Hipolito, Jr. v. Cinco

G.R. No. 174143 (November 28, 2011)

Court denied Hipolito's appeal; properties deemed dangerous, upholding due process and public safety.

Facts:

Petitioners Ricardo Hipolito, Jr. and Liza Hipolito inherited a three-storey apartment building located at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila, which was constructed by Edeltrudis Hipolito y Mariano in 1989 under a rental agreement with Francisco Villena. The building was erected without a building permit. In 2002, Atty. Carlos Cinco and his family, who claimed ownership of the property through a deed of sale from 1976, filed a request for a structural inspection of the building due to concerns about its condition.

Following the inspection by the Office of the Building Official (OBO), which revealed significant structural and safety issues, the OBO declared the buildings dangerous and recommended their demolition. The petitioners contested this decision, arguing that the condemnation proceedings were improperly initiated and that they were builders in good faith. They sought a separate inspection by an impartial body, but their appeal was dismissed by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and later by the Office of the President (OP).

The petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the decisions of the lower administrative bodies without addressing the ownership issue. The petitioners subsequently filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the administrative authorities' resolution sustaining the recommendations of the OBO.
  2. Whether the OBO violated due process in conducting the hearings and issuing the inspection report.
  3. Whether the OBO overstepped its authority by not applying relevant provisions of the Civil Code in its decision.
  4. Whether the petitioners or their predecessor were builders in good faith of the three-storey apartment building.
  5. Whether the action for extrajudicial abatement of nuisance was appropriate in this case.

Arguments:

Petitioners' Arguments:

  • The petitioners contended that the OBO's actions were anomalous and aimed at circumventing their rights as builders in good faith.
  • They argued that the OBO did not observe due process in the hearings and that the inspection report was flawed.
  • They claimed that the OBO overstepped its authority by failing to apply the relevant provisions of the Civil Code regarding nuisances.
  • They maintained that they were builders in good faith and that the buildings should not have been condemned without proper consideration of their rights.

Respondents' Arguments:

  • The respondents asserted that the OBO acted within its authority under the National Building Code to declare the buildings dangerous and recommend demolition based on substantial evidence from inspections.
  • They argued that the petitioners had ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that the findings of the OBO were supported by expert evaluations.
  • They contended that the OBO's mandate to ensure public safety justified the demolition order, regardless of the petitioners' claims of good faith.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decisions of the CA and the administrative bodies. The Court emphasized that it does not re-evaluate factual findings made by administrative agencies, which are accorded great respect due to their expertise in such matters. The Court noted that the OBO's authority to order the condemnation and demolition of dangerous buildings is clearly established under the National Building Code.

The Court found that the OBO had conducted thorough inspections and hearings before issuing its resolution and demolition order. It ruled that the petitioners' claims regarding due process and their rights as builders in good faith were not sufficient to overturn the administrative findings, especially since the lease agreement had expired, leaving them without a legal basis to occupy the property.

The Court also clarified that the OBO's authority to act on dangerous buildings is not contingent upon the motivations of the parties involved and that the findings of the OBO were supported by substantial evidence. The Court reiterated that the administrative agencies' findings must be respected unless there is clear evidence of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present in this case.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • Administrative agencies have the authority to assess the safety and condition of buildings and to issue demolition orders based on their findings.
  • The courts generally do not interfere with the factual determinations made by administrative bodies unless there is a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
  • The rights of builders in good faith do not negate the obligation to comply with safety regulations and the authority of building officials to act in the interest of public safety.