G.R. No. L-29910; April 25, 1969
ANTONIO C. FAVIS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. THE CITY OF BAGUIO and THE SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, LIMITED, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On April 30, 1957, Antonio C. Favis bought a parcel of land from Assumption Convent, Inc. Simultaneous with the sale, Assumption Convent donated an adjoining lot to the City of Baguio “for road purposes.” This donated road serves as Favis’s means of egress and ingress from his residence to Lapu-Lapu Street, a public street. Lapu-Lapu Street, which is eight (8) meters wide, is part of a tract of land registered in the City’s name and ends where it meets the donated road and a fenced lot owned by Olmina Fernandez. An ocular inspection revealed the road opening at this connecting point was only 2.5 meters wide.
The City had leased Lot 25 of the Baguio Market Subdivision to Shell Company since 1947, on which Shell built a service station. On May 10, 1961, the City Council passed Resolution No. 132, authorizing a new lease to Shell for Lot 25 and an additional 100-square-meter area (“Lot B”) taken from Lapu-Lapu Street, abutting Lot 25. A formal lease contract was executed. Shell applied for a building permit to construct a bigger station. The City Engineer noted that Lot B was within the road right-of-way of Lapu-Lapu Street and for public use, suggesting it may not be leased. Favis protested the lease, arguing it would diminish the street’s width and that the City lacked authority to lease public streets.
On July 19, 1961, the City Council passed Resolution No. 215, amending Resolution No. 132. It converted the portion of Lapu-Lapu Street southeast from Lot B into an alley five (5) meters wide (four meters in actual use) and declared that Lot B would not be part of this alley. Favis filed a complaint seeking annulment of the lease contract, demolition of constructions on the leased area, and damages. The lower court upheld the resolutions and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether Resolutions No. 132 and 215, Series of 1961, of the City Council of Baguio, which authorized the lease of a portion of Lapu-Lapu Street to Shell and the conversion of the remainder into a narrower alley, are valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the resolutions and affirmed the lower court’s decision.
1. On the form of the municipal action: The appellant argued the resolutions were invalid because the City Charter requires the power to close streets to be carried “into effect by ordinance.” The Court ruled that a resolution passed with the same statutory formality required for an ordinance is binding and effective as an ordinance. Resolutions No. 132 and 215 were unanimously approved, carried the city council’s seal, were signed by the presiding officer, approved by the Mayor, and attested by the City Secretary. With the presumption of validity and regularity, they have the same force as ordinances.
2. On the requirement of notice: The appellant argued the resolutions were invalid for lack of notice to affected contiguous property owners as required by the City Charter. The Court held the charter’s specific notice provision applies only when an ordinance calls for an assessment. Since the resolutions did not call for any assessment against the appellant or his land, the notice was not required. Furthermore, the appellant’s actual protest and the council’s subsequent action subserved the purpose of notice.
3. On the authority to close or narrow the street: The appellant contended the narrowing of Lapu-Lapu Street violated Executive Order No. 113, which prescribed a minimum width of eight (8) meters for city streets. The Court ruled that a municipal corporation, like the City of Baguio, has the authority to close or abandon a street if it is no longer necessary for public use. The determination of what is for the public welfare is primarily vested in the municipal council. The evidence showed Lapu-Lapu Street was a dead end, the leased portion was adjacent to a private lot with a sharp depression making it impassable, and the remaining four-meter alley was sufficient for the needs of the few residents in the area, including the appellant. The Court found no abuse of discretion, as the council’s action was based on the street’s usefulness and public necessity. The lease to Shell for a service station, which would benefit the public, was a proper exercise of this authority.