Case Summary (G.R. No. 161107)
Content of Ordinance No. 192 and Its Amendments
Ordinance No. 192 regulates fence construction on residential, commercial, industrial, and special-purpose lots. Section 3 imposes a one-meter maximum solid fence height; taller fences must be ≥ 80% open. Section 5 prohibits fences and walls within a five-meter front setback to serve as a parking area. Section 7 granted transitory conformity periods (five years for educational institutions). Amendments in 1995 and 1998 corrected coverage and transitory provisions.
Lower Courts’ Rulings
The RTC held that enforcing Sections 3 and 5 would constitute a taking of private property without just compensation and violate substantive due process. It denied that the ordinance was a remedial statute or that aesthetic or security rationales justified the burdens imposed. The CA agreed, finding Sections 3 and 5 unreasonable, oppressive, and tantamount to appropriation without compensation.
Issues Presented
- Whether Sections 3.1 (80% see-thru requirement) and 5 (five-meter setback) validly exercise police power;
- Whether enforcement amounted to an exercise of eminent domain without compensation;
- Whether due process was violated;
- Whether the ordinance may be applied retroactively as a curative statute.
Legal Framework on Police Power and Taking
Under the 1987 Constitution, police power may regulate property to protect public health, safety, and welfare, subject to due process and just compensation if a taking occurs (Art. III, Secs. 1 & 9; Art. XIII, Sec. 9). The Local Government Code delegates police power to municipalities (Sec. 16). A valid exercise requires a legitimate public interest and means reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive (rational-basis test).
Analysis of the Five-Meter Setback (Section 5)
Section 5’s requirement to set fences back five meters for parking effectively appropriates 3,762.36 sqm of respondents’ land for public use. This divests them of beneficial use and constitutes a taking under the Constitution. No logical nexus exists between parking and the ordinance’s stated objectives (crime prevention, beautification, neighborliness). Aesthetic considerations alone cannot justify permanent deprivation of property. Section 5 is therefore invalid.
Analysis of the 80% See-Thru Requirement (Section 3.1)
Requiring that fences over one meter be ≥ 80% open is not reasonably necessary to deter crime and unduly intrudes on private property and privacy rights (the property includes residences of Benedictine nuns). The responders demonstrated long-standing security afforded by their solid wall. The measure is oppressive, lacks a rational relation to public safety objectives, and infringes on respondents’ constitutional right to privacy (Art. III, Secs. 2, 3). Section 3.1 is likewise invalid.
Retroactivity and Curative-Statu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 161107)
Facts of the Case
- St. Scholastica’s College (SSC) and St. Scholastica’s Academy-Marikina, Inc. (SSA-Marikina) own 56,306.80 sqm in Marikina Heights under TCT No. 91537, including school buildings, residence of Benedictine sisters, formation and retirement houses.
- A 30-year-old tall concrete perimeter fence encloses the property, abutting West Drive improvements.
- Petitioners are Marikina City officials who, under Ordinance No. 192 series 1994 (amended by Nos. 217 and 200), ordered respondents in April 2000 to demolish the wall, rebuild an 80% see-thru fence over one meter high, and set it back six meters for parking.
- Respondents sought extension, then filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction before RTC Marikina (SCA Case No. 2000-381-MK), claiming the order amounted to uncompensated taking, invasion of privacy, and substantive due process violations.
- RTC granted preliminary injunction (June 30, 2000) and, on October 2, 2002, issued writ of prohibition permanently enjoining enforcement of Ordinance No. 192 on respondents’ property.
Relevant Ordinance Provisions
- Section 3(1): Front-yard fences not over one meter; if higher, must be open (≥ 80% see-thru).
- Section 5: No walls/fences within five-meter parking area allowance between front monument line and building line for commercial, industrial, educational, and religious lots.
- Section 7 (transitory): Educational institutions given five years to conform from original enactment.
- Ordinance amendments (Nos. 217 & 200) adjusted classification coverage and conformance periods.