G.R. No. L-24245 April 11, 1972
LEONOR FARRALES, assisted by her husband, EMILIO FARRALES, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. THE CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO, THE CHIEF OF POLICE, THE MARKET SUPERINTENDENT AND THE CITY TREASURER, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Leonor Farrales, a licensed stallholder in the Baguio City Market, was ordered to relocate when her temporary building was slated for demolition to make way for a permanent city structure. Dissatisfied with the alternative temporary location assigned by city officials, she unilaterally constructed a makeshift shack on a cement passageway within the market premises without securing any permit. City police officials warned her of the impending demolition of this unauthorized structure.
Farrales sought judicial relief by filing a petition for injunction to prevent the demolition. The trial court, after a hearing, refused to issue the injunction because she could not present a building permit. Consequently, the police demolished the shack, stored her materials and goods, and later returned them to her. Farrales then filed the present action for damages against the city officials.

ISSUE

Whether the defendants-appellees are liable for damages for the extrajudicial demolition of the plaintiff-appellant’s unauthorized market stall.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, ruling that the defendants were not liable for damages. The legal logic rests on the nature of the structure and the authority for its abatement. The shack, constructed without a permit on a public passageway, constituted a public nuisance per se as it obstructed free public movement. While the Civil Code provides that a district officer should determine if extrajudicial abatement is the best remedy, the police action was justified and did not result in liability under Article 707.
The Court clarified that liability for extrajudicial abatement by an official only attaches if unnecessary injury is caused or if a court later declares the abated structure was not a nuisance. Here, no unnecessary injury was proven, as the materials and goods were returned. Furthermore, the prior judicial proceeding where Farrales sought an injunction was pivotal. The court’s denial of the injunction, due to her lack of a permit, operated as an implicit judicial authorization for the demolition. This was later confirmed by the trial court’s finding in the damages case that the structure was indeed a nuisance. Thus, the demolition was effectively sanctioned by judicial process, negating any claim for damages.