Demolition of Illegal Structures on Public Roads: Public Welfare Over Private Interests

The Supreme Court has ruled that structures illegally built on public roads constitute nuisances that must be demolished, even if the occupants claim long-standing possession. In Alolino v. Flores (G.R. No. 198774, April 4, 2016), the Court clarified the limits of property rights when they conflict with public welfare, and explained why a local government's mere resolution—not ordinance—cannot convert a public road into private property.

Facts of the Case

Teofilo Alolino owned two contiguous lots in Taguig City, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title. He built a two-storey house with windows and terraces along the rear perimeter wall, extending up to the edge of his property line.

In 1994, spouses Fortunato and Anastacia Flores constructed a house and sari-sari store on the vacant municipal road immediately adjoining Alolino's rear wall. Because the structure sat on a public road, they could not secure a building permit. The construction stood only two to three inches from Alolino's house, covering five windows and his rear exit door, depriving him of light, ventilation, and access to the road.

The Building Official issued two Notices of Illegal Construction against the Flores spouses—in 1995 and again in 2002—but they refused to comply. Alolino filed a complaint for removal of the structure, enforcement of easement of light and view, and damages.

The Regional Trial Court ruled in Alolino's favor, ordering removal of the structure. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Alolino had not acquired an easement of light and view, and that the government had abandoned the road through a 2004 Sangguniang Bayan resolution reclassifying the lot as residential.

The Issue

The core question: Can the Flores spouses maintain their illegal structure on a public road, and did Alolino acquire easement rights over their property?

The Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's decision, ordering the demolition of the illegal structure.

Public Roads Cannot Be Privately Claimed

The Court emphasized that the barrio road was property of public dominion devoted to public use. Under Article 424 of the Civil Code, municipal roads are for public use, making them outside the commerce of man. Such property: (1) is not alienable or disposable; (2) cannot be registered under the Torrens system; (3) is not susceptible to prescription; (4) cannot be leased or sold; and (5) cannot be burdened by voluntary easements.

Resolution vs. Ordinance: A Critical Distinction

The Court rejected the argument that the Sangguniang Bayan's 2004 resolution reclassified the road as residential. Under Section 21 of the Local Government Code, permanently closing a local road requires an ordinance approved by at least two-thirds of all Sanggunian members. A resolution, by contrast, is merely a declaration of the legislative body's sentiment or opinion—not a law. Since the Sanggunian passed only a resolution, the road remained public property.

No Easement Acquired

The Court clarified that Alolino did not acquire an easement of light and view. Under Article 668 of the Civil Code, prescription for such easement runs only from the time the owner of the dominant estate formally prohibits the adjoining owner from blocking the view. Alolino made no such formal prohibition before the Flores spouses built their structure in 1994.

Similarly, an easement of right of way is discontinuous and cannot be acquired through prescription under Article 622 of the Civil Code.

The Structure Was a Nuisance

Despite Alolino's lack of easement rights, the Court found the Flores spouses' structure was a nuisance under Article 694 of the Civil Code. A nuisance includes anything that "obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street" or "hinders or impairs the use of property." Permanent obstructions on public roads are injurious to public welfare and constitute nuisances per se.

The Court also corrected the Court of Appeals' reliance on the Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279), noting that this law actually permits demolition of structures on "sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds." The exact section number is not reproduced here, but the Court expressly found that the invoked provision allowed demolition of illegal structures on public roads.

Practical Takeaways

• Public roads cannot be privately appropriated. Structures built on public streets, alleys, or roads—without proper permits—are subject to demolition regardless of how long the occupant has stayed.
• A resolution is not an ordinance. Local governments cannot reclassify public roads into private property through mere resolutions; a two-thirds vote ordinance under Section 21 of the Local Government Code is required.
• Easements of light and view require formal action. Property owners must formally prohibit adjoining owners from blocking windows to start the prescriptive period under Article 668 of the Civil Code.
• Public welfare prevails. The interests of a few cannot outweigh the greater interest of public health, safety, and general welfare when structures obstruct public roads.
• Building permits matter. Construction without a permit on public property is a clear indicator of illegality and exposes the builder to demolition orders.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.