New Sun Valley v. Sangguniang Barangay, G.R. No. 156686, July 27, 2011 (Digested Case)

Re: Closure and opening of roads thru an ordinance (Sec. 21)

FACTS: The Sangguniang Barangay of Barangay Sun Valley issued a Resolution directing the New Sun Valley Homeowners Association to Open Rosemallow and Aster Streets to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. NSV residents, contended that when they bought their residential properties, they also paid proportionately for the roads and the park in then subdivision. They have therefore an existing equity on these roads. To open the roads to public use is a violation of the rights and interests to a secure, peaceful and healthful environment. Further, they claimed that a "Barangay Resolution" cannot validly cause the opening of the subject roads because under the law, an "ordinance" is required to effect such an act.

ISSUE: WON the claim of NSV that a "Barangay Resolution" cannot validly cause the opening of the subject roads because under the law, an "ordinance" is required to effect such an act, is correct.

HELD: No. NSV is incorrect. The requirement under Sec. 21 of the passage of an ordinance by a local government unit to effect the opening of a local road, can have no applicability to the instant case since the subdivision road lots sought to be opened to decongest traffic in the area - namely Rosemallow and Aster Streets – have already been donated by the Sun Valley Subdivision to, and the titles thereto already issued in the name of, the City Government of Parañaque since the year 1964. Having been already donated or turned over to the City Government of Parañaque, the road lots in question have since then taken the nature of public roads which are withdrawn from the commerce of man, and hence placed beyond the private rights or claims of herein Appellant. Accordingly, NSV was not in the lawful exercise of its predicated rights when it built obstructing structures closing the road lots in question to vehicular traffic for the use of the general Public. Consequently, defendant’s act of passing the disputed barangay resolution, the implementation of which is sought to be restrained by Appellant, had for its purpose not the opening of a private road but may be considered merely as a directive or reminder to the Appellant to cause the opening of a public road which should rightfully be open for use to the general public.