Case no.

21

MUNICIPALITY OF KANANGA vs CITY of ORMOC

G.R. No. 141375; April 30, 2003

Facts

A boundary dispute arose between the Municipality of Kananga and the City of
Ormoc. By agreement, the parties submitted the issue to amicable settlement by a joint
session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Ormoc City and the Sangguniang Bayan of
Kananga.

No amicable settlement was reached. A resolution was passed certifying that both
parties have agreed to elevate the matter to the proper court.

The city of Ormoc filed a civil case before the RTC. Petitioner Kananga filed a Motion
to dismiss on the ground that the RTC had no jurisdiction.

RTC rejected petitioner’s motion hence this petition to the SC.

Issue

WoN the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling

Since Kananga is a municipality and Ormoc is an independent component city, Sec.

118 of the LGC does not apply in this case.

The applicable provision is Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. The law provides that the RTC shall have exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

The petition is denied.

Case no. 28

FABIE vs City of Manila

G.R. No. L-6583; Feb. 16, 1912

Facts

The City of Manila enacted an ordinance which provides that the city engineer shall
issue a building permit provided that “the building shall about or face upon a public street
or alley or on a private street or alley which has been officially approved’.

Appellee Fabie, et al., contested that the ordinance was unconstitutional as it

invaded their property rights without due process of law. The lower court found in favor of
appellee and declared the ordinance null and void.

Hence this petition to the SC by appellant City of Manila.

Issue

WoN the ordinance is null and void.

Ruling

The purpose and object of the ordinance is avowedly and manifestly to protect and
secure the health, lives and property of the citizens of Manila against the ravages of fire and
disease. It prevents the huddling and crowding of buildings in irregular masses on single or
adjoining tracts of land, and secures an air space on at least one side of each new residence
or other building constructed in the city. The provisions of the ordinance in question
manifestly promote the safety and security of the citizens of Manila and of their property
against fire and disease, especially epidemic disease, by securing the easy and unimpeded
approach to all new buildings.

There can be no question as to the intent an purpose of the provision of the

ordinance under discussion. It is manifestly intended to subserve the public health and
safety of the citizens of Manila generally and was not conceived in favor of any class or of
particular individuals.

salus populi suprema est lex- "the welfare of the people is the highest law"

The judgment of the lower court is reversed.