Cited Laws
accordingly dismissed the amended petition: The prevailing law in the instant case is [RA 7160], Section 391, paragraph [a] (7), quoted as follows: (7) regulate the use of the multi-purpose halls, multi-purpose pavements, grain or copra dryers, patios and other post harvest facilities, barangay waterworks, barangay markets, parking area or other similar facilities constructed with government funds within the jurisdiction of the barangay and charge reasonable fees for the use thereof. The homeowners recognize the authority of the municipal government of Parañaque and its power to regulate the issuance of license and as a government authority and therefore it cannot refuse to recognize the authority of the Barangay which is now the authority within the Barangay. [9] Petitioner moved for reconsideration in vain. [10] Petitioner went to this Court directly raising the following legal issues: (1) whether PD 957, [11] as amended by PD 1216, [12] had been repealed by RA 7160; (2) whether petitioner had the exclusive right to administer the subject multi-purpose hall and (3) whether petitioner's (prior) endorsement was necessary before a barangay business clearance could be issued by respondents. [13] Before anything else, lest the Court be accused of giving its imprimatur to an illegal act, it should be pointed out that the construction of the hall in the "open space" was prohibited by law. The second paragraph of Section 31 of PD 957, as amended by PD 1216, categorically provides: Section 31 . Roads, Alleys, Sidewalks and Open Spaces. - x x x [Open spaces] shall be non-alienable public lands, and non-buildable . x x x (emphasis supplied) Thus, no structure or edifice should have been built on the old basketball court as it was an area declared and reserved by law as an "open space" in BF Homes Subdivision. However, since both parties did not question the legality of the construction and continued presence of the hall in the "open space" and, considering the impracticality of ordering at this point its demolition or removal, the parties are pro hac vice deemed estopped from impugning it. We now address the issues raised by petitioner. The first issue was not raised in the proceedings in the lower court. As a rule, an issue raised for the very first time on appeal should not be allowed. [14] Petitioner, however, contends that the resolution of the first issue is necessary to resolve the case. We do not see the point of petitioner. Except for providing the definition of "open space," [15] petitioner fails to cite any clear-cut basis why the Court should disregard the above rule. Neither does it provide a cogent explanation why this Court should rule that RA 7160 supposedly repealed PD 957, as amended by PD 1216. At any rate, no irreconcilable inconsistency appears in both laws that will force us to uphold one and strike down the other. To our mind, the critical point in this case is who, between petitioner and respondents, has the authority to administer