Title
People vs. Fajardo
Case
G.R. No. L-12172
Decision Date
Aug 29, 1958
A 1950 ordinance requiring building permits was deemed invalid and unconstitutional for granting arbitrary discretion to the mayor, unreasonably restricting property rights, and lacking legal authority, leading to the acquittal of appellants.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12172)

Facts:

  • Enactment of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950
    • On August 15, 1950, the Municipal Council of Baao, Camarines Sur, passed Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950, which:
      • Required a written permit from the municipal mayor before constructing or repairing any building.
      • Imposed fees of not less than ₱2.00 for each building permit and ₱1.00 for each repair permit.
      • Penalized violations with a fine of ₱25–₱50, or imprisonment of 12–24 days, or both, and mandated removal of any building “that destroys the view of the Public Plaza or occupies any public property” at the owner’s expense.
    • Declared the ordinance effective upon approval.
  • Application, Denial, and Construction
    • On January 16, 1954, appellants Juan F. Fajardo and Pedro Babilonia requested a building permit to erect a structure adjacent to their gasoline station on land registered in Fajardo’s name; the mayor denied the request, citing destruction of the plaza view.
    • A renewed request on January 18, 1954, was likewise denied. Faced with urgent housing needs after their former house was destroyed by a typhoon, appellants proceeded with construction without a permit.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • On February 26, 1954, the Justice of the Peace Court of Baao convicted appellants of violating the ordinance.
    • On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur affirmed the conviction, imposing a ₱35 fine each, costs, and ordering demolition of the building for obstructing plaza visibility from the national highway.
    • The Court of Appeals forwarded the records to the Supreme Court because the ordinance’s constitutionality was challenged.

Issues:

  • Whether Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950, is invalid for conferring unfettered discretion on the municipal mayor and for lacking guiding standards (delegation of legislative power).
  • Whether the ordinance effects an unconstitutional taking of appellants’ property without just compensation by permanently depriving them of all beneficial use.
  • Whether the municipality had authority under Section 2243(c) of the Revised Administrative Code to enact the ordinance without first establishing fire limits or prescribing building standards.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.