THE Supreme Court held that illegally built structures on public lands, including videoke machines, billiard tables, sari-sari stores, carenderias, and other businesses, may be demolished for being public nuisances.
In a decision promulgated on January 14, 2025 but only made public yesterday, the SC’s Second Division, through Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, upheld the order to demolish various illegal structures along Matabungkay Beach in Lian, Batangas.
The structures were built without permits from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by the owners of Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant in Matabungkay Beach against spouses Pablo Calimlim and Patnubay Isla Calimlim, who had operated informal structures along the beach for over 50 years.
The resort owners claimed the structures were built without the necessary permits from the DENR, disrupted their business and inconvenienced guests, leading to financial losses.
In their defense, the Calimlims argued they had been using the land long before the resort’s establishment and had no intention of disturbing anyone.
The Nasugbu Regional Trial Court, in a ruling issued in November 2020 ruled in favor of the Calimlims, saying the resort owners failed to prove that the structures caused damage to their property or loss of income.
However, the Court of Appeals, in a September 2023 ruling, disagreed, declaring the illegal structures to be a public nuisance and ordering their demolition along with the payment of damages to the resort owners.
In its ruling, the CA cited Article 694 of the Civil Code which states that a nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, or condition that harms people’s health or safety, annoys or offends the senses, shocks or violates decency or morality, blocks public roads or waterways or interferes with the use of property.
The CA explained that a nuisance is considered public when it affects several persons or interferes with a public right by directly encroaching on public property or causing a common injury.
The Calimlims elevated the case to the SC but the High Court agreed with the CA, ruling that the structures, which among others consist of videoke machines, billiard tables, sari-sari stores, and carenderias, were built on public foreshore land without the required lease agreement from the DENR.
The SC said that DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24, in relation to the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No.141 held that foreshore lands may be disposed of only through a lease agreement with the DENR.
“As admitted by spouses Calimlim, their application for a foreshore lease agreement was denied by the DENR. Thus they do not have the authority to occupy, develop, utilize, or manage the foreshore land upon which their illegal structures stand,” the SC declared.
“To be sure, spouses Calimlim’s obstruction of and unauthorized occupation and use of the foreshore land equate to a public nuisance,” the SC added.
The SC also found the structures harmful to the resort and its guests, who reported unclean water coming from the structures’ toilets.
It added that their open-fire kitchen posed a fire risk to the resort and its guests, with one incident even resulting in a fire.
Additionally, the SC said the absence of a building permit raised concerns about the structural integrity of the building, putting everyone nearby at risk.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Mario Lopez, Jhosep Lopez and Antonio Kho Jr. and Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
