FARRALES v CITY MAYOR OF BAGUIO

Makalintal, J.
No. L-24245. – April 11, 1972
FACTS:
● Farrales is the holder of a municipal license to sell liquor and sari-sari goods
● To construct a permanent building, the city demolished the temporary building where she had her stall
 Farrales was ordered to move her goods to another temporary place until the completion of the
construction
o She did not like the location she was assigned
 Farrales built a temporary shack on the cement passageway at one end of the Rice Section of the Baguio
City Market instead of installing her temporary stall at the assigned place
o She did not seek prior permit or permission from any city official
 The police threatened to demolish the shack
● Farrales sought an injunction with the CFI of Baguio
 CFI refused to issue an injunction unless she could show proper permit
 Farrales was unable to show said permit so the police demolished her shack
o After bringing the materials and goods to Baguio City Hall, the police delivered them to Farrales
o Farrales cited the police for contempt
● September 19, 1956: CFI of Baguio denied Farrales’ petition
 CFI’s order was final in character since no appeal was filed
 To evade the effects of res judicata, Farrales amended her complaint, so as to include the policemen
involved in the demolition as Defendants
o She argued that the proper procedure should have been for either the City Engineer or the City
Health Officer to commence legal proceedings for the abatement of this “nuisance”, pursuant to
the Charter of the City of Baguio
● The CFI held that the shack was a “nuisance”
 The police properly demolished the shack, as it was built in defiance of orders from City Hall officials
 The police need not wait for orders from the City Engineer or the City Health Officer to act
o They can clear the passageway on their own responsibility
● On appeal, the CA certified the appeal to the SC as only questions of law were involved
● Farrales’ Argument
 The shack put up by her inside the premises of the Baguio City Market was not a nuisance
 If it were a nuisance at all, it was not a nuisance per se
o Rather, it was a nuisance per accidens, which could be abated only after the corresponding judicial
proceeding
ISSUES/HELD/RATIO:
1. W/N Farrales’ shack was a nuisance – YES
● Farrales did not have a permit to put up the temporary stall in question in the place where she built one
● The shack’s location on the cement passageway at the end of the Rice Section building constituted an
obstruction to the free movement of people
● The photographs marked as Exhibits 3, 4, 6 show that what Farrales built cannot be considered a temporary stall
 It was merely a lean-to, improvised with pieces of used scrap iron roofing sheets
 It was not a “building” within the meaning of the Charter of the City of Baguio, which Farrales relied upon
o It is the Charter that vests the City Engineer with the power to cause buildings, dangerous to the
public, to be made secure or torn down
2. W/N Farrales should be awarded damages due to the demolition of her shack – NO
● Article 702 of the Civil Code states that “the District Officer shall determine whether or not abatement, without
judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance”
 However, in this case, the failure to observe this provision is not in itself a ground for the award of
damages in favor of the appellant and against the appellees
● According to Art. 707 of the same Code, a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for
damages in only two cases:
1
  (1) if he causes unnecessary injury, or
 (2) if an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance
● In this case, the plaintiff is clearly not entitled to collect damages
 There was no unnecessary injury was caused to the appellant
 There was no judicial declaration that the alleged nuisance was not really so
o After conducting a hearing, the trial court found that it was in fact a nuisance
 The denial of her petition for injunction upon her failure to produce such a permit was in
effect an authority for the police to carry out the act which was sought to be enjoined
o Thus, it may be said that the abatement thereof was not summary, but through a judicial
proceeding

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.