G.R. No. L-3887 - Hipolito vs. City of Manila

Felipe R. Hipolito and his wife are the registered owners of a parcel of land at the corner of Invernes and Rennaissance streets, Santa Ana, Manila.
On March 22, 1950, Hipolito applied to the City Engineer, Alejo Aquino, for a permit to erect a strong material residential building on this lot.
After a delay of over forty days without any action from the City Engineer, Hipolito sent a letter reiterating his readiness to pay the fee and comply with the ordinances governing building permits.

On May 29, 1950, the City Engineer replied that the permit could not be issued because of the second endorsement of the National Urban Planning Commission (NUPC).
The NUPC’s adopted plan for Sta. Ana mandated the widening of Invernes Street (to 22 meters) and Rennaissance Street (to 10 meters), with an equal distribution of the widening effect cutting into adjacent properties.
Specifically, the plan required that buildings along Invernes Street be set back 5.00 meters and those along Rennaissance Street 1.00 meter from the existing street line to allow for future road widening.

The City Engineer’s office interpreted the NUPC plan as binding for all building constructions along those streets, effectively imposing setback requirements even for privately financed residential buildings.
Hipolito, a lawyer by profession, contended that section 6 of Executive Order No. 98, s. 1946 – which governs the legal status of general plans – applies only to buildings subsidized wholly or partly with public funds.
The petitioner argued that since his project was to be financed entirely with private funds, the setback requirement should not affect his building permit.

Similar facts are narrated in the Spanish version, emphasizing the historical context and urgent need for orderly urban reconstruction after the war.
The urban planning project was aimed at modernizing Manila’s infrastructure, including the widening of roads and improving public utilities.
It was explained that while the plan required private building owners to adhere to setback specifications, the intent was not to permanently seize private land but to facilitate future improvements.
The discussion also noted that any eventual appropriation of land for public use must follow due process and proper compensation, distinguishing between provisional setback spaces and a formal exercise of eminent domain.

Whether the setback requirements, as mandated by the NUPC’s adopted general plan under Executive Order No. 98, apply to residential buildings constructed entirely with private funds.

Does section 6 of Executive Order No. 98 only bind those projects subsidized by public funds, thereby exempting privately financed constructions from these strict setback rules?
Is the City Engineer’s refusal to issue the permit based on nonconformity with the NUPC plan legally sustainable in light of the petitioner's financing method?

Whether the denial of the building permit constitutes an illegal taking or deprivation of property rights without due process.

Can the refusal to issue a permit, grounded solely on the requirement to conform to a general urban plan, be seen as a form of expropriation without proper legislative procedure?
Does this refusal conflict with the fundamental right of property owners to the beneficial use of their property?

The extent of the proper exercise of police power in the regulation of private property within an urban planning context.

Should the local government’s policy of refusing permits for nonconforming projects be deemed arbitrary, especially when no explicit municipal ordinance (beyond the general plan) mandates such conformity?