Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 338 views

    Pabalan V Executive Secretary G.R. No. 165445

    Uploaded by

    Vic Fronda
    The petitioner filed a complaint alleging that a construction project by IEMELIF encroached on his property. The Office of the Building Official (OBO) inspected the site and issued a work stoppage order, then a resolution declaring the petitioner the owner and ordering demolition for lack of a building permit. However, the DPWH Secretary and Executive Secretary declared the OBO resolution null and void, finding that the OBO exceeded its authority by declaring ownership when the complaint regarded encroachment, which requires determination of boundaries by a court first. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also found that demolition is not always appropriate for illegal construction and that encroachment disputes require boundary determination by a court first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pabalan V Executive Secretary G.R. No. 165445

    Uploaded by

    Vic Fronda
    338 views2 pages
    The petitioner filed a complaint alleging that a construction project by IEMELIF encroached on his property. The Office of the Building Official (OBO) inspected the site and issued a work stoppage order, then a resolution declaring the petitioner the owner and ordering demolition for lack of a building permit. However, the DPWH Secretary and Executive Secretary declared the OBO resolution null and void, finding that the OBO exceeded its authority by declaring ownership when the complaint regarded encroachment, which requires determination of boundaries by a court first. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also found that demolition is not always appropriate for illegal construction and that encroachment disputes require boundary determination by a court first.

    Original Description:

    Building Code

    Original Title

    Pabalan v Executive Secretary G.R. No. 165445

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed a complaint alleging that a construction project by IEMELIF encroached on his property. The Office of the Building Official (OBO) inspected the site and issued a work stoppage order, then a resolution declaring the petitioner the owner and ordering demolition for lack of a building permit. However, the DPWH Secretary and Executive Secretary declared the OBO resolution null and void, finding that the OBO exceeded its authority by declaring ownership when the complaint regarded encroachment, which requires determination of boundaries by a court first. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also found that demolition is not always appropriate for illegal construction and that encroachment disputes require boundary determination by a court first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    338 views2 pages

    Pabalan V Executive Secretary G.R. No. 165445

    Uploaded by

    Vic Fronda
    The petitioner filed a complaint alleging that a construction project by IEMELIF encroached on his property. The Office of the Building Official (OBO) inspected the site and issued a work stoppage order, then a resolution declaring the petitioner the owner and ordering demolition for lack of a building permit. However, the DPWH Secretary and Executive Secretary declared the OBO resolution null and void, finding that the OBO exceeded its authority by declaring ownership when the complaint regarded encroachment, which requires determination of boundaries by a court first. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also found that demolition is not always appropriate for illegal construction and that encroachment disputes require boundary determination by a court first.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PABALAN vs.

    THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY


    G.R. No. 165445. December 15, 2004

    FACTS:
    The present controversy stemmed from a letter-complaint dated On February 12, 1997,
    Luis G. Pabalan (petitioner) filed a letter-complaint before the Office of the Building Official
    (OBO) of Quezon City, alleging that the construction work being undertaken by private
    respondent Iglesia Evangelika Metodista En Las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF) encroached on his
    property.
    Acting on the complaint, the OBO conducted an ocular inspection of the premises.
    Thereafter, it issued a work stoppage order against the construction work complained of, and
    called the parties to a hearing.
    On July 23, 1997, the OBO issued a resolution declaring petitioner as the registered
    owner of the property and ordered the demolition of the constructed building on ground lack
    of the required building permit.
    On appeal, the DPWH Secretary declared the OBO Resolution dated July 23, 1997 in
    Building Case No. 97-47 null and void. Consequently, all subsequent Orders and processes
    issued by the OBO based on the said Resolution are also hereby declared void and no force
    and effect.
    On appeal to the Office of the President, the Executive Secretary affirmed the order of
    the DPWH Secretary, reiterating the latter's pronouncement that where the complaint is
    grounded on encroachment, the boundaries of affected parties must first be established by a
    competent court for the reliefs available to them and that OBO exceeded its authority
    delegated to it under the [National Building Code] when it declared Pabalan as the legitimate
    owner of said lot.
    On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court affirmed the resolutions promulgated by
    the DPWH Secretary and the Executive Secretary.

    ISSUE(S):
    1. Is demolition the appropriate sanction for illegal construction grounded on lack of building
    permit?
    2. Is the OBO authorized by virtue of the National Building Code to declare a party in
    encroachment complaint the legitimate owner of the disputed lot?

    RULING:
    Demolition is not at all times the appropriate sanction for illegal construction,
    grounded on lack of the required building permit. The National Building Code, being a curative
    law, allows the builder of an illegally constructed building to legitimize his construction even
    belatedly as long as he could present title to the property, submit as built plans of his building
    and the construction meets the minimum requirements and standard of the Code and its
    implementing Rules and Regulations.
    On the other hand, when the complaint is grounded on encroachment, the boundaries
    of affected parties must first be established by a competent court for the determination of
    the reliefs available to them under all applicable laws and not limited only to the National
    Building Code.

    You might also like