G.R. No.

L-12172 August 29, 1958

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JUAN F. FAJARDO, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Higinio V. Catalan for appellee.
Prila, Pardalis and Pejo for appellants.
REES, J. !. L., J."
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur convicting defendants-
appellants Juan F. Fajardo and Pedro Bailonia of a violation of !rdinance "o. #, Series of $%&', of
the (unicipalit) of Baao, Camarines Sur, for having constructed *ithout a permit from the municipal
ma)or a uilding that destro)s the vie* of the pulic pla+a.
It appears that on August $&, $%&', during the incumenc) of defendant-appellant Juan F. Fajardo
as ma)or of the municipalit) of Baao, Camarines Sur, the municipal council passed the ordinance in
,uestion providing as follo*s-
S.C/I!" $. An) person or persons *ho *ill construct or repair a uilding should, efore
constructing or repairing, otain a *ritten permit from the (unicipal (a)or.
S.C. 0. A fee of not less than P0.'' should e charged for each uilding permit and P$.''
for each repair permit issued.
S.C. 1. P."A2/3 4 An) violation of the provisions of the aove, this ordinance, shall ma5e
the violation liale to pa) a fine of not less than P0& nor more than P&' or imprisonment of
not less than $0 da)s nor more than 06 da)s or oth, at the discretion of the court. If said
uilding destro)s the vie* of the Pulic Pla+a or occupies an) pulic propert), it shall e
removed at the e7pense of the o*ner of the uilding or house.
S.C. 6. .FF.C/I8I/3 4 /his ordinance shall ta5e effect on its approval. 9!rig. :ecs., P. 1;
Four )ears later, after the term of appellant Fajardo as ma)or had e7pired, he and his son in-la*,
appellant Bailonia, filed a *ritten re,uest *ith the incument municipal ma)or for a permit to
construct a uilding adjacent to their gasoline station on a parcel of land registered in Fajardo<s
name, located along the national high*a) and separated from the pulic pla+a ) a cree5 9.7h. =;.
!n Januar) $>, $%&6, the re,uest *as denied, for the reason among others that the proposed
uilding *ould destro) the vie* or eaut) of the pulic pla+a 9.7h. .;. !n Januar) $?, $%&6,
defendants reiterated their re,uest for a uilding permit 9.7h. 1;, ut again the re,uest *as turned
do*n ) the ma)or. @hereupon, appellants proceeded *ith the construction of the uilding *ithout a
permit, ecause the) needed a place of residence ver) adl), their former house having een
destro)ed ) a t)phoon and hitherto the) had een living on leased propert).
!n Feruar) 0>, $%&6, appellants *ere charged efore and convicted ) the justice of the peace
court of Baao, Camarines Sur, for violation of the ordinance in ,uestion. =efendants appealed to the
Court of First Instance, *hich affirmed the conviction, and sentenced appellants to pa) a fine of P1&
each and the costs, as *ell as to demolish the uilding in ,uestion ecause it destro)s the vie* of
the pulic pla+a of Baao, in that Ait hinders the vie* of travelers from the "ational Bigh*a) to the
said pulic pla+a.A From this decision, the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, ut the latter
for*arded the records to us ecause the appeal attac5s the constitutionalit) of the ordinance in
,uestion.
@e find that the appealed conviction can not stand.
A first ojection to the validit) of the ordinance in ,uestion is that under it the ma)or has asolute
discretion to issue or den) a permit. /he ordinance fails to state an) polic), or to set up an) standard
to guide or limit the ma)or<s action. "o purpose to e attained ) re,uiring the permit is e7pressedC
no conditions for its grant or refusal are enumerated. It is not merel) a case of deficient standardsC
standards are entirel) lac5ing. /he ordinance thus confers upon the ma)or aritrar) and unrestricted
po*er to grant or den) the issuance of uilding permits, and it is a settled rule that such an
undefined and unlimited delegation of po*er to allo* or prevent an activit), per se la*ful, is invalid
9People vs. 8era, >& Phil., &>C Primicias vs. Fugoso, ?' Phil., #$C Schloss Poster Adv. Co. vs. :oc5
Bill, 0 S. 90d; 1%0;
/he ordinance in ,uestion in no *a) controls or guides the discretion vested there) in the
respondents. It prescries no uniform rule upon *hich the special permission of the cit) is to
e granted. /hus the cit) is clothed *ith the uncontrolled po*er to capriciousl) grant the
privilege to some and den) it othersC to refuse the application of one lando*ner or lessee
and to grant that of another, *hen for all material purposes, the t*o appl)ing for precisel) the
same privileges under the same circumstances. /he danger of such an ordinance is that it
ma5es possile aritrar) discriminations and auses in its e7ecution, depending upon no
conditions or ,ualifications *hatever, other than the unregulated aritrar) *ill of the cit)
authorities as the touchstone ) *hich its validit) is to e tested. Fundamental rights under
our government do not depend for their e7istence upon such a slender and uncertain thread.
!rdinances *hich thus invest a cit) council *ith a discretion *hich is purel) aritrar), and
*hich ma) e e7ercised in the interest of a favored fe*, are unreasonale and invalid. /he
ordinance should have estalished a rule ) *hich its impartial enforcement could e
secured. All of the authorities cited aove sustain this conclusion.
As *as said in City of Ricmond vs. !"dley, $0% Ind. $$0,0? ". .. 1$0, 1$6 $1 2. :. A. &?#,
0? Am. St. :ep. $?'- AIt seems from the foregoing authorities to e *ell estalished that
municipal ordinances placing restrictions upon la*ful conduct or the la*ful use of propert)
must, in order to e valid, specif) the rules and conditions to e oserved in such conduct or
usinessC and must admit of the e7ercise of the privilege of all citi+ens ali5e *ho *ill compl)
*ith such rules and conditionsC and must not admit of the e7ercise, or of an opportunit) for
the e7ercise, of an) aritrar) discrimination ) the municipal authorities et*een citi+ens
*ho *ill so compl). 9Schloss Poster Adv. Co., Inc. vs. Cit) of :oc5 Bill, et al., 0 S. 90d;, pp.
1%6-1%&;.
It is contended, on the other hand, that the ma)or can refuse a permit solel) in case that the
proposed uilding Adestro)s the vie* of the pulic pla+a or occupies an) pulic propert)A 9as stated
in its section 1;C and in fact, the refusal of the (a)or of Baao to issue a uilding permit to the
appellant *as predicated on the ground that the proposed uilding *ould Adestro) the vie* of the
pulic pla+aA ) preventing its eing seen from the pulic high*a). .ven thus interpreted, the
ordinance is unreasonale and oppressive, in that it operates to permanentl) deprive appellants of
the right to use their o*n propert)C hence, it oversteps the ounds of police po*er, and amounts to a
ta5ing of appellants propert) *ithout just compensation. @e do not overloo5 that the modern
tendenc) is to regard the eautification of neighorhoods as conducive to the comfort and happiness
of residents. But *hile propert) ma) e regulated in the interest of the general *elfare, and in its
pursuit, the State ma) prohiit structures offensive to the sight 9Churchill and /ait vs. :affert), 10
Phil. &?';, the State ma) not, under the guise of police po*er, permanentl) divest o*ners of the
eneficial use of their propert) and practicall) confiscate them solel) to preserve or assure the
aesthetic appearance of the communit). As the case no* stands, ever) structure that ma) e
erected on appellants< land, regardless of its o*n eaut), stands condemned under the ordinance in
,uestion, ecause it *ould interfere *ith the vie* of the pulic pla+a from the high*a). /he
appellants *ould, in effect, e constrained to let their land remain idle and unused for the ovious
purpose for *hich it is est suited, eing uran in character. /o legall) achieve that result, the
municipalit) must give appellants just compensation and an opportunit) to e heard.
An ordinance *hich permanently so restricts the use of propert) that it can not e used for
an) reasonale purpose goes, it is plain, e)ond regulation and must e recogni+ed as a
ta5ing of the propert). /he onl) sustantial difference, in such case, et*een restriction and
actual ta5ing, is that the restriction leaves the o*ner suject to the urden of pa)ment of
ta7ation, *hile outright confiscation *ould relieve him of that urden. 9Arverne Ba) Constr.
Co. vs. /hatcher 9".3.; $$# A2:. $$$', $$$>;.
A regulation *hich sustantiall) deprives an o*ner of all eneficial use of his propert) is
confiscation and is a deprivation *ithin the meaning of the $6th Amendment. 9Sundlum vs.
Doning Bd., $6& Atl. 6&$C also .atonvs. S*een), $## ". 6$0C /a)lor vs. Jac5sonville, $11
So. $$6;.
Doning *hich admittedl) limits propert) to a use *hich can not reasonal) e made of it
cannot e said to set aside such propert) to a use ut constitutes the ta5ing of such propert)
*ithout just compensation. Ese of propert) is an element of o*nership therein. :egardless
of the opinion of +ealots that propert) ma) properl), ) +oning, e utterl) destro)ed *ithout
compensation, such principle finds no support in the genius of our government nor in the
principles of justice as *e 5no*n them. Such a doctrine shoc5s the sense of justice. #f it $e
of p"$lic $enefit tat property remain open and "n"sed, ten certainly te p"$lic, and not te
private individ"als, so"ld $ear te cost of reasona$le compensation for s"c property "nder
te r"les of la% governing te condemnation of private property for p"$lic "se. 9/e*s vs.
@oolhiser 9$%11; 1&0 I$$. 0$0, $?& "... ?0#; 9.mphasis supplied.;
/he validit) of the ordinance in ,uestion *as justified ) the court elo* under section 0061, par. 9c;,
of the :evised Administrative Code, as amended. /his section provides-
S.C. 0061. Certain legislative po%ers of discretionary caracter. 4 /he municipal council
shall have authorit) to e7ercise the follo*ing discretionar) po*ers-
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
9c; /o estalish fire limits in populous centers, prescrie the 5inds of uildings that ma) e
constructed or repaired *ithin them, and issue permits for the creation or repair thereof,
charging a fee *hich shall e determined ) the municipal council and *hich shall not e
less than t*o pesos for each uilding permit and one peso for each repair permit issued. /he
fees collected under the provisions of this susection shall accrue to the municipal school
fund.
Ender the provisions of the section aove ,uoted, ho*ever, the po*er of the municipal council to
re,uire the issuance of uilding permits rests upon its first estalishing fire limits in populous parts of
the to*n and prescriing the 5inds of uildings that ma) e constructed or repaired *ithin them. As
there is asolutel) no sho*ing in this case that the municipal council had either estalished fire limits
*ithin the municipalit) or set standards for the 5ind or 5inds of uildings to e constructed or
repaired *ithin them efore it passed the ordinance in ,uestion, it is clear that said ordinance *as
not conceived and promulgated under the e7press authorit) of sec. 0061 9c; afore,uoted.
@e rule that the regulation in ,uestion, (unicipal !rdinance "o. #, Series of $%&', of the
(unicipalit) of Baao, Camarines Sur, *as e)ond the authorit) of said municipalit) to enact, and is
therefore null and void. Bence, the conviction of herein appellants is reversed, and said accused are
ac,uitted, *ith costs de oficio. So ordered.
People v Fajardo G.R. No. L-12172 August 29, 1958
J. B. 2 . :e)es
Facts-
Fajardo *as ma)or in Baao, Camrines Sur *hen the municipal council passed the ordinance that
prohiits the construction of a uilding that loc5s the vie* of the to*n pla+a. (oreover, it redirects
the grant of permission to the ma)or.
After his incumenc), Fajardo applied for a permit to uild a uilding eside the gasoline stationnear
the to*n pla+a. Bis re,uest *as repeatedl) denied. Be continued *ith the construction under the
rationale that he needed a house to sta) in ecause the old one *as destro)ed ) a t)phoon.
Be *as convicted and ordered to pa) a fine and demolish the uilding due to its ostructing vie*.
Be appealed to the CA, *hich in turn for*arded the petition due to the ,uestion of the ordinanceFs
constitutionalit).
Issue- Is the ordinance constitutionalG
Beld- "o, petition granted.
:atio-
/he ordinance doesnFt state an) standard that limits the grant of po*er to the ma)or. It is an aritrar)
and unlimited conferment.
!rdinances *hich thus invest a cit) council *ith a discretion *hich is purel) aritrar), and *hich ma)
e e7ercised in the interest of a favored fe*, are unreasonale and invalid. /he ordinance should
have estalished a rule ) *hich its impartial enforcement could e secured. All of the authorities
cited aove sustain this conclusion.
/he ordinance is unreasonale and oppressive, in that it operates to permanentl) deprive appellants
of the right to use their o*n propert)C hence, it oversteps the ounds of police po*er, and amounts
to a ta5ing of appellants propert) *ithout just compensation.
@hile propert) ma) e regulated to the interest of the general *elfare, and the state ma) eliminate
structures offensive to the sight, the state ma) not permanentl) divest o*ners of the eneficial use of
their propert) and practicall) confiscate them solel) to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance
of the communit).
Fajardo *ould e constrained to let the land e fallo* and not e used for uran purposes. /o do
this legall), there must e just compensation and the) must e given an opportunit) to e heard.
An ordinance *hich permanentl) so restricts the use of propert) that it can not e used for an)
reasonale purpose goes, it is plain, e)ond regulation and must e recogni+ed as a ta5ing of the
propert).
/he validit) *as also refuted ) the Admin Code *hich states-
S.C. 0061. Certain legislative po*ers of discretionar) character. 4 /he municipal council shall have
authorit) to e7ercise the follo*ing discretionar) po*ers-
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
9c; /o estalish fire limits in populous centers, prescrie the 5inds of uildings that ma) e
constructed or repaired *ithin them, and issue permits for the creation or repair thereof, charging a
fee *hich shall e determined ) the municipal council and *hich shall not e less than t*opesos for
each uilding permit and one peso for each repair permit issued. /he fees collected under the
provisions of this susection shall accrue to the municipal school fund.
Since, there *as asolutel) no sho*ing in this case that the municipal council had either estalished
fire limits *ithin the municipalit) or set standards for the 5ind or 5inds of uildings to e constructed
or repaired *ithin them efore it passed the ordinance in ,uestion, it is clear that said ordinance *as
not conceived and promulgated under the e7press authorit) of sec. 0061 9c;