The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that structures built on foreshore land, like beaches, without government permit can be demolished for being public nuisances.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which ordered the demolition of various illegal structures built along the Matabungkay Beach in Lian, Batangas.
The SC affirmed the CA’s ruling that the structures -- like rest houses with video machines, billiard tables, assortment of sari-sari stores and carinderias – were built and installed without the required lease agreement from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
In a summary of the decision, the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson said that the owners of Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant in Matabungkay Beach filed a case against Pablo Calimlim and Patnubay Isla Calimlim who had operated informal structures along the beach for over 50 years.
Villa Alexandria owners said that the structures were built without the necessary permits and disrupted their business and inconvenienced guests, leading to financial losses.
The Calimlims, however, said that they had been using the land long before the resort’s establishment and had no intention of disturbing anyone.
The regional trial court (RTC) ruled on favor of the Calimlims with a ruling that the resort owners failed to prove that the structures caused damage to their property or loss of income.
When the case was elevated to the CA, the appellate court declared the structures built by the Calimlims illegal for being public nuisances and ordered their demolition with payment of damages to the resort owners.
The CA cited Article 694 of the Civil Code which states that a nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, or condition that “harms people’s health or safety; annoys or offends the senses; shocks or violates decency or morality; blocks public roads or waterways; interferes with the use of property.
It also stressed that “a nuisance is considered public when it affects a number of persons or interferes with a public right by directly encroaching on public property or causing a common injury.”
The Calimlim spouses elevated the case before the SC.
In its decision, the SC agreed with the CA that the structures built by the Calimlims were on public foreshore land without the required lease agreement from the DENR.
The SC cited DENR Administrative Order No. 2004-24, in relation to the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141, which states that foreshore lands may be disposed of only through a lease agreement with the DENR.
The Calimlims’ lease application was denied by the DENR and thus, their occupation and use of the land were unauthorized, the SC said.
It cited that the DENR acknowledged this illegal occupancy and issued notices to vacate, which the Calimlims ignored.
Thus, the SC ruled that the Calimlims obstruction of and unauthorized occupation and use of the foreshore land equate to a public nuisance.
The dispositive portion of the SC decision: “Accordingly, the petition (filed by the Calimlims) is dismissed. The Decision dated Sept. 13, 2023 and Resolution dated Feb. 1, 2024 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 116735 are affirmed. So ordered.”