospital to continue its operations—with the strict enforcement of new zoning laws aimed at orderly community development, thereby preventing the enlargement of a non-conforming use.