Case Summary (G.R. No. 191002)
Factual Background
During his incumbency as municipal mayor, JUAN F. FAJARDO presided when the municipal council enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950, which required a written permit from the municipal mayor before any person could construct or repair a building and prescribed fees and penalties, including removal of any structure that "destroys the view of the Public Plaza." Years later, after Fajardo's term had expired, Fajardo and his son-in-law, PEDRO BABILONIA, sought a permit from the incumbent mayor to construct a building adjacent to their gasoline station on land registered in Fajardo's name along the national highway and separated from the public plaza by a creek. The incumbent mayor denied the request on January 16, 1954, because the proposed building would destroy the view or beauty of the public plaza. A renewed request on January 18, 1954, received the same denial. The appellants proceeded to construct without a permit, explaining that they urgently needed a residence after their prior house had been destroyed by a typhoon.
Trial Court Proceedings
The appellants were charged before and convicted by the justice of the peace court of Baao for violation of the municipal ordinance. They appealed to the Court of First Instance, which affirmed the conviction, imposed a fine of P35 on each appellant plus costs, and ordered demolition of the building on the ground that it destroyed the view of the public plaza by hindering the view of travelers from the national highway.
Procedural History on Appeal
The appellants appealed from the judgment of the Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals. Because the appeal challenged the constitutionality of the municipal ordinance, the Court of Appeals forwarded the records to the Supreme Court for resolution of the constitutional and legal questions thus presented.
Issues Presented
The Supreme Court framed and resolved whether Municipal Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950 was a valid exercise of municipal power and whether the appellants' conviction under that ordinance could stand. The specific legal questions were whether the ordinance unlawfully vested absolute and unregulated discretion in the municipal mayor; whether the ordinance, as construed to prohibit any structure that destroyed the view of the public plaza, operated as an unreasonable and oppressive regulatory taking without just compensation; and whether the ordinance rested upon the authority granted by Sec. 2243(c), Revised Administrative Code.
The Parties' Contentions
The municipal authorities and the trial court treated the ordinance as a valid exercise of municipal discretion under Sec. 2243(c), Revised Administrative Code, and they justified denial of the permit on the ground that the proposed building would destroy the view of the public plaza. It was contended by proponents of the ordinance that the mayor's refusal was permissible when the structure would destroy the view or occupy public property. The appellants relied on the absence of standards in the ordinance and on the claim that, as applied, the ordinance would deprive them of the beneficial use of their property without compensation.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, declared Municipal Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950 null and void, and acquitted the appellants with costs de oficio. The Court held that the ordinance fell beyond the authority of the municipality to enact for multiple, independent reasons.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
First, the Court found that the ordinance conferred arbitrary and unrestricted power upon the municipal mayor by requiring a written permit without stating any policy or standards to guide the mayor's action; the ordinance provided no conditions for grant or refusal and thereby vested an unregulated discretion to allow or prevent otherwise lawful property use. The Court relied on the settled rule against such unlimited delegation and cited authorities including People vs. Vera, 65 Phil., 56; Primicias vs. Fugoso, 80 Phil., 71; and Schloss Poster Adv. Co. vs. Rock Hill, 2 SE (2d) 392, and quoted the principle in City of Richmond vs. Dudley via Schloss that municipal restrictions upon lawful conduct must specify rules and conditions and must admit equal exercise by all who comply. Second, the Court held that even if the ordinance were read to permit refusal only when a structure "destroys the view of the public plaza," the measure was unreasonable and oppressive because it would operate to permanently deprive the owner of the beneficial use of urban land and thus amounted to a taking without just compensation. The Court observed that the State, exercising its police power, may regulate for the general welfare and may prohibit offensively sightly structures, but it may not, under that guise, permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of property without compensation. The Court cited authorities on regulatory takings, including Churchill and Tait vs. Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580; Arverne Bay Constr. Co. vs. Thatcher (N.Y.) 117 ALR. 1110; Sundlum vs. Zoning Bd., 145 Atl. 451; Eaton vs. Sweeny, 177 NE 412; Taylor vs. Jacksonville, 133 So. 114; and Tews vs. Woolhiser (1933) 352 Ill. 212, 185 N.E. 827, to demonstrate that a regulation which substantially deprives an owne
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 191002)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES prosecuted the case against defendants JUAN F. FAJARDO and PEDRO BABILONIA for violating a municipal ordinance.
- The accused were charged on February 26, 1954, and were convicted by the Justice of the Peace of Baao, Camarines Sur.
- The accused appealed to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, which affirmed the conviction and imposed fines and a demolition order.
- The accused sought review before the Court of Appeals, and the records were forwarded to the Supreme Court because the appeal involved the constitutionality of the ordinance.
- The decision was authored by Reyes, J.B.L., J., and the other justices listed in the opinion concurred.
Key Factual Allegations
- The municipal council of Baao enacted Municipal Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950 during the incumbency of Juan F. Fajardo as mayor on August 15, 1950.
- Municipal Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950 required a written permit from the municipal mayor before constructing or repairing any building and prescribed permit fees and penalties.
- The ordinance provided that a building that "destroys the view of the Public Plaza" shall be removed at the owner's expense.
- In January 1954, after Fajardo's mayoral term had expired, Fajardo and Babilonia applied to the incumbent mayor for a permit to construct a building on land registered in Fajardo's name adjacent to their gasoline station and separated from the public plaza by a creek.
- The incumbent mayor denied the permit requests on January 16 and January 18, 1954, on the ground that the proposed building would destroy the view of the public plaza from the national highway.
- The accused proceeded to construct the building without a permit because their prior house had been destroyed by a typhoon and they needed a place of residence.
Statutory Framework
- Municipal Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950 provided for mandatory mayoral permits for construction and repairs, fees of not less than P2.00 and P1.00 respectively, fines of not less than P25 nor more than P50 or imprisonment of not less than 12 days nor more than 24 days or both, and removal of buildings that destroy the view of the public plaza.
- Sec. 2243(c), Revised Administrative Code authorizes municipal councils to establish fire limits, prescribe the kinds of buildings that may be constructed or repaired within them, and issue permits for such buildings, with prescribed fees accruing to the municipal school fund.
Issues Presented
- Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950 was a valid exercise of municipal legislative power.
- Whether the ordinance unconstitutionally vested absolute and unlimited discretion in the municipal mayor to grant or deny building permits.