FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the construction of a funeral parlor in Davao City. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted an ordinance stating that funeral parlors must be established not less than 50 meters from any residential structures, churches, and other institutional buildings. The petitioner obtained a building permit for the construction of the funeral parlor but residents complained that it violated the ordinance as it was allegedly situated within a 50-meter radius from a church and several residential structures. Despite the findings of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, the petitioner continued with the construction and finished the funeral parlor. The private respondents filed a case seeking the nullity of the building permit. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the residential building adjacent to the funeral parlor was being used for a laundry business and not as a residence. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and annulled the building permit, ruling that the residential building was within the 50-meter radius and that it should be considered a residential lot based on its tax declaration. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the tax declaration is not conclusive of the property's nature for zoning purposes and that the area has been declared as commercial by the Sangguniang Panlungsod. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court's ruling that the petitioner did not violate the zoning ordinance. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether the residential building was actually used as a residence is a factual matter that should be respected unless it falls under the exceptions. The Court also stated that the declaration of an area as commercial by a municipal ordinance must prevail for zoning purposes, and the operation of a funeral parlor is considered a commercial purpose. Therefore, the construction of the funeral parlor was deemed permissible.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner's operation of a funeral home constitutes permissible use within a particular district or zone in Davao City.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the ruling of the Regional Trial Court, which held that the petitioner did not violate the zoning ordinance. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether a building is residential or not is a factual determination which should not be disturbed unless it falls under the accepted exceptions. In this case, the trial court ruled that the building adjacent to the funeral parlor was commercial, while the appellate court ruled otherwise. The Court held that a tax declaration is not conclusive of the nature of the property for zoning purposes, and the actual use of the property must be considered. The trial court's determination that the building was commercial was strengthened by the fact that the Sangguniang Panlungsod had declared the area as commercial or C-2. The operation of a funeral parlor also constitutes a "commercial purpose" as stated in the ordinance. Therefore, the Court ruled that the petitioner's operation of a funeral home was a permissible use within the district or zone.

PRINCIPLES:

• The determination of whether a building is residential or not is a factual determination which should not be disturbed unless it falls under the accepted exceptions.

• A tax declaration is not conclusive of the nature of the property for zoning purposes, and the actual use of the property must be considered.

• Once a local government has reclassified an area as commercial, that determination for zoning purposes must prevail.

• The operation of a funeral parlor constitutes a "commercial purpose" as stated in the zoning ordinance.

• The regulation of the location of funeral homes is an exercise of police power to promote the good order and general welfare of the people in the locality.