Title
City of Ozamiz vs. Lumapas
Case
G.R. No. L-30727
Decision Date
Jul 15, 1975
City of Ozamiz imposed parking fees via Ordinance No. 466; operator Lumapas challenged, claiming fees were tolls. Supreme Court upheld ordinance, ruling fees were valid parking charges, not tolls, under city's regulatory authority.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30727)

Factual Background

Serapio S. Lumapas operates a transportation business under the name Romar Line, which operates buses between Ozamiz City and Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur. Following the enactment of the ordinance on September 15, 1964, the City of Ozamiz collected parking fees from Lumapas for his buses for a period spanning from October 1964 to January 1967, totaling P1,259.00. Lumapas ultimately filed a complaint alleging that the ordinance was ultra vires and sought the return of the fees collected along with attorney’s fees.

Legal Proceedings

In Civil Case No. OZ-159 filed in 1968, the Respondent's complaint contended not only for the nullification of Ordinance No. 466 but also for the reimbursement of fees collected. The case was presided over by Judge Geronimo R. Marave, who ruled on March 18, 1969, declaring Ordinance No. 466 null and void, ordering the return of parking fees to Lumapas, and stressing the ordinance's violation of Republic Act No. 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code) for not securing the requisite presidential approval.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The City of Ozamiz argued that the parking fee imposition constituted property rentals for parking spaces owned by the city, thereby justifying their collection under Section 2308(f) of the Revised Administrative Code and Section 15(y) of the charter of Ozamiz City, which purportedly grants the authority to regulate streets and impose fees. The City maintained that the ordinance was valid as a regulatory measure aimed at managing traffic and public safety, rather than a toll for road usage.

Arguments of the Respondent

In contrast, Lumapas maintained that Ozamiz City lacked the authority to impose parking fees on public streets, positioning Zulueta Street as a property meant for public use. He asserted that granting it the status of a municipal street disqualified any claims to patrimonial property treatment, contending that any fee imposed for parking constituted a toll that requires presidential approval under Section 59(b) of Republic Act No. 4136.

Legal Analysis by the Court

Upon reviewing the stipulation of facts, the court found that the fees collected were categorized as tolls for public road usage and emphasized that no presidential approval had been obtained for such an ordinance, thereby violating the provisions of the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. The court underscored the necessity of disti

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.