Patalinghug v CA
GR No 104786, January 27, 1994
FACTS:
A funeral home was constructed in Davao City. Per ordinance, the same should not be less than 50 meters away from residential lots. A building owned by Tepoot is both used as a dwelling and as a business is located within 50 meters of the funeral home. Under its tax declaration, the commercial property is labeled as residential tax purposes.
ISSUE:
Is the construction illegal?
RULING:
No. Mr. Tepoot’s building is, whether or not it is residential or not, is a factual determination which we should not disturb. A tax declaration is not conclusive of the nature of the property for zoning purposes.
GR No 104786, January 27, 1994
FACTS:
A funeral home was constructed in Davao City. Per ordinance, the same should not be less than 50 meters away from residential lots. A building owned by Tepoot is both used as a dwelling and as a business is located within 50 meters of the funeral home. Under its tax declaration, the commercial property is labeled as residential tax purposes.
ISSUE:
Is the construction illegal?
RULING:
No. Mr. Tepoot’s building is, whether or not it is residential or not, is a factual determination which we should not disturb. A tax declaration is not conclusive of the nature of the property for zoning purposes.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment