Title
City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta
Case
G.R. No. L-34915
Decision Date
Jun 24, 1983
Quezon City ordinance requiring private cemeteries to allocate 6% of land for pauper burials was ruled unconstitutional, as it constituted confiscation of private property without due process or compensation.
ordinance
private cemeteries
charity burials

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-34915)

Factual Background

Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 provided that at least six percent of the total area of a memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers and who had been residents of Quezon City for at least five years prior to death, to be determined by competent City authorities, with the area to be developed and opened for operation within six months from approval of application. For several years the provision was not enforced. Seven years after enactment, the City Council adopted a resolution requesting the City Engineer to stop further selling or transactions of memorial park lots where owners had failed to donate the required six percent. Acting on that resolution, the City Engineer notified Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. that Section 9 would be enforced. Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. thereupon filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, challenging the validity of Section 9 and alleging violation of the Constitution, the Quezon City Charter (Rep. Act No. 537), the Local Autonomy Act, and the Revised Administrative Code. The parties agreed to judgment on the pleadings.

Procedural History

The Court of First Instance rendered judgment declaring Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 null and void. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The City Government of Quezon City and City Council of Quezon City filed a petition for review in this Court, docketed G.R. No. L-34915. This Court considered the legal issues presented and issued the present decision.

The Parties' Contentions

Petitioners maintained that the designation of six percent of private memorial park area for charity burial was a valid and reasonable exercise of police power and constituted a taking for a public use because it provided burial space for paupers. Petitioners relied on the Charter’s grant of authority to enact ordinances to protect health, safety, morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of the city and its inhabitants. Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. argued that Section 9 effected a taking or confiscation because it permanently restricted use of private property, deprived the owner of beneficial use, and lacked compensation. The respondent contended that the general welfare clause authorizes regulation but not outright expropriation without compensation and that where property is destroyed or summarily taken under police power, the act is an emergency destruction (for example, nuisance per se) rather than an appropriation for public use.

Trial Court Ruling

The Court of First Instance held that Section 9 was not a valid exercise of police power but an uncompensated confiscation. The lower court examined Rep. Act No. 537 and found no provision authorizing the ordinance’s confiscatory effect. It reasoned that the power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit or to confiscate and that Section 9, together with its penal sanctions under Section 13, effectively prohibited and deterred operation of a memorial park cemetery. The lower court contrasted true police power regulation, which ordinarily restrains and regulates use of property, with instances where property is destroyed or confiscated to protect public welfare, such as seizure of contraband. It concluded that Section 9 deprived owners of private property without due process and without compensation and therefore was void.

Supreme Court Analysis

This Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The Court acknowledged the presumption of validity that attaches to municipal ordinances and reviewed authorities emphasizing judicial deference to legislative judgments on local needs. Nevertheless, the Court found no reasonable relation between imposing a six percent permanent dedication of private memorial park land for charity burial and the promotion of health, morals, good order, safety, or general welfare. The Court observed that the ordinance operated as an expropriation without compensation, shifting to private cemetery owners the municipality’s burden of providing pauper burials rather than constructing or acquiring a public cemetery. The Court held that Section 12(t) of Rep. Act No. 537, which authorizes the council to prohibit burial within the center of population and provide for burial places subject to general law, does not authorize confiscatory takings. The Court further explained that Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, Section 177(q), which authorizes a sangguniang panlungsod to provide for burial places, contemplates the city’s providing or acquiring land for public cemeteries, and that expropriation, when invoked, requires payment of just compensation. The Court distinguished regulations requiring subdivision owners to set aside land for streets, parks, or public facilities on the ground that those requirements attend clear necessities of public safety and orderly development and that beneficiaries ultimately pay through development pricing; no analogous justification existed for commandeering six percent of operating private cemetery land for pauper burials. The Court also noted that the ordinance was enacted after Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. had incorporated, obtained licenses and permits, and commenced operations, so no implied consent to such seq

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms