CELESTINO TATEL, Petitioner,
vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC, SALVADOR A. SURTIDA, in his capacity as Mayor of
Virac, Catanduanes; GAVINO V. GUERRERO, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Virac,
Catanduanes; JOSE T. BUEBOS, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes;
ANGELES TABLIZO, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; ELPIDIO T.
ZAFE, in his capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; MARIANO ALBERTO, in his
capacity as Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; JULIA A. GARCIA, in her capacity as
Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes; and PEDRO A. GUERRERO, in his capacity as
Councilor of Virac, Catanduanes, Respondents.
Francisco A. Perfecto and Roberto G. Cenon for Petitioner.
NOCON, J.:
FACTS:
This is a Petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction with the Court of First
Instance of Catanduanes. filed by appellant, Celestino Tatel, a businessman engaged in the
import and export of abaca and other products against the Municipal Council of Virac,
Catanduanes and its municipal officials enjoining them from enforcing Resolution No. 29
of the Council.
Resolution No. 29 was passed by the Municipal Council of Virac on April 22, 1966
declaring the warehouse owned and operated by petitioner a public nuisance within the
purview of Article 694 of the New Civil Code.
Respondent municipal officials contend that petitioner’s warehouse was constructed in
violation of Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, prohibiting the construction of warehouses
near a block of houses either in the poblacion or barrios without maintaining the necessary
distance of 200 meters from said block of houses to avoid loss of lives and properties by
accidental fire.
Petitioner contends that said ordinance is unconstitutional, contrary to the due process and
equal protection clause of the Constitution and null and void for not having been passed in
accordance with law.
ISSUES:
whether petitioner’s warehouse is a nuisance within the meaning of Article 694 of the Civil Code
and whether Ordinance No. 13, S. 1952 of the Municipality of Virac is unconstitutional and void.
HELD:
The warehouse in question was legally constructed under a valid permit issued by the
municipality of Virac in accordance with existing regulations and may not be destroyed or
removed from its present location;
Ordinance No. 13, series of 1952, is a legitimate and valid exercise of police power by the
Municipal Council of Virac and is not unconstitutional and void as claimed by the
petitioner;
The storage by the petitioner of abaca and copra in the warehouse is not only in violation
of the provisions of the ordinance but poses a grave danger to the safety of the lives and
properties of the residents of the neighborhood due to accidental fire and constitutes a
public nuisance under the provisions of Article 694 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
and may be abated.
What is regulated by the ordinance is the construction of warehouses wherein inflammable
materials are stored where such warehouses are located at a distance of 200 meters from a
block of houses and not the construction per se of a warehouse. The purpose is to avoid the
loss of life and property in case of fire which is one of the primordial obligation of government.
ANNOTATIONS:
It is a settled principal of law that municipal corporations are agencies of the State for the
promotion and maintenance of local self-government and as such are endowed with police
powers in order to effectively accomplish and carry out the declared objects of their
creation.
For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the
municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by
law, and must be in consonance with certain well established and basic principles of a
substantive nature.
Municipal ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statue (2) must not be unfair
or oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade
(5) must be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.
