LEONOR FARRALES, assisted
by her husband, EMILIO FARRALES vs. THE CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO, THE CHIEF OF
POLICE, THE MARKET SUPERINTENDENT AND THE CITY TREASURER
G.R. No. L-24245. 11 April 1972.
Appeal from the decision of the CFI Baguio
Makalintal, J.:
FACTS: Plaintiff was the holder of a municipal license to sell liquor and sari-sari goods. When the temporary building where she had her stall was demolished in order that the city might construct a permanent building, Plaintiff was ordered to move her goods to another temporary place until the permanent building was completed. Instead, Plaintiff built a temporary shack at one end of the Rice Section, Baguio City Market without seeking prior permit from any city official. When the police threatened to demolish the shack, Plaintiff sought an injunction before the CFI which asked her that she present proper permit. Upon failure of petitioner to comply with the order, the CFI denied the petition for injunction, and the police then demolished the shack.
ISSUES: (1) WON the shack or temporary stall was a nuisance; (2) WON the police officers are liable for damages in extrajudicially abating the nuisance.
RULING: Judgment Affirmed.
(1) The SC held that the shack was a nuisance. In the first place she had no permit to put up the temporary stall in question in the precise place where she did so. In the second place, its location on the cement passageway at the end of the Rice Section building was such that it constituted an obstruction to the free movement of people.
(2) According to Article 707 of the CC, a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages in only two cases: (a) if he causes unnecessary injury; or (b) if an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.
In the case at bar, no unnecessary injury was caused to the appellant, and not only was there no judicial declaration that the alleged nuisance was not really so but the trial court found that it was in fact a nuisance. Indeed it may be said that the abatement thereof was not summary, but through a judicial proceeding. The denial of petitioner’s petition for injunction was in effect an authority for the police to carry out the act which was sought to be enjoined.
G.R. No. L-24245. 11 April 1972.
Appeal from the decision of the CFI Baguio
Makalintal, J.:
FACTS: Plaintiff was the holder of a municipal license to sell liquor and sari-sari goods. When the temporary building where she had her stall was demolished in order that the city might construct a permanent building, Plaintiff was ordered to move her goods to another temporary place until the permanent building was completed. Instead, Plaintiff built a temporary shack at one end of the Rice Section, Baguio City Market without seeking prior permit from any city official. When the police threatened to demolish the shack, Plaintiff sought an injunction before the CFI which asked her that she present proper permit. Upon failure of petitioner to comply with the order, the CFI denied the petition for injunction, and the police then demolished the shack.
ISSUES: (1) WON the shack or temporary stall was a nuisance; (2) WON the police officers are liable for damages in extrajudicially abating the nuisance.
RULING: Judgment Affirmed.
(1) The SC held that the shack was a nuisance. In the first place she had no permit to put up the temporary stall in question in the precise place where she did so. In the second place, its location on the cement passageway at the end of the Rice Section building was such that it constituted an obstruction to the free movement of people.
(2) According to Article 707 of the CC, a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages in only two cases: (a) if he causes unnecessary injury; or (b) if an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.
In the case at bar, no unnecessary injury was caused to the appellant, and not only was there no judicial declaration that the alleged nuisance was not really so but the trial court found that it was in fact a nuisance. Indeed it may be said that the abatement thereof was not summary, but through a judicial proceeding. The denial of petitioner’s petition for injunction was in effect an authority for the police to carry out the act which was sought to be enjoined.