ISABEL G. CABUNGCAL, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND JUAN CABUNGCAL, AND SOCORRO DE PAEZ, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND EMILIANO PAEZ, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANT VS. TEOFISTO M. CORDOVA, AS MA…

This is an action to annul an award and deed of sale made and
executed by the respondent Mayor of Bacolod City in favor of his
co-respondent, Daisy B. Gustilo, of a lot owned by the City, on the
ground that the award and deed contravene the provisions of the
ordinance authorizing the sale thereof and the manner the sale was to
be carried out, and to recover damages. Motions to dismiss filed by the
respondents and a motion for reconsideration were all denied, lit their
answers the respondents dented the alleged contravention of the
ordinance and the answer of respondent Daisy 15. Gustilo set up a
counterclaim for damages. The reply of the petitioners to the
counterclaim for damages is a denial thereof.

The parties submitted the following agreed statement of facts:

1. That Lot No. 379-B—40, Bacolod Cadastre, containing an area
   of 289 square meters, is a portion of Lot No. 379-B, a patrimonial
   property of the City of Bacolod, awarded and Bold to respondent Gustilo
   by the City Mayor as hereinafter stated:

2. That respondent
   am! petitioners filed mimeographed application forms issued by the City
   of Bacolod for the purchase of said lot on the following dates:

a)	Daisy B. Guslilo on	June 3, 1958
b)	Isabel Cabungcal	on June 4, 1959 (1958)
c)	Socorro Paez	on June 9, 1958;

true copies of said application forms are hereto attached as Annex
“A”, “B”, and “C”, respectively, and made integral parts hereof;

3. That on August 1, VM8, petitioners Isabel
   Cabungcal and Socorro Puez, wrote a letter to the City Council of
   Bacolod, praying that they be adjudicated the portions of the tot in
   question, which they were actually occupying, as evidenced by a true
   copy of their letter hereto attached as Annex “D” and made an integral
   part hereof;

4. That petitioners Isabel Cabungcal and Socorro
   Paez, wrote a letter on September 23, 1958 to the Hon. Mayor of
   Bacolod, praying that they be permitted to occupy and to pay the
   portions of the lot in question which they were actually occupying as
   evidenced by a true copy of said letter hereto attached as Annex “E”
   and made an integral part hereof;

5. That said tot was awarded
   to respondent Daisy B. Gustilo en November 10, 1958, as evidenced by a
   true copy of the award hereto attached as Annex “F” and made an
   integral part hereof;

6. On November 11, 1058 respondent
   Mayor Cordova, in representation of the City of Bacolod, as per Deed of
   Sale, a true copy of which is hereto attuched as Annex “G” and also
   made an integral part hereof, sold the said lot to respondent Gustilo
   for P8.670.00 who paid in cash for it;

7. That after the award
   and sale (Annexes “F” and “G”). on November 21, 1058, petitioners wrote
   to the President of the Philippines praying that they be allowed to
   continue orcupyihg the portion of Lot 379-B-40 which they were
   respectively occupying, and to pay for the value of the same, as
   evidenced by a Into copy of said letter attached hereto as Annex “H”
   and made an integral part hereof;

8. That the City of Bacolod was not included by the petitioner as a party to this case;
9. That
   the lot in question is a side-lot and the same must be sold to only one
   person, under the provisions of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1959.

The parties limclo, having agreed upon the above
facts, will limit in the introduction of their evidence and testimony
en material matters not covered by the stipulation of facts.

In addition to this agreed statement of facts, oral and documentary evidence was presented.

Upon the statement of facts and evidence, the court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which reads, as follows:

EN MERITOS DE TODO LO EXPUESTO, el Juzgudo fulla
esta causa estimando favorublemente la solicitud de las lecurrer.tps,
y, const- guientemente, se dicta sentencia declarando nula y de ningun
valor y efecto la adjudication del Lote No. 379-B-40 de la medicion
catastral de Bacolod a favor de la recurrida Daisy B. Gustilo, y en su
lugar se ordena al recurrido alcalde para que dtutro de veinte (20)
dtas a contar desde la fecha en que fuere notificado de esta decision
proceda a celebrar una rifa entre las reclamantes del referido lote, y
para quo, de acuerdo con su resultado, haga la correspondiente
adjudicaciou a favor de la reclamante que resulterar favorecida por la
rifa.

Las cost as del juicio seran tasadas en contra de los recurvidos.

From this judgment, the Mayor of the City of ISacoIod and Daisy B.
Gustilo appealed to the Court of Appeals on questions of law. and fact,
and the petitioners appealed to this Court on the claim for damages,
which was denied by the trial court for insufficiency of evidence.

Daisy B. Gustilo claims that the trial court erred in—

*** denying respondent-appellant Gustilo’s motion to
dismiss, motion, for reconsideration of the order denying her motion to
dismiss, and motion to dismiss the second amended petition;

***
deciding this case solely on the basis of the reasons stated in the
award (Exhibit “A-G”) and Section 3 of Ordinance No. 13 and in not
taking into account the admission of the parties in their agreed
statement of facts and the testimony of respondent Mayor concerning the
material facts and circumstances surrounding the award and subsequent
sale of Lot No. 379-B-40 to respondent Daisy B. Gustilo;

***
holding that respondent Mayor did not fellow the provisions of
Ordinance No. 13 in awarding without lottery Lot No. 379-B-40 to
respondent Gustilo;

*** ordering the respondent Mayor to
conduct a raffle to determine who among the parties shall be the sole
awardee of Lot No. 379-B-40;

*** declaring the award (Exhibit “A-6”) null and void;

*** not dismissing the present petition for mandamus.

The respondent Mayor of Bacolod City imputes two errors allegedly committed by the trial court to wit:

The lower court erred in holding that the 4th
condition specified in subsection (c), Section 3, Ordinance No. 13,
Series of 1959, is the only mandatory provision to be complied with by
the respondent-appellant Teofisto M. Cordova, in making the award for
Lot No. 379-B-40, and in not taking also into consideration the
mandatory provision of condition No. 5 (last sentence) of same
subsection (c), Section 3 of the aforestated ordinance; and

The
lower court erred in not considering the import of the conference
between respondent-appellant Mayor Cordova and the contending parties
herein on July 81, 1968, and of the letters sent by the
petitioners-appellees to the City Council of Bacolod, the City Mayor
and the President of the Philippines and in holding that the Mayor of
the City of Bacolod, herein respondent-appellant, did not comply with
the provisions of Section 3 of Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1959, when
he awarded lot No. 379-B-40, without lottery, in favor of the
respondent-appellant Daisy B. Gustilo.

The petitioners as appellants assign two errors claimed to have been committed by the trial court, as follows:

The lower court erred in deciding, for all practical
purposes, that a public official who has been found to have failed in
the compliance of (with) his ministerial duty, is not liable for
damages; and

The lower court erred in declaring only the
award to be null and void and in not declaring that the deed of sale
also is null and void.

The Court of Appeals certified the record of the case to this Court
for review and final determination pursuant to the provision of section
17 (5) of Republic Act No. 296, as amended by Republic Act No. 2613.

Section 3 of Ordinance No. 13, series of 1959, of Bacolod City provides—

Award.—In the award or sale of any and all of the above
subdivision lota, the following rules, priority or preference shall be
strictly observed:

(c) Except side-lots bordering Lacson and Burgos Streets, there
shall be, at most, two awardeea to a lot having 251 square meters, or
more in area who shall divide the lot share and share alike; Provided,
however, that should there be but two occupants as understood in
subparagraph (b) hereinabove immediately preceding, they shall upon
proper applications made in accordance with Section ,”7″ hereof, be
deemed and considered the awardees of that particular lot who shall
divide the same share and share alike; Provided, further, that, should
there be three or more occupants claiming preferences to one lot the
two awardees to the same shall have to be determined by lottery among
them; Provided, nevertheless, that, in cases where one of the three or
more occupants actually occupied at least one-half of the lot, said
occupant shall thereby be deemed and considered as one of the two
awardees, the remaining half to be determined by lottery among the
other occupants; Provided, finally, that, in no ease shall there be more than one (1) awardee with respect to tide lots bordering Lacson and Burgos Streets and that, should there be more than one (1) claimant claiming preferences in and over a particular one lot, the award to only one shall be determined by lottery. However, should one of the several occupants claiming preferences occupy or possess at least two-third (2/3) of
a particular lot bordering these streets, said occupant shall thereby,
upon application duly made, be deemed and considered the awardee of the
particular lot to the exclusion of all other occupants of the same.
The award herein shall always be subject to the requirements contained,
made and provided, in Article IV, Section 9, and Article V, Section 5,
paragraph (c) of Ordinance No. 140, Series of 1057, otherwise known as
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Raculod. (Italics supplied)

Under the above-quoted provisions, the petitioner contend that the
lot could not be awarded without holding a raffle. On the other hand,
the respondent City Mayor claims that he could award the lot without
holding a lottery because the petitioners, in their letters to the City
Council of Bacolod (Exhibit A-4) and interview or conference with the
City Mayor of Bacolod (Exhibit A-5), reiterated the desire to buy only
the parts of the lot actually occupied by their houses and did not ask
for the held ing of a lottery or raffle; and that die was empowered by
section 6 of the ordinance to implement its provisions when the sale of
the lot is not covered by the provision of the ordinance.

The only award that can be made without holding a raffle pursuant to
the provisions of the ordinance quoted above is when one claimant
occupied at least 2/3 of the lot, but as Daisy B. Gustilo’s house
occupies an area of 170 square meters of the lot containing a total
area of 289 square meters, which is less than 2/3, she does not come
under the provisions of the ordinance which would make her the awardee
of the whole lot without the holding of a raffle. The requirements
provided in Article IV, section 9, and article V, section 6, paragraph
(c), of Ordinance No. 140, series of 1957, otherwise known as the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Bacolod, cannot be invoked by the Mayor
and his co-respondent Daisy B. Gustilo; because such requirements are
to be complied with after the award and sale of the lot shall have been
made.

It does not appear that the City Mayor in making the award of the
lot to his co-respondent acted in bad faith. An erroneous
interpretation of the meaning of the provisions of an ordinance does
not constitute nor does it amount to bad faith that would entitle an
aggrieved party to an award for damages.

The judgment appealed from in affirmed, with costs against the respondents.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.