VI. General Powers and Attributes of Local Gov’ts; Kinds of Power; Police Power d.
d. In sum, the officials of Marikina (herein respondents) violated:
494 SCRA 141 – Albano vs. Fernando
Corona
The City of Marikina undertook a project to widen, repair, and improve the sidewalks of
Marikina Greenheights Subdivision. Petitioner Albano questioned this as being unlawful. The
SC ruled in favor of Albano saying that an LGU cannot use public funds to undertake such
a project for a privately-owned subdivision. But the case had to be remanded to determine
w/n the MGS is in fact a private property.
DOCTRINE
Requisites for use of public funds in a private subdivision. – In Pascual v. Secretary of Public
Works, the Court laid down the test of validity of a public expenditure: it is the essential
character of the direct object of the expenditure w/c must determine its validity and not
the magnitude of the interests to be affected nor the degree to w/c the general advantage
of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their
promotion. Incidental advantage to the public or to the State resulting from the promotion of
private interests and the prosperity of private enterprises or business does not justify their
aid by the use of public money.
Section 335, RA 7160 Prohibitions Against Expenditures for Religious or Private Purposes. - No
public money or property shall be appropriated or applied for religious or private purposes.
PARTIES – Aniano Albon (petitioner); taxpayer
Officials of Marikina (respondents): City Mayor Bayani F. Fernando, City Engr. Alfonso
Espirito, Asst. City Engr. Anaki Maderal and City Treas. Natividad Cabalquinto.
FACTS
1. In 1999, Marikina undertook a public works project to widen, clear, and repair the
existing sidewalks of Marikina Greenheights Subdivision (“MGS”).
a. Just like other infrastructure projects (related to roads, streets, and sidewalks)
that Marikina has undertaken before, this project was done pursuant to
Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993
2. A month later, Aniano A. Albon (herein petitioner) filed w/ the RTC-Marikina a
taxpayer’s suit for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction w/ damages against officials of
Marikina (herein respondents) claiming that:
a. It was unconstitutional and unlawful for respondents to use gov’t
equipment and property, and to disburse public funds of the City of Marikina
for the grading, widening, clearing, repair and maintenance of the existing
sidewalks of MGS.
b. The sidewalks were private property because MGS was owned by V.V.
Soliven, Inc. hence the gov’t can’t use public resources on them.
c. There was no appropriation for the project.
1 Section 335. Prohibitions Against Expenditures for Religious or Private Purposes. - No public money or
property shall be appropriated or applied for religious or private purposes.
2 Section 336. Use of Appropriated Funds and Savings. - Funds shall be available exclusively for the specific purpose
for which they have been appropriated. No ordinance shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations from
one item to another. However, the local chief executive or the presiding officer of the sanggunian concerned may, by
ordinance, be authorized to augment any item in the approved annual budget for their respective offices from savings
in other items within the same expense class of their respective appropriations.
 The constitutional proscription against the use of public funds for private
purposes
 Sec. 3351 and 3362 of RA 7160
 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
3. Albon applied for a TRO but this was denied because:
a. The questioned undertaking was covered by PD 1818 and SC Circular
No. 68-94 (w/c prohibited courts from issuing a TRO or injunction in any case,
dispute or controversy involving an infrastructure project of the gov’t.)
4. RTC-Marikina DENIED the petition filed by Albon.
a. Marikina was authorized to carry out the contested undertaking pursuant to
its inherent police power.
b. Citing White Plains Association vs. Legaspi3, the court concluded that the
roads and sidewalks inside the MGS were deemed public property.
5. The RTC denied Albon’s MR. Albon elevated the case to the CA. The CA affirmed the
RTC’s decision stating that the Ord. No. 59, s. 1993 was a VALID enactment.
a. The sidewalks of MGS were public in nature and ownership thereof belonged
to the City of Marikina or the Rep. of the Phils. following the 1991 White Plains
Association decision.
b. Thus, the improvement and widening of the sidewalks pursuant to Ord. No.
59, s. 1993 was well w/in the LGU’s powers.
6. Albon’s MR to the CA was denied. Hence, this case.
ISSUE with HOLDING: May an LGU validly use public funds to undertake the widening,
repair and improvement of the sidewalks of a privately-owned subdivision? NO.
MAIN CONCLUSION:
I. The use of LGU funds for the widening and improvement of privately-owned
sidewalks is UNLAWFUL as it directly contravenes Sec. 335, RA 7160.
II. Sec. 17, RA 7160 mandates LGUs to efficiently and effectively provide basic
services and facilities.  meaning infrastructure facilities intended primarily to
service the needs of the residents of the LGU and “w/c are funded out of municipal
funds”. It particularly refers to “municipal roads and bridges” and “similar facilities”
III. Using ejusdem generis, the phrase “similar facilities” refers to or includes
infrastructure facilities like sidewalks owned by the LGU.
Thus, RA 7160 contemplates that ONLY the construction, improvement,
repair and maintenance of infrastructure facilities OWNED BY THE LGU may
be bankrolled w/ local gov’t funds.
THE COURT FIRST WENT INTO A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF HOW THEY
GOT TO THAT CONCLUSION initially saying that LGUs are vested w/ police
powers but going into the details of this case, they concluded that statutorily
speaking, the City of Marikina cannot use public funds to repair a private
property. And since property involved here is YET to be determined w/n it is
a private property, the court had to remand the case.
3 When [a strip of land] was withdrawn from the commerce of man as the open space required by law to be
devoted for the use of the general public, its ownership was automatically vested in the [LGU] and/or the
Republic of the Philippines, without need of paying any compensation to [the developer], although it is still
registered in the latter’s name. Its donation by the owner/developer is a mere formality
1
1. The City of Marikina is vested w/ police powers.
a. Like all LGUs, the City of Marikina is empowered to enact ordinances for the
purposes set forth in the Local Gov’t Code (RA 7160). It is expressly vested
w/ police powers delegated to LGUs under the general welfare clause4 of
RA 7160. W/ this power, LGUs may prescribe reasonable regulations to
protect the lives, health, and property of their constituents and maintain peace
and order w/in their respective territorial jurisdictions
b. Cities and municipalities also have the power to exercise such powers
and discharge such functions and responsibilities as may be necessary,
appropriate or incidental to efficient and effective provisions of the basic
services and facilities, including infrastructure facilities intended primarily to
service the needs of their residents and w/c are financed by their own funds.
These infrastructure facilities include municipal or city roads and bridges and
similar facilities.
2. Ord. No. 59, s. 1993 is valid.
The sidewalks in the MGS is imbued w/ PUBLIC nature and use (w/c can be
inferred from looking at the “whereas clauses” of PD1216 (amending PD 957) w/c
declared that open spaces, alleys, roads, etc. in a residential subdivision are for public
use).
Therefore, the lower court is correct in upholding the validity of Ord. No. 59, s. 1993.
PD No. 59 was enacted in the exercise of the City of Marikina’s police powers to
regulate the use of sidewalks.
HOWEVER:
1. The White Plains Association case shouldn’t have been applied.
RTC and CA erred when they invoked the 1991 White Plains Association case and
automatically applied it in this case.
That 1991 case was already modified by SC in its 1998 ruling.
In the 1998 ruling (citing Young vs. City of Manila), the SC held that “subdivision
streets belonged to the owner until donated to the gov’t or until expropriated upon
payment of just compensation.
o “Street” includes not only the roadway used for carriages and vehicular traffic
generally but also the portion used for pedestrian travelaka “sidewalk”
o The “sidewalks” of MGS are what’s at issue here, remember?
2. Under subdivision laws, lots allotted by subdivision developers as road lots include
roads, sidewalks, alleys and planting strips. Thus, what is true for subdivision roads or
streets applies to subdivision sidewalks as well.
Ownership of the sidewalks in a private subdivision belongs to the subdivision
owner/developer until it is either transferred to the gov’t by way of donation or acquired
by the gov’t through expropriation.
3. Sec. 335, RA 7160 is clear and specific that no public money or property shall be
appropriated or applied for private purposes.
This is in consonance w/ the fundamental principle in local fiscal administration
that local gov’t funds and monies shall be spent solely for public purposes.
4
SEC. 16. General Welfare.—Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for the efficient and
effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their
respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a
4. Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works laid down the test of validity of a public
expenditure:
o ESSENTIAL CHARACTER of the DIRECT OBJECT of the EXPENDITURE
[It’s NOT the magnitude of the interests to be affected NOR the degree to
w/c the general advantage of the community (and thus the public welfare)
may be ultimately benefited by their promotion.]
5. PD 957 (as amended by PD1216) provide that it is the registered owner or developer
of a subdivision who has the responsibility for the maintenance, repair and improvement
of road lots and open spaces of the subdivision prior to their donation of the concerned
LGU.
The owner or developer shall be deemed relieved of the responsibility of
maintaining the road lots and open space only upon securing a certificate of
completion and executing a deed of donation of these road lots and open spaces to
the LGU.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, the use of LGU funds for the widening and improvement of
privately-owned sidewalks is UNLAWFUL as it directly contravenes Sec. 335, RA 7160.
(Section 335. Prohibitions Against Expenditures for Religious or Private Purposes. - No
public money or property shall be appropriated or applied for religious or private purposes.)
6. It must first be determined whether V.V. Soliven Inc. has retained ownership of the
subject property before the validity of the challenged appropriation can be ruled upon.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
This case is REMANDED to the RTC-Marikina for the reception of evidence to determine:
(1) Whether V.V. Soliven, Inc. has retained ownership of the open spaces and
sidewalks of MGS or has donated them to the City of Marikina, and;
(2) Whether the public has full and unimpeded access to, and use of, the roads
and sidewalks of the subdivision.
OTHER NOTES:
Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works - the validity of RA 920 (“An Act Appropriating Funds
for Public Works”) which appropriated P85,000 for the construction, repair, extension and
improvement of feeder roads within a privately-owned subdivision was questioned. The Court
held that where the land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged
to a private person, an appropriation made by Congress for that purpose was null and void.
Young vs. City of Manila - the City of Manila undertook the filling of low-lying streets of the
Antipolo Subdivision, a privately-owned subdivision. The Court ruled that as long as the private
owner retained title and ownership of the subdivision, he was under the obligation to reimburse
to the city government the expenses incurred in land-filling the streets.
DIGESTER: Viveka
balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and
technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full
employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of
their inhabitants.
2