[G.R. No. 174143 : November 28, 2011]
SPOUSES RICARDO HIPOLITO, JR. AND LIZA HIPOLITO, PETITIONERS, VS. TERESITA CINCO, CARLOTA BALDE CINCO AND ATTY. CARLOS CINCO, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Findings of fact by administrative agencies are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts1 by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of said administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction.
Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari2 are the May 19, 2006 Decision3 and August 15, 2006 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89783 which dismissed petitioner' Petition for Review and denied their Motion for Reconsideration respectively. Said assailed CA Decision which affirmed the February 28, 2005 Resolution5 of the Office of the President (OP), in O.P. Case No. 04-F-262, states, viz:
Petitioners beseech this Court to reverse and set aside said Decision and consequently, to alter a string of consistent Resolutions issued by the OP in the said O.P. Case No. F-262, the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in NBC Case No. 17-03-I-MLA,7 and the Office of the Building Official (OBO) of the City of Manila in NBC Case No. NG-2002-06.8
Factual Antecedents
Petitioner-spouses Ricardo Hipolito, Jr. and Liza Hipolito (petitioners) allege that on June 15, 1989, Edeltrudis Hipolito y Mariano (Edeltrudis)9 entered into an agreement10 with Francisco Villena11 (now deceased) to rent a portion of the property located at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila and to construct an apartment-style building adjacent to the existing house thereon. The contract was for a period of 20 years. Pursuant to the agreement, Edeltrudis built a three-storey apartment building without securing a building permit. Petitioners inherited the apartment building upon the death of Edeltrudis.
In 2002 or 13 years after the execution of the agreement, petitioners and the heirs of Francisco Villena, all residing in the property, were informed that respondent Atty. Carlos D. Cinco (Atty. Cinco) acquired the subject property through a deed of sale sometime in 1976.
On June 17, 2002, herein respondents Atty. Cinco, Teresita Cinco and Dr. Carlota Balde Cinco (respondents) filed with the OBO a verified request12 for structural inspection of an old structure located at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila.
Acting on the request, Building Inspector Engineer Leonardo B. Rico (Engr. Rico) conducted an initial inspection. In his memorandum Engr. Rico reported that two old and dilapidated buildings made of wooden materials were found in the premises and recommended that the matter be referred to the Committee on Buildings (Committee) for further appropriate action and disposition.
Deemed as a petition for condemnation/abatement pursuant to the National Building Code (NBC) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the verified request of the respondents was referred to the Committee for Hearing/ Investigation.
With prior notices to the parties and the tenants, three hearings were subsequently held from August 12, 2002 to September 20, 2002 for purposes of resolving the focal issue of the structural stability, architectural presentability, electrical and fire safety aspect to determine [whether] or not the subject buildings are still safe for continued occupancy.
Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari2 are the May 19, 2006 Decision3 and August 15, 2006 Resolution4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 89783 which dismissed petitioner' Petition for Review and denied their Motion for Reconsideration respectively. Said assailed CA Decision which affirmed the February 28, 2005 Resolution5 of the Office of the President (OP), in O.P. Case No. 04-F-262, states, viz:
In fine, we hold that public respondent Office of the President, in affirming the resolution of the Secretary of the DPWH which sustained the resolution and the demolition order of the OBO, committed no grave abuse of discretion, the same being supported by evidence and having been issued in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolution dated February 28, 2005 of the Office of the President of the Philippines, issued through the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs in O.P. Case No. 04-F-262, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.6
Petitioners beseech this Court to reverse and set aside said Decision and consequently, to alter a string of consistent Resolutions issued by the OP in the said O.P. Case No. F-262, the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in NBC Case No. 17-03-I-MLA,7 and the Office of the Building Official (OBO) of the City of Manila in NBC Case No. NG-2002-06.8
Factual Antecedents
Petitioner-spouses Ricardo Hipolito, Jr. and Liza Hipolito (petitioners) allege that on June 15, 1989, Edeltrudis Hipolito y Mariano (Edeltrudis)9 entered into an agreement10 with Francisco Villena11 (now deceased) to rent a portion of the property located at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila and to construct an apartment-style building adjacent to the existing house thereon. The contract was for a period of 20 years. Pursuant to the agreement, Edeltrudis built a three-storey apartment building without securing a building permit. Petitioners inherited the apartment building upon the death of Edeltrudis.
In 2002 or 13 years after the execution of the agreement, petitioners and the heirs of Francisco Villena, all residing in the property, were informed that respondent Atty. Carlos D. Cinco (Atty. Cinco) acquired the subject property through a deed of sale sometime in 1976.
On June 17, 2002, herein respondents Atty. Cinco, Teresita Cinco and Dr. Carlota Balde Cinco (respondents) filed with the OBO a verified request12 for structural inspection of an old structure located at 2176 Nakar Street, San Andres Bukid, Manila.
Acting on the request, Building Inspector Engineer Leonardo B. Rico (Engr. Rico) conducted an initial inspection. In his memorandum Engr. Rico reported that two old and dilapidated buildings made of wooden materials were found in the premises and recommended that the matter be referred to the Committee on Buildings (Committee) for further appropriate action and disposition.
Deemed as a petition for condemnation/abatement pursuant to the National Building Code (NBC) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the verified request of the respondents was referred to the Committee for Hearing/ Investigation.
With prior notices to the parties and the tenants, three hearings were subsequently held from August 12, 2002 to September 20, 2002 for purposes of resolving the focal issue of the structural stability, architectural presentability, electrical and fire safety aspect to determine [whether] or not the subject buildings are still safe for continued occupancy.
