G.R. No. 161107 - Ferdo vs. St. Scholastica's College

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161107)

Factual Background

St. Scholastica’s College owned a 56,306.80 square meter parcel in Marikina Heights covered by TCT No. 91537 on which St. Scholastica’s Academy–Marikina, Inc. and residences for Benedictine sisters and related facilities were located and enclosed by a tall concrete perimeter fence built some thirty years earlier; improvements abutted the fence along West Drive. The City of Marikina enacted Ordinance No. 192 to regulate fences and walls, prescribing, among others, a one-meter front fence limit and a requirement that any fence in excess of one meter be at least eighty percent see-thru, and barring fences within a five-meter parking allowance between the front monument line and the building line for certain establishments.

Administrative Directive and Respondents’ Objections

On April 2, 2000, the City ordered the respondents to demolish their concrete fence, replace it with an 80% see-thru fence when over one meter, and move it back about six meters to provide parking space; the respondents sought an extension on April 26, 2000 and thereafter filed a petition for prohibition with an application for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order before the RTC, alleging that enforcement would amount to appropriation of private property without due process and would violate privacy and other rights.

Trial Court Proceedings and Interim Relief

The RTC, Branch 273, issued a writ of preliminary injunction on June 30, 2000 enjoining enforcement of the demolition order and, after trial, granted the petition for prohibition by Decision dated October 2, 2002, ordering the city to desist permanently from implementing Ordinance No. 192 on the respondents’ property.

RTC Findings on Merits

The RTC held that ordering demolition and relocation of the fence would amount to an appropriation of property that could only be effected by eminent domain and could not be accomplished under the guise of police power; it found the see-thru requirement contrary to privacy rights of the Benedictine sisters residing on the premises; it considered the ordinance neither remedial nor curative; and it observed that retroactive application could not impair vested substantive rights.

Appellate Disposition

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in its December 1, 2003 Decision, reasoning that Ordinance No. 192 not only regulated but also effected a taking of private property without due process and just compensation, that the setback provision would make parking available to the public outside school control, and that the ordinance failed substantive due process despite compliance with procedural steps such as public hearings.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

The petitioners challenged the CA decision on four grounds: that the CA erred in declaring Ordinance No. 192 an invalid exercise of police power; that the CA erred in treating the ordinance as an exercise of eminent domain; that the CA erred in finding a violation of due process; and that the CA erred in ruling the ordinance could not be given retroactive application. The petitioners conceded the invalidity of Section 5 in earlier pleadings but later argued that Zoning Ordinance No. 303, Series of 2000 cured that defect.

Legal Standard on Police Power and Tests of Validity

The Court reiterated that police power is the plenary authority to promote health, morals, safety, and general welfare, and that municipalities exercise delegated police power under Sec. 16 of the Local Government Code. It restated the established tests for the validity of local ordinances, drawn from precedent: a valid ordinance must not contravene the Constitution or statute, must not be unfair or oppressive, must not be partial or discriminatory, must regulate but not prohibit trade, must be general and consistent with public policy, and must not be unreasonable. The Court explained application of the rational relationship test and the more exacting intermediate and strict scrutiny standards, and adopted the requisites articulated in Social Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr. that police power measures must address public interests as distinguished from particular class interests and employ means reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

Ruling Overview and Standard Applied

Applying the foregoing standards, the Court concluded that the challenged provisions failed the rational relationship test because the means employed were not reasonably necessary to achieve the asserted public objectives and were unduly oppressive to private rights. The Court held that absence of concurrence between a lawful subject and lawful method rendered the measure an arbitrary intrusion on private rights and a violation of due process.

Specific Ruling on Section 5 (Five-Meter Setback)

The Court found Section 5, which forbade walls and fences within a five-meter parking allowance between the front monument line and the building line, to effectuate a taking of a total of 3,762.36 square meters of respondents’ property for public use without just compensation and thus to contravene Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that ownership would remain with the respondents and found no logical or necessary connection between providing a parking area and the ordinance’s articulated goals of preventing concealment of unlawful acts or fostering neighborliness; it further rejected beautification as a sufficient justification for permanent divestment of beneficial use and declined to accept that Zoning Ordinance No. 303 cured the defect because that argument was raised for the first time on appeal and because the two ordinances differ in purpose and subject.

Specific Ruling on Section 3.1 (80% See-Thru Fence)

The Court also declared Section 3.1 invalid as an unreasonable and oppressive encroachment on property and privacy rights. It held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that an 80% see-thru fence was reasonably necessary to deter crime or provide greater security than the existing solid concrete wall, which had provided protection for decades. The Court observed that compelling exposure of the premises could entice criminals and could be easier to bypass.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 161107)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners were the City Mayor of Marikina City, the Chief of the Permit Division of the Office of the City Engineer, and the City Engineer who sought enforcement of a city ordinance against St. Scholastica's College and St. Scholastica's Academy-Marikina, Inc..
Respondents were educational institutions owning a 56,306.80 square meter property in Marikina Heights that housed school facilities and residences for Benedictine sisters.
The respondents filed a petition for prohibition with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court, Marikina, Branch 273, docketed as SCA Case No. 2000-381-MK, to restrain enforcement of the ordinance.
The RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and thereafter granted the petition for prohibition, enjoining the petitioners from implementing Ordinance No. 192, Series of 1994, as amended.
The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75691, which affirmed the RTC decision in a December 1, 2003 Decision.
The petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court, before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the CA decision.

Key Factual Allegations

Respondents maintained a tall concrete perimeter wall around their Marikina property for about thirty to forty years and asserted that the wall provided sufficient security.
The City issued a directive on April 2, 2000 ordering demolition and replacement of the existing wall to make any new fence 80% see-thru and to move the fence approximately six meters back to provide parking.
The respondents asserted that enforcing the ordinance would result in the loss of approximately 3,762.36 square meters of land and the destruction of multiple structures and facilities, causing substantial loss of beneficial use and monetary damages allegedly in the multi-million peso range.
The respondents also alleged that enforcement would intrude on the privacy of the Benedictine sisters residing on the property.

Ordinance Provisions at Issue

Ordinance No. 192, Series of 1994, regulated the construction of fences and walls and, as amended, provided: Section 3(1) limited front yard fences to one meter in height and required fences in excess of one meter to be at least eighty percent see-thru; and Section 5 prohibited walls and fences within a five-meter parking area allowance between the front monument line and the building line of educational and religious institutions.
Ordinance No. 217, Series of 1995, amended the transitory provision to give educational institutions five years to conform.
Ordinance No. 200, Series of 1998, amended certain sections of the original ordinance.
The petitioners later conceded before the Supreme Court that Section 5 was invalid but argued that Section 5 had been cured by Zoning Ordinance No. 303, Series of 2000.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Ordinance No. 192 was a valid exercise of police power in relation to Sections 3.1 and 5 of the ordinance.
Whether the enforcement of Sections 3.1 and 5 would amount to an exercise of eminent domain or a compensable taking without just compensation in violation of Section 9, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
Whether the ordinance violated substantive due process and the right to privacy.
Whether the amendment giving educational institutions a five-year grace period could be applied retroactively as a curative statute.
Whether the invalidity of Sections 3.1 and 5 required invalidation of the entire ordinance or permitted severability.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioners contended that the ordinance was a valid exercise of po