Development permit - "While the construction and establishment of any church is not prohibited within a subdivision, the same should be located in an area designed or allowable in the approved development plan for the purpose."

ANNIE GERONIMO, SUSAN GERONIMO AND SILVERLAND ALLIANCE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*, Petitioners,

vs.

SPS. ESTELA C. CALDERON AND RODOLFO T. CALDERON, Respondents.

G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014


"On the second issue, we uphold the ruling that petitioners cannot use #46 of Silverlane Street for religious purposes or as a location of a church.

Here, as noted by the HLURB, the Development Permit indicates the use of the property as residential except for the designated open spaces. Petitioners do not deny that the building built beside the lot of Annie and Joel Geronimo is used as a church and that other religious activities are performed there. Clearly, this usage contravenes the land use policy particularly prescribed in the subdivision plan and in the Development Permit. Respondents, as subdivision lot owners, are entitled to assert that the use of the said property for religious activities be enjoined since it clearly violates the intended use of the subject lot.

Also, we find no fault on the part of the CA in affirming the HLURB’s act of taking judicial notice of the Development Permit issued for the project. To begin with, it is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies.20 Although trial courts are enjoined to observe strict enforcement of the rules of evidence, in connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility, we have held that:

[I]t is the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for the reason that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them.21

The issue of taking judicial notice of the Development Permit was also properly discussed and justified by the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB, First Division, to wit:

With respect to the assailed documents which the Office relied upon to arrive at its conclusion, Rule X, Section 6 of the HLURB Rules of Procedure provides:

Section 6. Summary resolution. – With or without the position paper or draft decision, the Arbiter shall resume (sic) the cases on bases of the pleadings and pertinent records of the case and of the Board.

The Regional Office can therefore take judicial notice of all documents forming part of its official records. The rule is in accord with Section 22 of Chapter IV, Book VI of Executive Order No. 292, s. 1987, otherwise known as the Administrative Code.

Neither can the argument that herein respondents are not bound by the development permit as this is only between the government and the developer, be held valid. To accept such rationalization would be to say that buyers, after acquiring title to a subdivision property, are free to set aside all zoning and development plans the government has deemed appropriate for the area in consideration of the general welfare.

Respondents, in deciding to acquire property in a subdivision project, are deemed to have accepted and understood, that they are not merely trying to possess a property but are in fact joining a unique community with a distinctive lifestyle envisioned since its development.

While the construction and establishment of any church is not prohibited within a subdivision, the same should be located in an area designed or allowable in the approved development plan for the purpose.22"