G.R. No. L-14700; May 30, 1960
BENITO R. GUINTO, OFELIA LIM, MARIA BANSIL, ISABEL VDA. DE BATAC, PABLO VIRAY, PATRICIA MACALINAO and FELIPE LEGASPI, petitioners-appellants, vs. ARSENIO H. LACSON, as City Mayor of Manila and JOSE LICUANAN as Acting City Engineer, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The petitioners-appellants filed a petition for prohibition in the Manila Court of First Instance to stop the impending demolition of their houses erected on the Estero de Tutuban, which had been ordered by the Mayor and City Engineer of Manila as public nuisances. The respondents-appellees moved to quash the petition on the ground that in 1956, the same petitioners had filed an identical petition for prohibition against the same respondents for the same purpose and on the same grounds (Civil Case No. 28857). That prior petition was finally dismissed on October 5, 1956, due to the non-appearance of the petitioners and their counsel. The petitioners admitted this dismissal but argued that their houses could not be public nuisances because the authorities had not enforced the demolition order for two years since 1956. They also contended that the estero had outlived its usefulness as a drainage due to street construction and invoked Section 13 of Rule 39, which requires a special court order for the destruction or removal of improvements made by a defendant on property.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for prohibition to stop the demolition of the petitioners’ houses on Estero de Tutuban is barred by the prior dismissal of an identical case and whether the demolition orders are valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition for prohibition. The Court held that the prior dismissal of Civil Case No. 28857 in 1956 was final and barred the present petition, as it involved the same parties, purpose, and grounds. The petitioners’ argument that the non-enforcement of the demolition order for two years negated the nuisance was rejected; the law allows execution of a judgment within five years, and the delay did not invalidate the order. The claim that the estero had become obsolete due to street construction was also dismissed, as it did not grant the petitioners any right to occupy government property. The invocation of Section 13 of Rule 39 was overruled, as it applies to judgments for delivery of real property and not to the abatement of public nuisances. The Court cited established doctrine, referencing Sitchon et al. vs. Aquino, that houses constructed on public waterways constitute nuisances per se and public nuisances, and their summary removal may be authorized by statute or ordinance without judicial process, consistent with due process. The demolition orders issued by the Mayor and City Engineer were upheld as valid. Costs were imposed against the appellants.