IVTHE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE THAT THE OSG HAS NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE AND/OR THAT IT IS NOT A REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST IN THE INSTANT CASE.21Respondent Robinsons filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal of the OSG on the ground that the lone issue raised therein involved a pure question of law, not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.The Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 76298 on 25 January 2007. The appellate court agreed with respondent Robinsons that the appeal of the OSG should suffer the fate of dismissal, since "the issue on whether or not the National Building Code and its implementing rules require shopping mall operators to provide parking facilities to the public for free" was evidentlya question of law. Even so, since CA-G.R. CV No. 76298 also included the appeal of respondent SMPrime, which raised issues worthy of consideration, and in order to satisfy the demands of substantial justice, the Court of Appeals proceeded to rule on the merits of the case.In its Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the capacity of the OSG to initiate Civil Case No. 00-1210 before the RTC as the legal representative of the government,22and as the one deputized by the Senate of the Republic of the Philippines through Senate Committee Report No. 225.The Court of Appeals rejected the contention of respondent SM Prime that the OSG failed to exhaustadministrative remedies. The appellate court explained that an administrative review is not a condition precedent to judicial relief where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, and nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be done.The Court of Appeals likewise refused to rule on the validity of the IRR of the National Building Code,as such issue was not among those the parties had agreed to be resolved by the RTC during the pre-trial conference for Civil Cases No. 00-1208 and No. 00-1210. Issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the appellate court found that the controversy could be settled on other grounds, without touching on the issue of the validity of the IRR. It referred to the settled rule that courts should refrain from passing upon the constitutionality of a law or implementing rules, because of the principle that bars judicial inquiry into a constitutional question, unless the resolution thereof is indispensable to the determination of the case.Lastly, the Court of Appeals declared that Section 803 of the National Building Code and Rule XIX ofthe IRR were clear and needed no further construction. Said provisions were only intended to controlthe occupancy or congestion of areas and structures. In the absence of any express and clear provision of law, respondents could not be obliged and expected to provide parking slots free of charge.