Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12172)
Facts:
The People of the Philippines v. Juan F. Fajardo, et al., G.R. No. L-12172, August 29, 1958, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J.B.L., writing for the Court. The appellee is The People of the Philippines; the appellants are Juan F. Fajardo and Pedro Babilonia (defendants below).During appellant Fajardo’s incumbency as Mayor of Baao, Camarines Sur, the municipal council enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950 (approved August 15, 1950). The ordinance required a written permit from the municipal mayor before constructing or repairing any building, prescribed minimum fees for permits, and imposed fines/imprisonment for violations; it also provided that if a building “destroys the view of the Public Plaza or occupies any public property,” it shall be removed at the owner’s expense.
In January 1954, after Fajardo’s term had ended, Fajardo and his son-in-law Babilonia applied to the incumbent mayor for a building permit for a structure on land registered in Fajardo’s name along the national highway, separated from the public plaza by a creek. The mayor denied the application on January 16, 1954, and a reiterated request on January 18, 1954 was also denied on the ground that the proposed building would “destroy the view or beauty of the public plaza.” Unable to find immediate housing after a typhoon, appellants proceeded to construct the building without a permit.
Appellants were charged and convicted by the Justice of the Peace of Baao for violating the ordinance. They appealed to the Court of First Instance (trial court), which affirmed the conviction, imposed fines (P35 each) and costs, and ordered demolition of the building for obstructing the plaza’s view from the national highway. The appellants sought relief in the Court of Appeals, which forwarded t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Municipal Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950 unlawfully delegate legislative power by vesting absolute discretion in the mayor to grant or deny building permits?
- Does the ordinance, as applied, constitute a taking or an unreasonable exercise of police power that deprives appellants of the beneficial use of their property without just compensation?
- Was the ordinance validly enacted under Section 2243(c) of the Revised Administrative Code (i.e., had the municipal council first established fire limits and presc...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)