This article talks about the powers of the mayor to demolish structures and buildings as provided in Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code and Supreme Court cases.
Does the mayor have the power to demolish structures and buildings? The answer is – it depends.
Generally, the mayor has the power to demolish illegal buildings and structures, subject to conditions, as provided for under Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, Section 444 (b) (3) (vi) for municipal mayors and Section 455 (b) (3) (vi) for city mayors:
“Section 444. The Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. –
(a) The municipal mayor, as the chief executive of the municipal government, shall exercise such powers and performs such duties and functions as provided by this Code and other laws.
(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the municipal mayor shall:
X x x
3) Initiate and maximize the generation of resources and revenues, and apply the same to the implementation of development plans, program objectives and priorities as provided for under Section 18 of this Code, particularly those resources and revenues programmed for agro-industrial development and country-wide growth and progress, and relative thereto, shall:
x x x
(vi) Require owners of illegally constructed houses, buildings or other structures to obtain the necessary permit, subject to such fines and penalties as may be imposed by law or ordinance, or to make necessary changes in the construction of the same when said construction violates any law or ordinance, or to order the demolition or removal of said house, building or structure within the period prescribed by law or ordinance; x x x
Section 455. Chief Executive; Powers, Duties and Compensation.
(a) The city mayor, as chief executive of the city government, shall exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions as provided by this Code and other laws.
(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purpose of which is the general welfare of the city and its inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the city mayor shall:
X x x
3) Initiate and maximize the generation of resources and revenues, and apply the same to the implementation of development plans, program objectives and priorities as provided for under Section 18 of this Code, particularly those resources and revenues programmed for agro-industrial development and countryside growth and progress and, relative thereto, shall:
X x x
(vi) Require owners of illegally constructed houses, buildings or other structures to obtain the necessary permit, subject to such fines and penalties as may be imposed by law or ordinance, or to make necessary changes in the construction of the same when said construction violates any law or ordinance, or to order the demolition or removal of said house, building or structure within the period prescribed by law or ordinance; x x x”
In fact, the mayor has quasi-judicial powers to order the closing and demolition of establishments. As held in Aquino vs. Municipality of Malay Aklan, G.R. No. 211356, 29 September 2014:
“One such piece of legislation is the LGC, which authorizes city and municipal governments, acting through their local chief executives, to issue demolition orders. Under existing laws, the office of the mayor is given powers not only relative to its function as the executive official of the town; it has also been endowed with authority to hear issues involving property rights of individuals and to come out with an effective order or resolution thereon. Pertinent herein is Sec. 444 (b)(3)(vi) of the LGC, which empowered the mayor to order the closure and removal of illegally constructed establishments for failing to secure the necessary permits x x x”
In the case of Altarejos vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 247009, 26 February 2024, the Supreme Court discussed the power of the City Mayor to demolish structures as opposed to the remedy of ejectment which requires judicial proceedings, to wit:
“Petitioners claim that the Memorandum and the Notice of Demolition violated the principle of separation of powers because city mayors cannot adjudicate issues of ownership in the guise of demolition orders. Against this, respondents maintain that it is ejectment that requires judicial imprimatur—different from the power to demolish and evict, which may be done without court order and summarily.
Respondents are correct.
First, the power of demolition is distinct from the remedy of ejectment.
The judicial action for ejectment concerns nothing but the issue on who has the better right of possession over the property.
x x x
Given that ejectment and demolition are based on different provisions of law, city mayors are not precluded from ordering demolition or eviction despite the filing, pendency, or even finality of an ejectment case concerning the same property, provided that it is done within the period prescribed by the law or ordinance that allowed it.
City mayors have the legal authority to order demolitions and evictions without court intervention under Section 28(a) and (b) of Republic Act No. 7279, and summarily under Section 27 of the same law. Thus, the claim of petitioners that respondents usurped the power of the courts in issuing the Memorandum ordering the demolition does not hold water.”
However, in the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court noted that “while demolition and eviction without judicial intervention, as well as summary eviction, are sanctioned by law and jurisprudence, the grounds for when city mayors may exercise these powers are limited. City mayors do not possess unbridled power, more so discretion, to exercise such powers when the facts of the case fall outside the scope of the law”. Thus, in this case, when the structures do not fall within the scope of the law that allows for summary demolition and demolition without court intervention under Republic Act No. 7279 and the local ordinance, the city mayor was deemed to have transgressed the bounds of his office.
It bears great emphasis that the absence of a building permit, without more, does not authorize the summary demolition of the structure. As held in Alangdeo vs. City Mayor of Baguio, G.R. No. 206423, 01 July 2015:
“While respondents make much ado of petitioners’ lack of building permits, it should be underscored that under Presidential Decree No. 1096, otherwise known as the “National Building Code of the Philippines” (NBCP), the mere fact that a structure is constructed without a building permit, as well as non-compliance with work stoppage order, without more, will not call for a summary demolition, but subjects the violator to an administrative fine under Section 212, Chapter II of the NBCP, or a criminal case under Section 213 of the same law.
Indeed, while Section 301, Chapter III of the NBCP states that ” [ n] o person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit therefore from the Building Official assigned in the place where the subject building is located or the building work is to be done,” the remedy of summary abatement against the bare absence of a building permit was not provided for.
Meanwhile, Section 215 of the NBCP, and its corresponding IRR provision (both of which are respectively quoted hereunder) states that before a structure may be abated or demolished, there must first be a finding or declaration by the Building Official that the building/structure is a nuisance, ruinous or dangerous. X x x”
Nevertheless, a structure without a building permit and has been declared a nuisance may be demolished by the mayor as what transpired in the Aquino Case. This was discussed by the Supreme Court in City Government of Baguio vs. Valdez, G.R. No. 241968, 26 April 2023:
“Section 444 (b)(3)(vi) is similarly worded to Section 455 (b)(3)(vi). However, the ruling in Aquino may not be applied as the same is not on all fours with this case. As explained by the CA, in Aquino, the property subject of the demolition order, aside from lacking the required building permit, was also declared a nuisance. Thus, the property already fell under the purview of the City Mayor’s right to summarily demolish the illegal structure. That is not the case here. There is no showing that Valdez’s house was declared a nuisance. Neither was it classified as a ruinous or dangerous structure. Therefore, even following Aquino, the City Mayor cannot order the demolition of Valdez’s house.”
As to violations of the National Building Code, it is the Building Official who has the authority to order the demolition. As held in Gancayco vs. City Government of Quezon City, G.R. No. 177807, 11 October 2011:
“However, the Building Code clearly provides the process by which a building may be demolished. The authority to order the demolition of any structure lies with the Building Official. The pertinent provisions of the Building Code provide:
SECTION 205. Building Officials. — Except as otherwise provided herein, the Building Official shall be responsible for carrying out the provisions of this Code in the field as well as the enforcement of orders and decisions made pursuant thereto.
Due to the exigencies of the service, the Secretary may designate incumbent Public Works District Engineers, City Engineers and Municipal Engineers act as Building Officials in their respective areas of jurisdiction.
The designation made by the Secretary under this Section shall continue until regular positions of Building Official are provided or unless sooner terminated for causes provided by law or decree.
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 207. Duties of a Building Official. — In his respective territorial jurisdiction, the Building Official shall be primarily responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this Code as well as of the implementing rules and regulations issued therefor. He is the official charged with the duties of issuing building permits.
In the performance of his duties, a Building Official may enter any building or its premises at all reasonable times to inspect and determine compliance with the requirements of this Code, and the terms and conditions provided for in the building permit as issued.
When any building work is found to be contrary to the provisions of this Code, the Building Official may order the work stopped and prescribe the terms and/or conditions when the work will be allowed to resume. Likewise, the Building Official is authorized to order the discontinuance of the occupancy or use of any building or structure or portion thereof found to be occupied or used contrary to the provisions of this Code.
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 215. Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. — When any building or structure is found or declared to be dangerous or ruinous, the Building Official shall order its repair, vacation or demolition depending upon the degree of danger to life, health, or safety. This is without prejudice to further action that may be taken under the provisions of Articles 482 and 694 to 707 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied.)”
Thus, although the mayor has the power to order the demolition of structures, it is subject to conditions provided for by law.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
If you need assistance in administrative, civil and criminal litigation, or dealing with local government units, we can help you. Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
Tags: police power, local ordinance, mayor, demolish building, building permit, city mayor, local government code, Philippine attorney, Philippine lawyer, trial lawyer, trial attorney, litigation, litigation lawyer, government power, local government, LGU, ordinance, demolish structure, Philippine law firm,
