G.R. No. L-23979 - Homeowner's Association of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Municipal Board of the City of Manila

Petitioners-Appellees: Homeowners' Association of the Philippines, Inc. and Vicente A. Rufino, its President.
Respondents: The Municipal Board of the City of Manila and Antonio Villegas, Mayor of the City of Manila (Respondent-Appellant).
The case is an action for declaratory relief to nullify Municipal Ordinance No. 4841 of the City of Manila.

Enacted due to alleged scarcity of residential lands/buildings in Manila and a "state of emergency" in providing affordable housing.
Key provisions:

Section 1: Limits increases in rental of residential lands to a proportionate increase in assessed land value.
Section 2: Limits increases in rental of residential buildings to 10% per annum of the assessed value of building and land.
Section 3: Ordinance does not apply to existing leases at approval and to boarding/lodging houses but governs renewals/modifications after approval.
Section 4: Provides penalties (fine and imprisonment) for violations; legal persons held liable through responsible officers.
Section 5: Ordinance effective January 1, 1964.

The Court of First Instance of Manila declared the ordinance ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal, and void ab initio.
No pronouncement as to costs.
The Mayor of Manila appealed the decision.

Exclusive power to declare a state of emergency rests with Congress.
Absence of a valid state of emergency to justify house rental regulation.
Ordinance imposes an unreasonable and unjustified limitation on private property use, infringing constitutional property rights.
The City’s power to regulate leasing/business does not extend to prohibiting rental increases as done by the ordinance.
Ordinance cannot be justified under the general welfare clause of the City Charter.

Whether the City of Manila had the authority to declare a state of emergency and enact Municipal Ordinance No. 4841 regulating residential rentals.
Whether the ordinance is a valid exercise of the City’s police power or an unconstitutional encroachment on private property rights.
Whether an emergency ordinance regulating property rentals must have a definite and reasonable period of effectivity to be valid.
Whether failure to notify and hear the Solicitor General violated procedural rules, affecting the jurisdiction and validity of the proceedings.