Title
Ortigas and Co., Ltd. Partnership vs. Feati Bank and Trust Co.
Case
G.R. No. L-24670
Decision Date
Dec 14, 1979
Ortigas & Co. sued Feati Bank over residential use restrictions on sold lots, but the Supreme Court upheld a zoning resolution reclassifying the area as commercial, ruling police power supersedes private contracts for public welfare.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-24670)

Subsequent Transfers and Acquisition by Feati Bank

Emma Chavez sold Lot 5 to Feati Bank free of liens and encumbrances. Lot 6 passed to Republic Flour Mills—also under the same restrictions—and then to Feati Bank by deed of exchange. The bank’s titles (Nos. 101613 and 106092) likewise bore the building restrictions.

Municipal Zoning Resolution and Construction Dispute

Resolution No. 27 (1960) of the Municipal Council of Mandaluyong declared the western EDSA corridor from Shaw Boulevard to Pasig River a commercial and industrial zone. Feati Bank applied for and obtained municipal building and planning permits. On May 5, 1963, it commenced construction of a bank building, prompting Ortigas & Co.’s demand to halt commercial construction and comply with the title restrictions.

Trial Court Proceedings and Decision

Ortigas & Co. sought a preliminary injunction to enforce the restrictive covenants. The trial court framed the issue as whether the municipal zoning resolution prevailed over the private building restrictions. Assuming the resolution valid, it held that the municipality’s police power classification superseded the covenants, dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, and denied reconsideration.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Validity of Municipal Resolution No. 27 as a proper exercise of police power.
  2. Whether the zoning resolution could nullify or supersede the contractual obligations (the annotated building restrictions).

Authority to Enact Zoning Regulations

Under Section 3 of R.A. 2264, municipalities may adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations subject to mayoral approval. The power to regulate is to be liberally construed in favor of local governments; fair doubts as to existence of power are resolved in their favor. Resolution No. 27, though not styled an ordinance, qualifies as a regulatory measure within the act’s ambit.

Reconciling Police Power and Contractual Rights

While the Constitution prohibits impairment of contracts, the guarantee yields to a legitimate exercise of police power directed to health, safety, morals, and general welfare. Judicial inquiry into police power measures is limited to whether they are arbitrary, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable.

Reasonableness of the Zoning Classification

EDSA is a major traffic artery with industrial and commercial development, generating noise, congestion, and pollution unsuitable for residential use. The municipal resolution responded to these conditions to protect the welfare of the community.

Precedents Supporting Supremacy of Police Power

The Court cited decisions affirming that evolving public needs may warrant regulation of land use once lawful; restrictive covenants that obstruct public welfare may be negated by valid zoning measures (e.g., Calalang v. Williams; Dobbins v. Los Angeles; P

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.