SANGALANG V.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

*This case is about how Jupiter street was opened up to the public by a city ordinance contrary to the wishes of the Bel Air village residents who wanted to keep it closed for their private use.

FACTS: 1. Bel-Air Village is located north of Buendia Avenue extension (now Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave.) across a stretch of commercial block from Reposo Street in the west up to Zodiac Street in the east. Plaintiffs are all either residents of Bel Air village or the Bel Air Village Association (BAVA). In the 1950's Bel Air Village property was sold by Makati Development Corporation which was later merged with Ayala Corporation. The lots were subject to certain restrictions namely: 1)All lot owners would automatically be a member of BAVA and 2) The lots may only be used for domestic purposes, which would last for a period of 50 years. At the time the area was open to all kinds of people and even animals. The residents decided to build a wall along the commercial side of jupiter street. Eventually Ayala Corporation decided to sell the lots on the commercial side of jupiter street to the public. In 1972, Bava and Ayala agreed that the lot owners would be members of BAVA and would be subject to the same deed of restriction of other residents in the subdivision. On April 4, 1975, the municipal council of Makati enacted its ordinance no 81, providing for the zonification of makati. Uner this ordinance, Bel air village was classified as a class A residential zone with its boundary in the south EXTENDING TO THE CENTER LINE OF JUPITER STREET. The other side of the street in between buendia and until the center line of Jupiter street was made an Administrative Office Zone. Jan 1977, The office of the Mayor wrote to BAVA that in order to ease traffic congestion Jupiter street would be opened up to the public. BAVA requested for the indefinite postponement of the plan because of the concern of the residents. Finally on August 1977 the officials of Makati removed the gates in order to open the entire length of Jupiter street to the public. Because of this there was a huge increase of traffic along Jupiter street. The commercial establishments on the southern side of jupiter street broke down the wall as it was no longer necessary and set up shop. Even the residential lots on the northern side of Jupiter street some chose to use as commercial due to the increase in traffic in the area. On March 1981, the 'comprehensive zoning ordinance' was passed by the MMC as ordinance 81-01. This ordinance made Bel Air village BOUND BY JUPITER STREET and no longer the center line.

Significantly the other side of Jupiter street was classified as High Intensity Commercial zone. Several residents as well as BAVA filed suit claiming 1) Ayala corp for breach of contract in allowing the wall to be broken down ushering in a full commercialization of Jupiter street and 2)against some residents that had used their lots as commercial in violation of the restrictions..

LOWER COURTS: plaintiffs won, then lost on appeal, the CA upholding the ordinances as valid under police power and that they reclassified the area to allow commercial lots. ISSUE: 1) WON Ayala corp was liable for breach of contract for the wall and the limited use of Jupiter street? NO. Although Jupiter street was donated to BAVA in 1978 there was no intention to limit its use to bel air village residents, in fact the deed included the general public. Also as regards the wall there was no proof that there was any such agreement between the residents and Ayala corp that a wall be maintained. 2) WON the lot owners are liable?

no. we likewise exculpate the private respondents not only because of the fact that jupiter street is not covered by the deed of restrictions but chiefly because the National Government itself through the MMC had reclassified Jupiter street into a high density commercial zone pursuant to its ordinance 8101. It is not that we are saying that restrictive easements, especially the easements herein question, are invalid or ineffective. As far as the bel air subdivision itself is concerned, certainly, they are valid and enforceable. But they are like all contracts subject to the overriding demands needs and interests of the greater number as the state may determine in the legitimate exercise of police power. Our jurisdiction guarantees sanctity of the contract and is aid to be the law between the contracting parties, but while it is so, it cannot contravene law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Above all it cannot be raised as a deterrent to police power designed precisely to promote health safety, peace, and enhance the common good, at the expense of contractual rights, whenever necessary... The non impairment clause is secondary to the more compelling interests of the general welfare.