G.R. No. 148357 ; June 30, 2006
Aniano A. Albon, Petitioner, vs. Bayani F. Fernando, City Mayor of Marikina, Engr. Alfonso Espirito, City Engineer of Marikina, Engr. Anaki Maderal, Assistant City Engineer of Marikina, and Natividad Cabalquinto, City Treasurer of Marikina, Respondents.

FACTS

In May 1999, the City of Marikina undertook a project to widen, clear, and repair the existing sidewalks of Marikina Greenheights Subdivision, a private subdivision owned by V.V. Soliven, Inc., pursuant to City Ordinance No. 59, s. 1993. Petitioner Aniano A. Albon, a taxpayer, filed a suit for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction against the city officials. He argued that the use of public funds, equipment, and property for the improvement of these sidewalks was unconstitutional and unlawful, alleging the sidewalks were private property. He contended this violated the constitutional proscription against using public funds for private purposes, relevant sections of the Local Government Code (RA 7160), and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition, ruling the project was an exercise of the city’s police power and that the sidewalks were public in nature, citing the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in White Plains Association v. Legaspi. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, sustaining the validity of Ordinance No. 59 and holding that the sidewalks were public property, thus the improvement was within the LGU’s powers.

ISSUE

May a local government unit validly use public funds to undertake the widening, repair, and improvement of the sidewalks of a privately-owned subdivision?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the project but clarified the legal basis. The Court ruled that the City of Marikina acted within its delegated police powers under the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code (RA 7160) to prescribe regulations for the safety, health, and welfare of its constituents. The improvement of infrastructure like sidewalks is a basic service that LGUs are empowered to provide.
Crucially, the Court corrected the lower courts’ reliance on the 1991 White Plains Association ruling, which had declared such roads and sidewalks as automatically public property withdrawn from commerce. The Court clarified its 1998 modification in White Plains Association v. Court of Appeals, which held that ownership of subdivision streets (and by extension, sidewalks) remains with the owner until formally donated to the government or expropriated with just compensation. However, these areas are intended for public use. Therefore, while the city could not claim ownership, it could validly exercise its regulatory powers to improve them for public safety and welfare. The expenditure of public funds was justified as being for a public purpose—enhancing public infrastructure and safety—and not for a private benefit, thus not violating constitutional or statutory prohibitions.