BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO

CAN THE CITY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT UNILATERALLY CONVERT A DONATED SUBDIVISION ROAD LOT TO A CITY ROAD OPEN TO PUBLIC MOTORISTS?

In the case of Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a resolution from the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) directing Bel-Air Village to open its Neptune Street to motorists to decongest traffic in Makati City. In balancing private property rights and police power, the Supreme Court held that while the intention of MMDA is laudable, it should not trample the private property rights of Bel-Air residents absent any delegated legislative-making power on the part of the MMDA. Unlike its predecessor Metro Manila Commission (MMC) and local government units like cities and municipalities, MMDA has no rule-making power or cannot enact local ordinances.

A looming controversy, which I am still free to discuss there being no case filed yet before the courts, is the proposed opening of a previously private subdivision road lot at the back of the Birhen sa Barangay Parish Church in Brgy. Cogon, which was donated by the Diocese of Tagbilaran, then represented by its late Bishop Manuel Mascariňas, to the City Local Government of Tagbilaran, then represented by its first City Mayor, Hon. Venancio Inting. Some residents of the said area claim that since its donation to the city decades ago, it did not receive attention or improvement and allegedly was just recently included in the Annual Investment Plan for the construction of a city road that would connect CPG to Ramirez Street to decongest traffic.

Unlike the case of Metropolitan Manila Development Authority vs. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., supra, wherein the MMDA has no legislative or rule-making power, the City Government has the plenitude of power and authority vested under the Local Government Code. However, residents argue that the exercise of this power should observe the rule of law and due process. Residents’ position is that they are protected under Section 31 of Presidential Decree No. 957 (Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and Condominiums, Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof) dated July 12, 1976, as amended by PD 1216 dated October 14, 1977, which were both issued to protect subdivision lot owners.

Although the donation was made before the issuance of PD 957 and PD 1216, the residents argue that this subsequent legislation should be retroactive and should benefit them. The residents claim that the said alley, even after the donation, have been used as a communal alley for nine (9) subdivision lots in the said area including that of the Parish being a dead-end street. Now the City wants to open the said road to decongest traffic in the CPG Highway which is a legitimate and noble intention. However, as stated in the MMDA case, the execution of such intention should still observe due process and what the law provides as “the promotion of the general welfare is not antithetical to the preservation of the rule of law.” It is now up for the courts to balance general welfare and police power vis-à-vis private property rights of the residents of the said area if no modus vivendi is amicably reached between the parties.