January 27, 1994
FACTS:
·
In 1982, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao
City enacted Ordinance No. 363, or the Expanded Zoning Ordinance of Davao City.
·
Under said ordinance, funeral parlors/memorial
homes in an area designated as a commercial district must be built not less
than 50 meters from any residential structure, church, and other institutional
building.
·
In 1987, Alfredo Patalinghug was able to
secure an approval and certification of zoning compliance from the Zoning
Administrator for the construction of his funeral parlor business within the
AC-2 District, which the subject Ordinance had designated as a commercial
district.
·
Subsequently, residents in the area filed a
complaint, arguing that the funeral parlor under construction was situated
within a 50-meter radius from the Iglesia ni Kristo Chapel and several
residential structures.
·
After investigating the matter, the
Sangguniang Panlungsod found the construction in violation of the subject
Ordinance. It found that the nearest residential structure, owned by Wilfred G.
Tepoot, was only 8 inches to the south and was separated by a mere concrete
fence.
·
Despite the Sanggunian's findings, the
construction proceeded anyway, prompting the residents to bring the matter to
the court.
·
After conducting its own ocular inspection,
the RTC dismissed the complaint based on the following findings:
o that the
residential building mentioned by the residents and Iglesia ni Kristo chapel
were 63.25 meters and 55.95 meters away, respectively from the funeral parlor.
o although
the building owned by a certain Mr. Tepoot was adjacent to the funeral parlor,
and was only separated therefrom by a concrete fence, said residential building
was being rented by a certain Mr. Asiaten who was using it to his laundry
business with machinery thereon.
o the
complainants' suit was premature as they failed to exhaust the administrative
remedies provided by Ordinance No. 363.
·
CA: Reversed the RTC ruling and annulled
the building permit issued to Patalinghug. It ruled that although the
residential structures and Iglesia ni Kristo were beyond the 50-meter
residential radius prohibited by Ordinance 363, the construction of the funeral
parlor was within the 50-meter radius measured from Tepoot's building. It
further ruled that although said building was used by Mr. Tepoot's lessee for
laundry business, it was a residential lot as reflected in the tax declaration,
thus paving the way for the application of Ordinance No. 363.
·
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Is
Mr. Tepoot's building residential or commercial? – COMMERCIAL.
·
Although the general rule is that factual
findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the SC, this admits of
exceptions as when the findings or conclusions of the Court of Appeals and the
trial court are contrary to each other.
·
In the case at bar, the testimony of City
Councilor Vergara would show that Mr. Tepoot's building was used for a dual
purpose both as a dwelling and as a place where a laundry business was
conducted. But while its commercial aspect has been established by the presence
of machineries and laundry paraphernalia, its use as a residence, other than
being declared for taxation purposes as such, was not fully substantiated.
·
A tax declaration is not conclusive of the
nature of the property for zoning purposes. As applied in this case, Mr.
Tepoot's property may have been declared as residential for real estate
taxation purposes but it remained within a commercial zone. A discrepancy may
thus exist in the determination of the nature of property for real estate
taxation purposes vis-a-vis the determination of a property for zoning
purposes.
·
To reiterate, a tax declaration does not bind
a provincial/city assessor, for under the Real Estate Tax Code, appraisal and assessment are based on the
actual use irrespective of "any previous assessment or taxpayer's
valuation thereon," which is based on a taxpayer's declaration. In fact, a
piece of land declared by a taxpayer as residential may be assessed by the
provincial or city assessor as commercial because its actual use is commercial.
·
The RTC's determination that Mr. Tepoot's
building was commercial strengthened by the fact that the Sangguniang
Panlungsod had previously declared the questioned area as commercial. As such,
even if Tepoot's building was declared for taxation purposes as residential,
once a local government has reclassified an area as commercial, that
determination for zoning purposes must prevail.
Whether
Patalinghug's funeral parlor construction was in violation of Ordinance No.
363. – NO.
·
Having ruled that the nearest residential
structures and the Iglesia ni Kristo Chapel are all beyond 50 meters from the
funeral parlor, and having ruled that the adjacent building of Mr. Tepoot is
commercial and not residential, it becomes clear then that Patalinghug's
funeral parlor is not in violation of the city's zoning ordinance.
·
Complainants failed to present convincing
arguments to substantiate their claim that Cabaguio Avenue, where the funeral
parlor was constructed, was still a residential zone. Unquestionably, the
operation of a funeral parlor constitutes a "commercial purpose," as
gleaned from Ordinance No. 363.
·
The declaration of the said area as a
commercial zone thru a municipal ordinance is an exercise of police power to
promote the good order and general welfare of the people in the locality.
Corollary thereto, the state, in order to promote the general welfare, may
interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and
occupations.
·
Thus, persons may be subjected to certain
kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general welfare of the
state and to this fundamental aim of government, the rights of the individual
may be subordinated. The ordinance which regulates the location of funeral
homes has been adopted as part of comprehensive zoning plans for the orderly
development of the area covered thereunder.