Case Digest (G.R. No. 6583)
Facts:
In the case Ramon Fabie et al. vs. The City of Manila, decided on February 16, 1912 (G.R. No. 6583), the plaintiffs and appellees, Ramon Fabie and others, were owners in common of a large tract of land within the corporate limits of the City of Manila. Their property was located between Calle Herran of the District of Paco and an estero called Tripa de Gallina. On November 26, 1909, they applied for a building permit from the City of Manila to build a small nipa house intended as a guard house to station watchmen to prevent the theft of zacate from their property. The city authorities denied the permit, citing Section 107 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila as amended by Ordinance No. 124 (enacted September 21, 1909), which requires that a building must abut or face a public street or alley or on an officially approved private street or alley. The plaintiffs contested this provision as unconstitutional, claiming it violated their property rights without due process,
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 6583)
Facts:
- Ordinance and Legal Context
- Ordinance No. 124 of the City of Manila, enacted on September 21, 1909, amended section 107 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila (enacted June 13, 1908).
- Section 107, as amended, required that permits for the erection of buildings be issued only when plans and specifications conform to regulations and that the building must abut or face a public street or alley, or a private street or alley that has been officially approved.
- Parties and Subject Property
- Appellees, Ramon Fabie et al., are co-owners of a large tract of land within the City of Manila's corporate limits, part of Hacienda de Santa Ana de Sapa, located between Calle Herran (District of Paco) and the Tripa de Gallina estero.
- On November 26, 1909, appellees applied for a building permit to construct a small nipa house on the property for use as a guard house for watchmen to prevent theft of zacate.
- Denial of Permit and Legal Challenge
- The City of Manila denied the permit, citing the amended section 107 requirement that buildings must abut or face approved public or private streets or alleys.
- Appellees contested the constitutionality of the ordinance, arguing that the provision unconstitutionally invaded their property rights without due process, violating existing laws and the U.S. Constitution.
- Lower Court Decision and Appeal
- The lower court ruled in favor of appellees, declaring the provision invalid and unconstitutional.
- The City of Manila appealed the decision.
Issues:
- Whether Ordinance No. 124, specifically the provision requiring that buildings abut or face upon a public or officially approved private street or alley, is constitutional under the Philippine legal system, including the police power of the city and due process guarantees.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)