(Digest) Greater Balanga V Balanga

Greater Balanga v Balanga
G.R. No. 83987 December 27, 1994 QUIASON, J. DIAZ

petitioners GREATER BALANGA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
responden MUNICIPALITY OF BALANGA, BATAAN; SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF BALANGA, BATAAN;
ts HON. MELANIO S. BANZON, JR.; HON. DOMINGO D. DIZON; HON. AGRIPINO C. BANZON;
HON. EDUARDO P. TUAZON; HON. GABRIEL J. NISAY; HON. LORENZO P. TAPAN; HON.
FEDERICO S. BUSTAMANTE; HON. ROLANDO H. DAVID; HON. EDILBERTO Q. DE
GUZMAN; HON. ALFREDO C. GUILA; and HON. GAVINO S. SANTIAGO
summary GBDC applied for a mayors permit to operate a market in a parcel of land, which was
granted. Later the Sangguniang Bayan issued a resolution because of concerns of market
stall owners over the contested status of ownership over said land. The Mayor then
revoked said permit due to violations of the Balanga Revenue Code. SC: The powers of
municipal corporations are to be construed in strictissimi juris and any doubt or
ambiguity must be construed against the municipality. No violations were proven.
Concerns of stall owners are not a valid ground to deprive GBDC of the use of its
property.
facts of the case

Case to annul EO 1,s-88 issued by the Mayor and Resolution 12,s-88 issued by Sangguniang Bayan of Balanga,
Bataan.
This case involves a parcel of land registered under Greater Balanga Development Corporation, a domestic
corp. owned by Camacho family- said family donated an adjacent land which became Balanga Public Market.
In 1987, GBDC conducted a survey and found out that parts of the market are already encroaching on their
land. A portion of the lot had also been utilized as an unloading site ("bagsakan") of transient vegetable
vendors, who were charged market and entrance fees by the municipality.
In 1988, GBDC acquired a mayor’s permit as a "real estate dealer/privately-owned public market operator"
under the trade name of Balanga Public Market. The permit was to expire on December 31, 1988. Petitioner
likewise registered "Balanga Central Market" as a trade name with the Bureau of Trade Regulations and
Consumer Protection.
Resolution 12,s-88 was passed annulling the mayor’s permit. EO 1 was then issued by the mayor to revoke the
permit to operate a public market.
GBDC filed the instant petition with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory and
prohibitory injunction or restraining order aimed at the reinstatement of the Mayor's permit and the
curtailment of the municipality's collection of market fees and market entrance fees. The Court did not issue
the preliminary reliefs prayed for.
Respondent: Mayor has the power to issue, deny or revoke municipal licenses and permits and the assailed
issuances were a legitimate exercise of local legislative authority and, as such, the revocation of petitioner's
permit was not tainted with any grave abuse of discretion. GBDC should secure 2 permits, one as "real estate
dealer" and another as "privately-owned public market operator." They also violated Section 3A-06(b) 1 Balanga
1
(b) The application for a Mayor's permit shall state the name, residence and citizenship of (sic) the applicant's full description of
the business, the particular place where (sic) the same shall be conducted, and such other pertinent information and date (sic) as any
(sic) be required. If the applicant deliberately makes a false statement in the application form, the Municipal Mayor may revoke the
permit and the applicant may be prosecuted and penalized in accordance with the pertinent provisions of penal laws.
In case a person desires to conduct the same kind or line of business in another place within the Municipality, in addition to or aside
from the establishment specified in his permit, he shall secure a separate permit for each business and pay the corresponding fee
imposed in this article. If a person desires to engage in more than one kind or line of business, he shall pay the fee imposed on each
separate business, notwithstanding the fact that he may conduct or operate all distinct business (sic), trades or occupation in one
place only.
1
Revenue Code because they did not disclose the true status of the area (subject of an adverse claim where a
civil case was filed) thus making false statements in their application for the permit.
Petitioner: the issuances were quasi-judicial acts and not mere exercises of police power. There was no due
process and GBDC did not violate any law or ordinance.
CIVIL CASE (this is the basis for the Resolution which in turn caused the Mayor to issue the EO)
The civil case mentioned above is Leoncia Dizon, et. al. v. Aurora B. Camacho- where 5 buyers of the land
beside the public market were suing Camacho for partition and delivery of titles. The buyers won and
affirmed up to the SC. (Lot 261-B)
On the other hand Camacho donated Lot 261-B-6-A-3 (civil case decision does not show if it encompasses this
parcel totally) to her daughter where a new TCT was issued. The latter then transferred the land to GBDC
where a new TCT was also issued.
Sangguniang Bayan: Issued the resolution under its power to provide for the establishment and maintenance
of public markets in the municipality and "to regulate any business subject to municipal license tax or fees and
prescribe the conditions under which a municipal license may be revoked". Their reasoning is that the the
issuance of the Mayor's permit to petitioner who was not the rightful owner had caused "anxiety, uncertainty
and restiveness" among the stallholders and traders in the subject lot; and that the Sangguniang Bayan
therefore resolved to annul the said Mayor's permit insofar as it concerns the operation of a public market.
issue
WON the revocation of the Mayor's permit was valid. NO
ratio
On the issue of having 2 businesses
The application itself was left blank on the type of business GBDC wanted to engage in. The 2 businesses only
appeared in the Mayor’s permit itself. The permit should not have been issued without the required
information given in the application form itself. Section 3A-06(b) does not expressly require two permits for
their conduct of two or more businesses in one place, but only that separate fees be paid for each business. The
powers of municipal corporations are to be construed in strictissimi juris and any doubt or ambiguity must
be construed against the municipality
On the issue of false statement

There was also no false misrepresentation. There must be proof of willful misrepresentation and deliberate
intent to make a false statement. Good faith is always presumed, and as it happened, petitioner did not make
any false statement in the pertinent entry.
On the issue of the civil case

There is no question that Lot 261-B-6-A-3 is a portion of Lot 261-B-6. As to whether plaintiffs' claims embraced
specifically Lot 261-B-6-A-3 could not be determined from the face of the decision in the civil case. There is no
showing that Lot 261-B-6-A-3 was awarded by the court to one of the plaintiffs therein. There is no proof either
that the judgment in said case had already been executed and the titles delivered to the plaintiffs. Civil case
was decided in 1983 in the SC. 1984 was the date of the survey. Jan. 1988 GBDC got the TCT "without any
memorandum of encumbrance or encumbrances pertaining to any decision rendered in any civil case" Clearly,
for all intents and purposes, petitioner appeared to be the true owner of Lot 261-B-6-A-3 when respondents
2
revoked its permit to engaged in business on its own land. Even if it was part of the award in the civil case it
still does not justify the revocation of the permit.
The municipality only planned to acquire said lot. Until expropriation proceedings are instituted in court, the
landowner cannot be deprived of its right over the land.
Of course, the Sangguniang Bayan has the duty in the exercise of its police powers to regulate any business
subject to municipal license fees and prescribe the conditions under which a municipal license already issued
may be revoked. Anxiety, uncertainty, restiveness" among the stallholders and traders cannot be a valid
ground for revoking the permit of petitioner.
No Due Process
The alleged violation of Section 3A-06(b) of the Balanga Revenue Code was not stated in the order of
revocation, and neither was petitioner informed of this specific violation until the Rejoinder was filed in the
instant case. In fact, with all the more reason should due process have been observed in view of the questioned
Resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan.
In view of the undisputed fact that the respondent Municipality is not the owner of Lot 261-B-6-A-3, then there
is no legal basis for it to impose and collect market fees and market entrance fees. Only the owner has the right
to do so.
Be that as it may, the Mayor's permit issued on January 11, 1988 cannot now be reinstated despite the nullity of
its revocation. The permit expired on December 31, 1988.

(Digest) Greater Balanga V Balanga

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Digest) Greater Balanga V Balanga

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Digest) Greater Balanga V Balanga

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Greater Balanga v Balanga

G.R. No. 83987 December 27, 1994 QUIASON, J. DIAZ

facts of the case

On the issue of false statement

On the issue of the civil case

You might also like