Skip to main content

MMDA vs Bel-Air Village Assoc. CASE DIGEST

MMDA vs Bel-Air Village Assoc.
March 27, 2000

Puno, J.

FACTS

Petitioner MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila.  Respondent Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose members are homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private subdivision in Makati City. Respondent BAVA is the registered owner of Neptune Street, a road inside Bel-Air Village.

On December 30, 1995, respondent received from petitioner, through its Chairman, a notice dated December 22, 1995 requesting respondent to open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996.

Actions Filed:
1.       BAVA – applied for injunction; trial court issued temporary restraining order but after due hearing, trial court denied the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
2.       BAVA – appealed to CA which issued preliminary injunction and later ruled that MMDA has no authority to order the opening of Neptune Street, a private subdivision road and cause the demolition of its perimeter walls. It held that the authority is lodged in the City Council of Makati by ordinance.
MMDA – filed motion for reconsideration but was denied by CA; hence the current recourse.

ISSUES


 1.                1.     Has the MMDA the mandate to open Neptune Street to public traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers?
         2.    Is the passage of an ordinance a condition precedent before the MMDA may order the opening of subdivision roads to public traffic?

HELD

The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, "development authority." All its functions are administrative in nature.

The powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and administration. There is no syllable in R.A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power.

The MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the local government units, acting through their respective legislative councils that possess legislative power and police power. In the case at bar, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal and the respondent Court of Appeals did not err in so ruling.

The MMDA was created to put some order in the metropolitan transportation system but unfortunately the powers granted by its charter are limited. Its good intentions cannot justify the opening for public use of a private street in a private subdivision without any legal warrant. The promotion of the general welfare is not antithetical to the preservation of the rule of law.

 DISPOSITION 


IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals
are affirmed.

Comments

  1. BigwasMarch 27, 2018 at 1:56 PM

    I taught MMDA power is merely to enforce traffic laws in Metro Manila...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al CASE DIGEST

G.R. Nos. 152613 & 152628 APEX MINING CO., INC., vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.,(SEM) et. al  G.R. No. 152619-20 BALITE COMMUNAL PORTAL MINING COOPERATIVE vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corp.  G.R. No. 152870-71 THE MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS, THE HON. VICTOR O. RAMOS (Chairman), UNDERSECRETARY VIRGILIO MARCELO (Member) and DIRECTOR HORACIO RAMOS (Member) vs. southeast mindanao gold mining corporation  FACTS: A motion for reconsideration was filed by SEM. The Assailed Decision held that the assignment of Exploration Permit (EP) 133 in favor of SEM violated one of the conditions stipulated in the permit. It also ruled that the transfer of EP 133 violated Presidential Decree No. 463, which requires that the assignment of a mining right be made with the prior approval of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Moreover, the Assailed Decision pointed out that EP 133 expired by non-renew...
Post a Comment
Read more

G.R. No. 115104 Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals CASE DIGEST

Macawiwili Gold Mining and Dev. Co., et al v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 115104 October 12, 1998 FACTS: The Supreme Court recognized the possessory right of Macawiwili and Omico over mining claims in Benguet as against Philex Mining Corp. On the surface of these mining claims,Philex owned improvements consisting of roads, facilities, and bunkhouses that were used byPhilex in its other mining claims. Philex sought to expropriate the surface of the area wherethese improvements were located pursuant to Section 59 of PD 463. HELD: The land cannot be expropriated. Expropriation demands that the land be private land.When the Supreme Court awarded the possessory rights over the land to Macawiwili andOmico, it stripped the land of its private character and gave it its public character – to be utilizedfor mining operations. Property already devoted to public use may be expropriated only if donedirectly by the national legislature or under a specific grant of authority to the d...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fernandez vs HRET CASE DIGEST GR No 187478

Fernandez vs HRET | GR No 187478 | December 21, 2009 Topic: House of Representatives > Residency Requirement  Facts:  On the May 14, 2007 elections, petitioner filed for candidacy as Representative of the First Legislative District of the Province of Laguna. In his Certificate of Candidacy, he indicated that he is a resident of Sta. Rosa City, Laguna. Private respondent sought the cancellation of petitioner’s COC and the latter’s disqualification as a candidate on the ground of an alleged material misrepresentation in his COC regarding his place of residence, because during past elections, he had declared Pagsanjan, Laguna as his address, and Pagsanjan was located in the Fourth Legislative District of the Province of Laguna. Private respondent likewise claimed that petitioner maintained another house in Cabuyao, Laguna, which was also outside the First District. The petition, however, was dismissed by COMELEC for lack of merit.  On June 27, 2007, petitioner was...
Post a Comment
Read more