Case Digest (G.R. No. 161107)
Facts:
In Hon. Ma. Lourdes C. Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College, petitioners Hon. Ma. Lourdes C. Fernando as City Mayor of Marikina, Josephine C. Evangelista as Permit Division Chief, and Alfonso Espiritu as City Engineer sought to enforce Ordinance No. 192, Series of 1994, regulating fence construction within Marikina City. Respondents St. Scholastica’s College (SSC) and St. Scholastica’s Academy-Marikina, Inc. (SSA-Marikina) own a 56,306.80 sqm property in Marikina Heights, Manila, enclosed for thirty years by a solid concrete fence. Ordinance No. 192, amended by Ordinance Nos. 217 (1995) and 200 (1998), limited front-yard fences to one meter and required any higher fence to be at least 80 percent see-thru, and barred walls within a five-meter setback for parking in front of commercial, industrial, educational, or religious buildings. On April 2, 2000, the city ordered respondents to demolish their existing wall, rebuild it six meters back and make it 80 percent see-thru. RespondCase Digest (G.R. No. 161107)
Facts:
- Parties
- Petitioners: Hon. Ma. Lourdes C. Fernando (City Mayor of Marikina), Josephine C. Evangelista (Chief, Permit Division), and Alfonso Espiritu (City Engineer)
- Respondents: St. Scholastica’s College (SSC) and St. Scholastica’s Academy–Marikina, Inc. (SSA-Marikina), educational institutions owning a 56,306.80 m² property in Marikina Heights
- Ordinance and Enforcement
- Marikina City Ordinance No. 192 (1994), as amended by Nos. 217 (1995) and 200 (1998), regulating fence height, transparency, and setback for residential, commercial, industrial, educational, and religious lots
- Key provisions:
- Section 3 – Front yard fences max 1 m high; if over 1 m, must be ≥ 80% see-thru
- Section 5 – No fences within 5 m setback (parking allowance) between front monument line and building line for commercial, industrial, educational, and religious institutions
- Section 7 – Transitory periods (educational institutions given five years to conform)
- April 2000 directive: petitioners ordered respondents to demolish existing concrete wall, rebuild an 80% see-thru fence, and move it 6 m back for parking
- Procedural History
- Respondents’ petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction filed before RTC, Marikina (SCA Case No. 2000-381-MK)
- June 30, 2000 – RTC granted preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement
- October 2, 2002 – RTC decision granted prohibition on grounds that enforcement amounted to uncompensated taking, violated due process, privacy, was not remedial/curative, and constituted oppressive police power
- December 1, 2003 – CA affirmed RTC decision, holding Sections 3 and 5 invalid as unreasonable, oppressive, and amounting to taking without compensation
- Petitioners elevated case to the Supreme Court under Rule 45
Issues:
- Validity of exercise of police power in Ordinance No. 192
- Whether Sections 3 (80% see-thru requirement) and 5 (5 m setback) constitute taking without just compensation
- Compliance with substantive and procedural due process
- Retroactive application of ordinance as curative statute
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)