G.R. No. L-11051; June 30, 1958
Victoriano Manzano, petitioner-appellee, vs. Hon. Arsenio H. Lacson, as Mayor of the City of Manila and Alejo Aquino, as City Engineer of the City of Manila, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Sometime in August 1948, the Rural Progress Administration acquired Tuason Estate No. 2 in Sampaloc, Manila, for resale to occupants. Administration was later transferred to “Ang Buhay, Inc.,” which subdivided the land. The subdivision plan (Psd-24819) was approved by the Bureau of Lands and, as to layout, by the Adviser to the President on Planning. The Rural Progress Administration was abolished, and its assets were transferred to the Landed Estates Division of the Bureau of Lands.
Petitioner Victoriano Manzano purchased Lot 3, Block 3, of this subdivision on installment. On May 13, 1953, he applied with respondent City Engineer for a temporary building permit to construct a house. The lot did not abut on any existing street, only on a proposed street shown on the plan. His application bore the conformity of the Chief of the Landed Estates Division, who noted: “The street along this lot will be constructed as soon as funds for the purpose is made available.”
Previously, the city authorities had issued several temporary building permits for houses on other lots in the same subdivision abutting only on proposed roads, based on similar assurances from the Director of Lands. Those roads had not yet been constructed.
The City Engineer forwarded Manzano’s application to the City Mayor, stating no objection due to the Bureau of Lands’ compromise. However, on October 31, 1955, the City Engineer notified Manzano that the Mayor had disapproved the application, citing paragraph (d), Section 8, of Executive Order No. 98, series of 1946. Manzano filed a petition for mandamus.
In their answer, respondents also raised as an affirmative defense Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, which requires that a building shall abut or face upon a public street or alley or on a privately owned but officially approved street or alley.
The lower court ruled that both legal grounds for disapproval were not well-taken and commanded respondents to issue the permit. Respondents appealed.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Victoriano Manzano has complied with the requisites of paragraph (d), Section 8 of Executive Order No. 98, series of 1946, and Section 103 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, to be entitled to a building permit.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court.
1. On Executive Order No. 98: The Court held that Manzano did not comply with the conditions of paragraph (d), Section 8. This provision prohibits issuing a building permit unless the access street (1) is already a public street, (2) corresponds to a street on a subdivision plan approved by the designated “Administrative Agency,” or (3) corresponds to a street duly located or accepted by the legislative body. Manzano relied on the second condition, arguing the plan was approved by the Presidential Adviser on Planning. The Court found this untenable. The “Administrative Agency” referred to in the Order is the one designated by the (Urban Planning) Commission to administer subdivision regulations, as stated in the preceding paragraph (b). It was not proved that Mr. Croft, the Presidential Adviser, was that designated agency. Therefore, Manzano failed to bring his case under any of the exceptions in Executive Order No. 98.
2. On Section 103 of the Manila Revised Ordinances: The Court also held that Manzano did not meet the requirement of this ordinance. Section 103 mandates that a building must “abut or face upon a public street or alley or on a private street or alley which has been officially approved.” The Court interpreted this to mean a street or alley that is already in existence and constructed, not merely a proposed or planned one delineated on paper. The lot in question abutted only a proposed street, which was not yet constructed. The Court noted that the ordinance’s second proviso, which requires the grantee to maintain and keep in good repair any approved private alley opened in an interior lot, implies that the street or alley must already be opened and in use, necessitating maintenance. A mere proposed street cannot be “maintained and kept in good repair.”
Since Manzano failed to satisfy the requirements of both applicable laws, the Mayor’s disapproval of the building permit was justified. The writ of mandamus to compel its issuance was improperly granted.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision of the lower court was reversed, and the petition for mandamus was dismissed.