Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 12!" #ece$be% 1& 1'''
RO(AS ) CO.& *NC.& petitione%&
+s.
T,E ,ONORAB-E COURT O. APPEA-S& #EPARTMENT O. AGRAR*AN RE.ORM& SECRETAR/ O.
AGRAR*AN RE.ORM& #AR REG*ONA- #*RECTOR .OR REG*ON *0& MUN*C*PA- AGRAR*AN RE.ORM
O..*CER O. NASUGBU& BATANGAS an1 #EPARTMENT O. AGRAR*AN RE.ORM A#2U#*CAT*ON BOAR#&
%espon1ents.
.ACTS3
This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned by petitioner and the validity of the acquisition
of these haciendas by the government under Republic ct No! ""#$, the %omprehensive grarian Reform &aw of
'())!
*etitioner Ro+as , %o! is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas, namely,
-aciendas *alico, Banilad and %aylaway, all located in the .unicipality of Nasugbu, Batangas! -acienda *alico is
',/01 hectares in area and is registered under Transfer %ertificate of Title (T%T) No! ()#! This land is covered by
Ta+ 2eclaration Nos! /1"#, /1"", /1"), /1$/, /031 and /3#1! -acienda Banilad is ',/#/ hectares in area,
registered under T%T No! (01 and covered by Ta+ 2eclaration Nos! /03", /03$ and /3(/! -acienda %aylaway is
)"$!1#$' hectares in area and is registered under T%T Nos! T311""0, T311""3, T311""1 and T311""#!
The events of this case occurred during the incumbency of then *resident %ora4on %! quino! 5n 6ebruary '()",
*resident quino issued *roclamation No! 3 promulgating a *rovisional %onstitution! s head of the provisional
government, the *resident e+ercised legislative power 7until a legislature is elected and convened under a new
%onstitution!7 ' 5n the e+ercise of this legislative power, the *resident signed on 8uly 00, '()$, *roclamation No!
'3' instituting a %omprehensive grarian Reform *rogram and 9+ecutive :rder No! 00( providing the
mechanisms necessary to initially implement the program!
:n 8uly 0$, '()$, the %ongress of the *hilippines formally convened and too; over legislative power from the
*resident! 0 This %ongress passed Republic ct No! ""#$, the %omprehensive grarian Reform &aw (%R&) of
'())! The ct was signed by the *resident on 8une '/, '()) and too; effect on 8une '#, '())!
Before the law<s effectivity, on .ay ", '()), petitioner filed with respondent 2R a voluntary offer to sell -acienda
%aylaway pursuant to the provisions of 9!:! No! 00(! -aciendas *alico and Banilad were later placed under
compulsory acquisition by respondent 2R in accordance with the %R&!
-acienda *alico
:n =eptember 0(, '()(, respondent 2R, through respondent .unicipal grarian Reform :fficer (.R:) of
Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice entitled 75nvitation to *arties7 to petitioner! The 5nvitation was addressed to
78aime *imentel, -da! dministrator, -da! *alico!7 3 Therein, the .R: invited petitioner to a conference on
:ctober ", '()( at the 2R office in Nasugbu to discuss the results of the 2R investigation of -acienda *alico,
which was 7scheduled for compulsory acquisition this year under the %omprehensive grarian Reform *rogram!7 1
:n :ctober 0#, '()(, the .R: completed three (3) 5nvestigation Reports after investigation and ocular
inspection of the -acienda! 5n the first Report, the .R: found that 0$/ hectares under Ta+ 2eclaration Nos! 1"#,
1"", 1") and 1$/ were 7flat to undulating (/3)> slope)7 and actually occupied and cultivated by 31 tillers of
sugarcane! # 5n the second Report, the .R: identified as 7flat to undulating7 appro+imately 33( hectares under
Ta+ 2eclaration No! /031 which also had several actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane? " while in the third
Report, the .R: found appro+imately $# hectare under Ta+ 2eclaration No! /3#1 as 7flat to undulating7 with 33
actual occupants and tillers also of sugarcane! $
:n :ctober 0$, '()(, a 7=ummary 5nvestigation Report7 was submitted and signed @ointly by the .R:,
representatives of the Barangay grarian Reform %ommittee (BR%) and &and Ban; of the *hilippines (&B*), and
by the *rovincial grarian Reform :fficer (*R:)! The Report recommended that 333!/)// hectares of -acienda
*alico be sub@ect to compulsory acquisition at a value of *",)/$,"00!0/! ) The following day, :ctober 0), '()(,
two (0) more =ummary 5nvestigation Reports were submitted by the same officers and representatives! They
recommended that 0$/!/)$" hectares and $#!3)// hectares be placed under compulsory acquisition at a
compensation of *),'/(,$3(!// and *0,')),'(#!1$, respectively! (
:n 2ecember '0, '()(, respondent 2R through then 2epartment =ecretary .iriam 2! =antiago sent a 7Notice of
cquisition7 to petitioner! The Notice was addressed as followsA
Ro+as y %ia, &imited
=oriano Bldg!, *la4a %ervantes
.anila, .etro .anila! '/
*etitioner was informed that ',/03!((( hectares of its land in -acienda *alico were sub@ect to immediate
acquisition and distribution by the government under the %R&? that based on the 2R<s valuation criteria, the
government was offering compensation of *3!1 million for 333!/)// hectares? that whether this offer was to be
accepted or re@ected, petitioner was to inform the Bureau of &and cquisition and 2istribution (B&2) of the 2R?
that in case of petitioner<s re@ection or failure to reply within thirty days, respondent 2R shall conduct summary
administrative proceedings with notice to petitioner to determine @ust compensation for the land? that if petitioner
accepts respondent 2R<s offer, or upon deposit of the compensation with an accessible ban; if it re@ects the
same, the 2R shall ta;e immediate possession of the land! ''
lmost two years later, on =eptember 0", '((', the 2R Regional 2irector sent to the &B* &and Baluation
.anager three (3) separate .emoranda entitled 7Request to :pen Trust ccount!7 9ach .emoranda requested
that a trust account representing the valuation of three portions of -acienda *alico be opened in favor of the
petitioner in view of the latter<s re@ection of its offered value! '0
.eanwhile in a letter dated .ay 1, '((3, petitioner applied with the 2R for conversion of -aciendas *alico and
Banilad from agricultural to non3agricultural lands under the provisions of the %R&! '3 :n 8uly '1, '((3, petitioner
sent a letter to the 2R Regional 2irector reiterating its request for conversion of the two haciendas! '1
2espite petitioner<s application for conversion, respondent 2R proceeded with the acquisition of the two
-aciendas! The &B* trust accounts as compensation for -acienda *alico were replaced by respondent 2R with
cash and &B* bonds! '# :n :ctober 00, '((3, from the mother title of T%T No! ()# of the -acienda, respondent
2R registered %ertificate of &and :wnership ward (%&:) No! ""#1! :n :ctober 3/, '((3, %&:<s were
distributed to farmer beneficiaries! '"
-acienda Banilad
:n ugust 03, '()(, respondent 2R, through respondent .R: of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice to
petitioner addressed as followsA
.r! 8aime *imentel
-acienda dministrator
-acienda Banilad
Nasugbu, Batangas '$
1
The .R: informed *imentel that -acienda Banilad was sub@ect to compulsory acquisition under the %R&? that
should petitioner wish to avail of the other schemes such as Boluntary :ffer to =ell or Boluntary &and Transfer,
respondent 2R was willing to provide assistance thereto! ')
:n =eptember '), '()(, the .R: sent an 75nvitation to *arties7 again to *imentel inviting the latter to attend a
conference on =eptember 0', '()( at the .R: :ffice in Nasugbu to discuss the results of the .R:<s
investigation over -acienda Banilad! '(
:n =eptember 0', '()(, the same day the conference was held, the .R: submitted two (0) Reports! 5n his first
Report, he found that appro+imately $/( hectares of land under Ta+ 2eclaration Nos! /03$ and /03" were 7flat to
undulating (/3)> slope)!7 :n this area were discovered '"0 actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane! 0/ 5n the
second Report, it was found that appro+imately 03# hectares under Ta+ 2eclaration No! /3(/ were 7flat to
undulating,7 on which were (0 actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane! 0'
The results of these Reports were discussed at the conference! *resent in the conference were representatives of
the prospective farmer beneficiaries, the BR%, the &B*, and 8aime *imentel on behalf of the landowner! 00 fter
the meeting, on the same day, =eptember 0', '()(, a =ummary 5nvestigation Report was submitted @ointly by the
.R:, representatives of the BR%, &B*, and the *R:! They recommended that after ocular inspection of the
property, 031!"1() hectares under Ta+ 2eclaration No! /3(/ be sub@ect to compulsory acquisition and distribution
by %&:! 03 The following day, =eptember 00, '()(, a second =ummary 5nvestigation was submitted by the same
officers! They recommended that $3$!0#(/ hectares under Ta+ 2eclaration Nos! /03" and /03$ be li;ewise placed
under compulsory acquisition for distribution! 01
:n 2ecember '0, '()(, respondent 2R, through the 2epartment =ecretary, sent to petitioner two (0) separate
7Notices of cquisition7 over -acienda Banilad! These Notices were sent on the same day as the Notice of
cquisition over -acienda *alico! Cnli;e the Notice over -acienda *alico, however, the Notices over -acienda
Banilad were addressed toA
Ro+as y %ia! &imited
$th 6loor, %acho3Don4ales Bldg! '/' guirre =t!, &eg!
.a;ati, .etro .anila! 0#
Respondent 2R offered petitioner compensation of *'#,'/),((#!#0 for $0(!1'(/ hectares and *1,10),1("!// for
031!"1() hectares! 0"
:n =eptember 0", '((', the 2R Regional 2irector sent to the &B* &and Baluation .anager a 7Request to :pen
Trust ccount7 in petitioner<s name as compensation for 031!"1(3 hectares of -acienda Banilad! 0$ second
7Request to :pen Trust ccount7 was sent on November '), '((' over $03!1'3/ hectares of said -acienda! 0)
:n 2ecember '), '((', the &B* certified that the amounts of *1,10),1("!1/ and *0',031,1")!$) in cash and &B*
bonds had been earmar;ed as compensation for petitioner<s land in -acienda Banilad! 0(
:n .ay 1, '((3, petitioner applied for conversion of both -aciendas *alico and Banilad!
-acienda %aylaway
-acienda %aylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government on .ay ", '()) before the effectivity of the
%R&! The -acienda has a total area of )"$!1#$' hectares and is covered by four (1) titles E T%T Nos! T311""0,
T311""3, T311""1 and T311""#! :n 8anuary '0, '()(, respondent 2R, through the Regional 2irector for Region
5B, sent to petitioner two (0) separate Resolutions accepting petitioner<s voluntary offer to sell -acienda %aylaway,
particularly T%T Nos! T311""1 and T311""3! 3/ The Resolutions were addressed toA
Ro+as , %ompany, 5nc!
$th 6lr! %acho3Don4ales Bldg!
guirre, &egaspi Billage
.a;ati, .! . 3'
:n =eptember 1, '((/, the 2R Regional 2irector issued two separate .emoranda to the &B* Regional .anager
requesting for the valuation of the land under T%T Nos! T311""1 and T311""3! 30 :n the same day, respondent
2R, through the Regional 2irector, sent to petitioner a 7Notice of cquisition7 over 01'!"$$$ hectares under T%T
No! T311""1 and #33!)')/ hectares under T%T No! T311""3! 33 &i;e the Resolutions of cceptance, the Notice of
cquisition was addressed to petitioner at its office in .a;ati, .etro .anila!
Nevertheless, on ugust ", '((0, petitioner, through its *resident, 9duardo 8! Ro+as, sent a letter to the =ecretary
of respondent 2R withdrawing its B:= of -acienda %aylaway! The =angguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas
allegedly authori4ed the reclassification of -acienda %aylaway from agricultural to non3agricultural! s a result,
petitioner informed respondent 2R that it was applying for conversion of -acienda %aylaway from agricultural to
other
uses! 31
5n a letter dated =eptember 0), '((0, respondent 2R =ecretary informed petitioner that a reclassification of the
land would not e+empt it from agrarian reform! Respondent =ecretary also denied petitioner<s withdrawal of the
B:= on the ground that withdrawal could only be based on specific grounds such as unsuitability of the soil for
agriculture, or if the slope of the land is over ') degrees and that the land is undeveloped! 3#
2espite the denial of the B:= withdrawal of -acienda %aylaway, on .ay '', '((3, petitioner filed its application for
conversion of both -aciendas *alico and Banilad! 3" :n 8uly '1, '((3, petitioner, through its *resident, 9duardo
Ro+as, reiterated its request to withdraw the B:= over -acienda %aylaway in light of the followingA
') %ertification issued by %onrado 5! Don4ales, :fficer3in3%harge, 2epartment of griculture, Region 1,
1th 6loor, T5 (B) Bldg!, 2iliman, Fue4on %ity dated .arch ', '((3 stating that the lands sub@ect of referenced
titles 7are not feasible and economically sound for further agricultural development!
0) Resolution No! '( of the =angguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas approving the Goning :rdinance
reclassifying areas covered by the referenced titles to non3agricultural which was enacted after e+tensive
consultation with government agencies, including Hthe 2epartment of grarian ReformI, and the requisite public
hearings!
3) Resolution No! '/" of the =angguniang *anlalawigan of Batangas dated .arch ), '((3 approving the
Goning :rdinance enacted by the .unicipality of Nasugbu!
1) &etter dated 2ecember '#, '((0 issued by Reynaldo C! Darcia of the .unicipal *lanning ,
2evelopment, %oordinator and 2eputi4ed Goning dministrator addressed to .rs! licia *! &ogarta advising that
the .unicipality of Nasugbu, Batangas has no ob@ection to the conversion of the lands sub@ect of referenced titles
to non3agricultural! 3$
:n ugust 01, '((3 petitioner instituted %ase No! N3//'$3("31" (B) with respondent 2R d@udication Board
(2RB) praying for the cancellation of the %&:<s issued by respondent 2R in the name of several persons!
*etitioner alleged that the .unicipality of Nasugbu, where the haciendas are located, had been declared a tourist
4one, that the land is not suitable for agricultural production, and that the =angguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had
reclassified the land to non3agricultural!
5n a Resolution dated :ctober '1, '((3, respondent 2RB held that the case involved the pre@udicial question of
whether the property was sub@ect to agrarian reform, hence, this question should be submitted to the :ffice of the
=ecretary of grarian Reform for determination! 3)
2
:n :ctober 0(, '((3, petitioner filed with the %ourt of ppeals %3D!R! =* No! 301)1! 5t questioned the
e+propriation of its properties under the %R& and the denial of due process in the acquisition of its landholdings!
,E-#3
6or a valid implementation of the %R program, two notices are requiredA (') the Notice of %overage and letter of
invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BR%, &B*, farmer
beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to 2R !:! No! '0, =eries of '()(? and (0) the Notice of
cquisition sent to the landowner under =ection '" of the %R&!
The importance of the first notice, i!e!, the Notice of %overage and the letter of invitation to the conference, and its
actual conduct cannot be understated! They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative
due process! The implementation of the %R& is an e+ercise of the =tate<s police power and the power of eminent
domain! To the e+tent that the %R& prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an e+ercise of police
power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the %onstitution! #/ But where, to carry out such
regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in e+cess of the ma+imum area allowed, there is also a
ta;ing under the power of eminent domain! The ta;ing contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land!
Jhat is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said e+cess and all beneficial rights
accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary! #' The Bill of Rights provides that 7HnIo person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law!7 #0 The %R& was not intended to ta;e away
property without due process of law! #3 The e+ercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be
observed in the ta;ing of private property!
T5: B=! B529:DR. R9DC&T:RK B:R2 H'#' =%R 0/)? D!R! No! &3$#"($? ') 8un '()$I
6riday, 8anuary 3/, 0//( *osted by %offeeholic Jrites
&abelsA %ase 2igests, *olitical &aw
.acts3
The case is a petition filed by petitioner on behalf of videogram operators adversely affected by *residential 2ecree
No! '()$, Ln ct %reating the Bideogram Regulatory Board7 with broad powers to regulate and supervise the
videogram industry!
month after the promulgation of the said *residential 2ecree, the amended the National 5nternal Revenue %ode
provided thatA
7=9%! '31! Bideo Tapes! E There shall be collected on each processed video3tape cassette, ready for playbac;,
regardless of length, an annual ta+ of five pesos? *rovided, That locally manufactured or imported blan; video
tapes shall be sub@ect to sales ta+!7
7=ection '/! Ta+ on =ale, &ease or 2isposition of Bideograms! E Notwithstanding any provision of law to the
contrary, the province shall collect a ta+ of thirty percent (3/>) of the purchase price or rental rate, as the case may
be, for every sale, lease or disposition of a videogram containing a reproduction of any motion picture or
audiovisual program!M
L6ifty percent (#/>) of the proceeds of the ta+ collected shall accrue to the province, and the other fifty percent
(#/>) shall accrue to the municipality where the ta+ is collected? *R:B5292, That in .etropolitan .anila, the ta+
shall be shared equally by the %ityN.unicipality and the .etropolitan .anila %ommission!M
The rationale behind the ta+ provision is to curb the proliferation and unregulated circulation of videograms
including, among others, videotapes, discs, cassettes or any technical improvement or variation thereof, have
greatly pre@udiced the operations of movie houses and theaters! =uch unregulated circulation have caused a sharp
decline in theatrical attendance by at least forty percent (1/>) and a tremendous drop in the collection of sales,
contractor<s specific, amusement and other ta+es, thereby resulting in substantial losses estimated at *1#/ .illion
annually in government revenues!
Bideogram(s) establishments collectively earn around *"// .illion per annum from rentals, sales and disposition of
videograms, and these earnings have not been sub@ected to ta+, thereby depriving the Dovernment of
appro+imately *')/ .illion in ta+es each year!
The unregulated activities of videogram establishments have also affected the viability of the movie industry!
*ssues3
(') Jhether or not ta+ imposed by the 29%R99 is a valid e+ercise of police power!
(0) Jhether or nor the 29%R99 is constitutional!
,el13
Ta+ation has been made the implement of the state<s police power! The levy of the 3/> ta+ is for a public purpose!
5t was imposed primarily to answer the need for regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant
film piracy, the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights, and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes!
nd while it was also an ob@ective of the 29%R99 to protect the movie industry, the ta+ remains a valid imposition!
Je find no clear violation of the %onstitution which would @ustify us in pronouncing *residential 2ecree No! '()$ as
unconstitutional and void! Jhile the underlying ob@ective of the 29%R99 is to protect the moribund movie industry,
there is no question that public welfare is at bottom of its enactment, considering 7the unfair competition posed by
rampant film piracy? the erosion of the moral fiber of the viewing public brought about by the availability of
unclassified and unreviewed video tapes containing pornographic films and films with brutally violent sequences?
and losses in government revenues due to the drop in theatrical attendance, not to mention the fact that the
activities of video establishments are virtually unta+ed since mere payment of .ayor<s permit and municipal license
fees are required to engage in business!7
J-9R96:R9, the instant *etition is hereby dismissed! No costs!
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. -45!62' 2une 57& 1'!!
CAR-OS BA-ACU*T& -AMBERTO TAN an1 SERG*O /U CARCE-& petitione%s4appellants&
+s.
COURT O. .*RST *NSTANCE O. AGUSAN #E- NORTE AN# BUTUAN C*T/& B%anch 11& an1 the C*T/ O.
BUTUAN& %espon1ents4appellees.
.ACTS3
t issue in the petition for review before Cs is the validity and constitutionality of :rdinance No! "1/ passed by the
.unicipal Board of the %ity of Butuan on pril 0', '("(, the title and te+t of which are reproduced belowA
:R25NN%933"1/
:R25NN%9 *9N&5G5ND NK *9R=:N, DR:C* :6 *9R=:N=, 9NT5TK :R %:R*:RT5:N 9NDD92 5N
T-9 BC=5N9== :6 =9&&5ND 2.5==5:N T5%O9T= T: NK .:B59 :R :T-9R *CB&5% 9P-5B5T5:N=,
D.9=, %:NT9=T= :R :T-9R *9R6:R.N%9= T: R9FC5R9 %-5&2R9N B9TJ99N =9B9N ($) N2
TJ9&B9 ('0) K9R= :6 D9 T: *K 6C&& *K.9NT 6:R T5%O9T= 5NT9N292 6:R 2C&T= BCT =-:C&2
%-RD9 :N&K :N93-&6 :6 T-9 =52 T5%O9T
+++ +++ +++
3
Be it ordained by the .unicipal Board of the %ity of Butuan in session assembled, thatA
=9%T5:N 'E5t shall be unlawful for any person, group of persons, entity, or corporation engaged in the business
of selling admission tic;ets to any movie or other public e+hibitions, games, contests, or other performances to
require children between seven ($) and twelve ('0) years of age to pay full payment for admission tic;ets intended
for adults but should charge only one3half of the value of the said tic;ets!
=9%T5:N 0Eny person violating the provisions of this :rdinance shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of
not less than TJ: -CN2R92 *9=:= (*0//!//) but not more than =5P -CN2R92 *9=:= (*"//!//) or an
imprisonment of not less than TJ: (0) .:NT-= or not more than =5P (") .:NT-= or both such firm and
imprisonment in the discretion of the %ourt!
5f the violator be a firm or corporation the penalty shall be imposed upon the .anager, gent or Representative of
such firm or corporation!
=9%T5:N 3EThis ordinance shall ta;e effect upon its approval!
*etitioners are %arlos Balacuit &amberto Tan, and =ergio Ku %arcel managers of the .aya and 2alisay Theaters,
the %rown Theater, and the 2iamond Theater, respectively! ggrieved by the effect of :rdinance No! "1/, they filed
a complaint before the %ourt of 6irst 5nstance of gusan del Norte and Butuan %ity doc;eted as =pecial %ivil %ase
No! 03$ on 8une 3/, '("( praying, inter alia, that the sub@ect ordinance be declared unconstitutional and, therefore,
void and unenforceable! '
Cpon motion of the petitioners, 0 a temporary restraining order was issued on 8uly '1, '("( by the court a quo
en@oining the respondent %ity of Butuan and its officials from enforcing :rdinance No! "1/! 3 :n 8uly 0(, '("(,
respondents filed their answer sustaining the validity of the ordinance! 1
:n 8anuary 3/, '($3, the litigants filed their stipulation of facts! # :n 8une 1, '($3, the respondent court rendered
its decision, " the dispositive part of which readsA
5N T-9 &5D-T :6 && T-9 6:R9D:5ND, the %ourt hereby ad@udges in favor of the respondents and against the
petitioners, as followsA
'! 2eclaring :rdinance No! "1/ of the %ity of Butuan constitutional and validA *rovided, however, that the
fine for a single offense shall not e+ceed TJ: -CN2R92 *9=:=, as prescribed in the aforequoted =ection '#
(nn) of Rep! ct No! #03?
0! 2issolving the restraining order issued by this %ourt? and?
3! 2ismissing the complaint, with costs against the petitioners!
1! =: :R29R92! $
*etitioners filed their motion for reconsideration ) of the decision of the court a quo which was denied in a
resolution of the said court dated November '/, '($3! (
,E-#3
Je must bear in mind that there must be public necessity which demands the adoption of proper measures to
secure the ends sought to be attained by the enactment of the ordinance, and the large discretion is necessarily
vested in the legislative authority to determine not only what the interests of the public require, but what measures
are necessary for the protection of such interests! 0/ The methods or means used to protect the public health,
morals, safety or welfare, must have some relation to the end in view, for under the guise of the police power,
personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitralily invaded by the
legislative department! 0'
Je agree with petitioners that the ordinance is not @ustified by any necessity for the public interest! The police
power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must e+ist
between purposes and means! 00 The evident purpose of the ordinance is to help ease the burden of cost on the
part of parents who have to shell out the same amount of money for the admission of their children, as they would
for themselves, reduction in the price of admission would mean corresponding savings for the parents? however,
the petitioners are the ones made to bear the cost of these savings! The ordinance does not only ma;e the
petitioners suffer the loss of earnings but it li;ewise penali4es them for failure to comply with it! 6urthermore, as
petitioners point out, there will be difficulty in its implementation because as already e+perienced by petitioners
since the effectivity of the ordinance, children over '0 years of age tried to pass off their age as below '0 years in
order to avail of the benefit of the ordinance! The ordinance does not provide a safeguard against this undesirable
practice and as such, the respondent %ity of Butuan now suggests that birth certificates be e+hibited by movie
house patrons to prove the age of children! This is, however, not at all practicable! Je can see that the ordinance is
clearly unreasonable if not unduly oppressive upon the business of petitioners! .oreover, there is no discernible
relation between the ordinance and the promotion of public health, safety, morals and the general welfare!
:rdinance No! "1/ clearly invades the personal and property rights of petitioners for even if Je could assume that,
on its face, the interference was reasonable, from the foregoing considerations, it has been fully shown that it is an
unwarranted and unlawful curtailment of the property and personal rights of citi4ens! 6or being unreasonable and
an undue restraint of trade, it cannot, under the guise of e+ercising police power, be upheld as valid!
B*NA/ +s #OM*NGO& G.R. NO. '25!'& Septe$be% 11& 1''1 8271 SCRA 97!:
.acts3
The Burial ssistance *rogram (Resolution No! "/ Q assisting those who only earn less than *0,///Nmonth of
burial assistance in the amount of *#//!//) made by .a;ati .ayor 8e@omar Binay, in the e+ercise of the police
power granted to him by the municipal charter, was referred to the %ommission on udit after the municipal
secretary certified the disbursement of four hundred thousand pesos for its implementation was disallowed by said
commission of such disbursements because there cannot be seen any perceptible connection or relation between
the ob@ective sought to be attained and the alleged public safety, general welfare, etc! of its inhabitants! -ence, this
petition revolving around the pivotal issue on whether or not Resolution No! "/ of the .unicipality of .a;ati is a
valid e+ercise of police power under the general welfare clause!
,el13
Resolution No! "/ of the .unicipality of .a;ati is a valid e+ercise of police power under the general welfare clause!
The police power is a governmental function, an inherent attribute of sovereignty, which was born with civili4ed
government! 5t is founded largely on the ma+ims, L=ic utere tuo et ahenum non laedasM (use your property so as
not to impair others) and L=alus populi est suprema le+M (the welfare of the people is the supreme law)! 5ts
fundamental purpose is securing the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people! *olice power is the
power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general
welfare of the people! 5t is the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers! 5n a sense it is the greatest and
most powerful attribute of the government! 5t is elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions! The
care for the poor is generally recogni4ed as a public duty! The support for the poor has long been an accepted
e+ercise of police power in the promotion of the common good!
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. '25!' Septe$be% 11& 1''1
,ON. 2E2OMAR C. B*NA/ an1 the MUN*C*PA-*T/ O. MA;AT*& petitione%s&
+s.
,ON. EU.EM*O #OM*NGO an1 the COMM*SS*ON ON AU#*T& %espon1ents.
.ACTS3
4
The only pivotal issue before Cs is whether or not Resolution No! "/, re3enacted under Resolution No! 013, of the
.unicipality of .a;ati is a valid e+ercise of police power under the general welfare clause!
The pertinent facts areA
:n =eptember 0$, '()), petitioner .unicipality, through its %ouncil, approved Resolution No! "/ which readsA
R9=:&CT5:N T: %:N65R. N2N:R RT56K T-9 :ND:5ND BCR5& ==5=TN%9 *R:DR. 5N5T5T92
BK T-9 :665%9 :6 T-9 .K:R, :6 9PT9N25ND 65NN%5& ==5=TN%9 :6 65B9 -CN2R92 *9=:=
(*#//!//) T: B9R9B92 6.5&K, 6CN2= T: B9 TO9N :CT :6 CN**R:*R5T92 B5&B&9 6CN2=
9P5=T5ND 5N T-9 .CN5%5*& TR9=CRK! (Rollo, nnne+ 77 p! 3()
Fualified beneficiaries, under the Burial ssistance *rogram, are bereaved families of .a;ati whose gross family
income does not e+ceed two thousand pesos (*0,///!//) a month! The beneficiaries, upon fulfillment of other
requirements, would receive the amount of five hundred pesos (*#//!//) cash relief from the .unicipality of
.a;ati! (Reno, nne+ 7'37, p! 1')
.etro .anila %ommission approved Resolution No! "/! Thereafter, the municipal secretary certified a
disbursement fired of four hundred thousand pesos (*1//,///!//) for the implementation of the Burial ssistance
*rogram! (Rollo, nne+ 7%7, p! 13)!
Resolution No! "/ was referred to respondent %ommission on udit (%:) for its e+pected allowance in audit!
Based on its preliminary findings, respondent %: disapproved Resolution No! "/ and disallowed in audit the
disbursement of finds for the implementation thereof! (Rollo, nne+ 727, *! 11)
Two letters for reconsideration (nne+es 797 and 767, Rollo, pp! 1# and 1), respectively) filed by petitioners .ayor
8e@omar Binay, were denied by respondent in its 2ecision No! ''#(, in the following mannerA
Kour request for reconsideration is predicated on the following grounds, to witA
'! =ub@ect Resolution No! "/, s! '()), of the .unicipal %ouncil of .a;ati and the intended disbursements
fall within the twin principles of <police power and parens patriae and
0! The .etropolitan .anila %ommission (..%), under a %ertification, dated 8une #, '()(, has already
appropriated the amount of *1//,///!// to implement the 5d resolution, and the only function of %: on the matter
is to allow the financial assistance in question!
The first contention is believed untenable! =uffice it to state thatA
a statute or ordinance must have a real substantial, or rational relation to the public safety, health, morals, or
general welfare to be sustained as a legitimate e+ercise of the police power! The mere assertion by the legislature
that a statute relates to the public health, safety, or welfare does not in itself bring the statute within the police
power of a state for there must always be an obvious and real connection between the actual provisions of a police
regulations and its avowed purpose, and the regulation adopted must be reasonably adapted to accomplish the
end sought to be attained! '" m! 8ur 0d, pp! #103#13? emphasis supplied)!
-ere, we see no perceptible connection or relation between the ob@ective sought to be attained under Resolution
No! "/, s! '()), supra, and the alleged public safety, general welfare, etc! of the inhabitants of .a;ati!
nent the second contention, let it be stressed that Resolution No! "/ is still sub@ect to the limitation that the
e+penditure covered thereby should be for a public purpose, i!e!, that the disbursement of the amount of *#//!//
as burial assistance to a bereaved family of the .unicipality of .a;ati, or a total of *1//,///!// appropriated under
the Resolution, should be for the benefit of the whole, if not the ma@ority, of the inhabitants of the .unicipality and
not for the benefit of only a few individuals as in the present case! :n this point government funds or property shall
be spent or used solely for public purposes! (%f! =ection 1H0I, *!2! '11#)! (pp! #/3#', Rollo)
Bent on pursuing the Burial ssistance *rogram the .unicipality of .a;ati, through its %ouncil, passed Resolution
No! 013, re3affirming Resolution No! "/ (Rollo, nne+ 7-7, p! #0)!
-owever, the Burial ssistance *rogram has been stayed by %: 2ecision No! ''#(! *etitioner, through its .ayor,
was constrained to file this special civil action of certiorari praying that %: 2ecision No! ''#( be set aside as null
and void!
-9&2A
5n the case at bar, %: is of the position that there is 7no perceptible connection or relation between the ob@ective
sought to be attained under Resolution No! "/, s! '()), supra, and the alleged public safety, general welfare! etc!
of the inhabitants of .a;ati!7 (Rollo, nne+ 7D7, p! #')!
pparently, %: tries to re3define the scope of police power by circumscribing its e+ercise to 7public safety, general
welfare, etc! of the inhabitants of .a;ati!7
5n the case of =angalang vs! 5%, supra, Je ruled that police power is not capable of an e+act definition but has
been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all comprehensiveness! 5ts scope, over3e+panding to
meet the e+igencies of the times, even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an
efficient and fle+ible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits!
The police power of a municipal corporation is broad, and has been said to be commensurate with, but not to
e+ceed, the duty to provide for the real needs of the people in their health, safety, comfort, and convenience as
consistently as may be with private rights! 5t e+tends to all the great public needs, and, in a broad sense includes all
legislation and almost every function of the municipal government! 5t covers a wide scope of sub@ects, and, while it
is especially occupied with whatever affects the peace, security, health, morals, and general welfare of the
community, it is not limited thereto, but is broadened to deal with conditions which e+ists so as to bring out of them
the greatest welfare of the people by promoting public convenience or general prosperity, and to everything
worthwhile for the preservation of comfort of the inhabitants of the corporation ("0 %!8!=! =ec! '0))! Thus, it is
deemed inadvisable to attempt to frame any definition which shall absolutely indicate the limits of police power!
%:<s additional ob@ection is based on its contention that 7Resolution No! "/ is still sub@ect to the limitation that the
e+penditure covered thereby should be for a public purpose, !!! should be for the benefit of the whole, if not the
ma@ority, of the inhabitants of the .unicipality and not for the benefit of only a few individuals as in the present
case!7 (Rollo, nne+ 7D7, p! #')!
%: is not attuned to the changing of the times! *ublic purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it
incidentally benefits a limited number of persons! s correctly pointed out by the :ffice of the =olicitor Deneral, 7the
drift is towards social welfare legislation geared towards state policies to provide adequate social services (=ection
(, rt! 55, %onstitution), the promotion of the general welfare (=ection #, 5bid) social @ustice (=ection '/, 5bid) as well
as human dignity and respect for human rights! (=ection '', 5bid!7 (%omment, p! '0)
The care for the poor is generally recogni4ed as a public duty! The support for the poor has long been an accepted
e+ercise of police power in the promotion of the common good!
There is no violation of the equal protection clause in classifying paupers as sub@ect of legislation! *aupers may be
reasonably classified! 2ifferent groups may receive varying treatment! *recious to the hearts of our legislators,
down to our local councilors, is the welfare of the paupers! Thus, statutes have been passed giving rights and
benefits to the disabled, emancipating the tenant3farmer from the bondage of the soil, housing the urban poor, etc!
Resolution No! "/, re3enacted under Resolution No! 013, of the .unicipality of .a;ati is a paragon of the
continuing program of our government towards social @ustice! The Burial ssistance *rogram is a relief of
pauperism, though not complete! The loss of a member of a family is a painful e+perience, and it is more painful for
the poor to be financially burdened by such death! Resolution No! "/ vivifies the very words of the late *resident
Ramon .agsaysay <those who have less in life, should have more in law!7 This decision, however must not be
ta;en as a precedent, or as an official go3signal for municipal governments to embar; on a philanthropic orgy of
inordinate dole3outs for motives political or otherwise!
5
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. -497'7! 2anua%< 51& 1'!6
MAR/ CONCEPC*ON BAUT*STA an1 ENR*=UE #. BAUT*STA& petitione%s&
+s.
A-.RE#O -. 2U*N*O& ROMEO .. E#U an1 .*#E- 0. RAMOS& %espon1ents.
.ACTS3
The validity of an energy conservation measure, &etter of 5nstruction No! )"(, issued on .ay 3', '($( E the
response to the protracted oil crisis that dates bac; to '($1 E is put in issue in this prohibition proceeding filed by
petitioners, spouses .ary %oncepcion Bautista and 9nrique 2! Bautista, for being allegedly violative of the due
process and equal protection guarantees ' of the %onstitution! The use of private motor vehicles with - and 9-
plates on wee;3ends and holidays was banned from 7H'0A//I a!m! =aturday morning to #A// a!m! .onday morning,
or 'A// a!m! of the holiday to #A// a!m! of the day after the holiday!7 0 .otor vehicles of the following classifications
are e+emptedA (a) = (=ervice)? (b) T (Truc;)? (e) 2*& (2iplomatic)? (d) %% (%onsular %orps)? (e) T% (Tourist %ars)! 3
*ursuant thereto, respondent lfredo &! 8uinio, then .inister of *ublic Jor;s, Transportation and %ommunications
and respondent Romeo *! 9du, then %ommissioner of &and Transportation %ommission issued on 8une '', '($(,
.emorandum %ircular No! 3(, which imposed 7the penalties of fine, confiscation of vehicle and cancellation of
registration on owners of the above3specified vehicles7 found violating such &etter of 5nstruction! 1 5t was then
alleged by petitioners that 7while the purpose for the issuance of the &:5 )"( is laudable, to wit, energy
conservation, the provision banning the use of - and 9- HvehiclesI is unfair, discriminatory, Hamounting to anI
arbitrary classification7 and thus in contravention of the equal protection clause! # .oreover, for them, such &etter
of 5nstruction is a denial of due process, more specifically, 7of their right to use and en@oy their private property and
of their freedom to travel and hold family gatherings, reunions and outings on wee;3ends and holidays,7 inviting
attention to the fact that others not included in the ban en@oying 7unrestricted freedom!7 " 5t would follow, so they
contend that .emorandum %ircular No! 3( imposing penalties of fine, confiscation of the vehicle and cancellation
of license is li;ewise unconstitutional, for being violative of the doctrine of 7undue delegation of legislative power!7 $
5t is to be noted that such .emorandum %ircular does not impose the penalty of confiscation but merely that of
impounding, fine, and for the third offense that of cancellation of certificate of registration and for the rest of the
year or for ninety days whichever is longer!
,E-#3
3! 5t is true, of course, that there may be instances where a police power measure may, because of its arbitrary,
oppressive or un@ust character, be held offensive to the due process clause and, therefore, may, when challenged
in an appropriate legal proceeding, be declared void on its face! This is not one of them! recital of the whereas
clauses of the &etter of 5nstruction ma;es it clear! ThusA 7HJhereasI, developments in the international petroleum
supply situation continue to follow a trend of limited production and spiralling prices thereby precluding the
possibility of immediate relief in supplies within the foreseeable future? HJhereasI, the uncertainty of fuel supply
availability underscores a compelling need for the adoption of positive measures designed to insure the viability of
the country<s economy and sustain its developmental growth? HJhereasI, to cushion the effect of increasing oil
prices and avoid fuel supply disruptions, it is imperative to adopt a program directed towards the @udicious use of
our energy resources complemented with intensified conservation efforts and efficient utili4ation thereof? R R R!7 00
That is undeniable is that the action ta;en is an appropriate response to a problem that presses urgently for
solution! 5t may not be the only alternative, but its reasonableness is immediately apparent! Thus, to repeat,
substantive due process, which is the epitome of reasonableness and fair play, is not ignored, much less infringed!
1! 5n the interplay between such a fundamental right and police power, especially so where the assailed
governmental action deals with the use of one<s property, the latter is accorded much leeway! That is settled law!
Jhat is more, it is good law! 2ue process, therefore, cannot be validly invo;ed! s stressed in the cited 9rmita3
.alate -otel decisionA 7To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of police power which
has been properly characteri4ed as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, e+tending as it
does <to all the great public needs!< 5t would be, to paraphrase another leading decision, to destroy the very purpose
of the state if it could be deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to promote public health, public
morals, public safety and the general welfare! Negatively put, police power is <that inherent and plenary power in
the =tate which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society!< 7 03
Bautista +s. 2uinio
GR -497'7!& 51 2anua%< 1'!6
En Banc& .e%nan1o 8C2:3 concu%& 2 too> no pa%t
.ACTS3 The *resident of the *hilippines issued a &etter of 5nstruction No! )"( on .ay 3', '($( in response to the
protracted oil crisis that dated bac; to '($1! *ursuant thereto, respondent lfredo &! 8uinio, then .inister of *ublic
Jor;s, Transportation and %ommunications and respondent Romeo *! 9du, then %ommissioner of &and
Transportation %ommission issued .emorandum %ircular No! 3(, which imposed 7the penalties of fine,
confiscation of vehicle and cancellation of registration on owners of the specified vehicles7 found violating such
&etter of 5nstruction! =pouses .ary %oncepcion Bautista and 9nrique Bautista questioned the validity of the energy
conservation measure through a prohibition proceeding with the =upreme %ourt! 5t was alleged by petitioners that
7while the purpose for the issuance of the &:5 )"( is laudable, to wit, energy conservation, the provision banning
the use private motor vehicles with - and 9- plates is unfair, discriminatory, Hamounting to anI arbitrary
classification7 and thus in contravention of the equal protection clause! .oreover, for them, such &etter of
5nstruction is a denial of due process, more specifically,M of their right to use and en@oy their private property and of
their freedom to travel and hold family gatherings, reunions and outings on wee;3ends and holidays!7 5t would
follow, so they contend that .emorandum %ircular No! 3( imposing penalties of fine, confiscation of the vehicle and
cancellation of license is li;ewise unconstitutional, for being violative of the doctrine of 7undue delegation of
legislative power!7
*SSUE3 Jhether or not &etter of 5nstruction )"( as implemented by .emorandum %ircular No! 3( is violative of
certain constitutional rights!
,E-#3 The petition was dismissed because of the 7presumption of constitutionality7 or in slightly different words 7a
presumption that such an act falls within constitutional limitations!7 There is need then for a factual foundation of
invalidity! The principle has been nowhere better e+pressed than in the leading case of :<Dorman , Koung v!
-artford 6ire 5nsurance %o!, where the merican =upreme %ourt summed up the matter thusA <The statute here
questioned deals with a sub@ect clearly within the scope of the police power! Je are as;ed to declare it void on the
ground that the specific method of regulation prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due
process of law! s underlying questions of fact may condition the constitutionality of legislation of this character, the
presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record for overthrowing
the statute!< 7
5n fact, the recital of the whereas clauses of the &etter of 5nstruction ma;es it clear that the substantive due
process, which is the epitome of reasonableness and fair play, was not ignored, much less infringed! 6urthermore,
in the interplay between such a fundamental right and police power, especially so where the assailed governmental
action deals with the use of one<s property, the latter is accorded much leeway! 2ue process, therefore, cannot be
validly invo;ed! s stressed in the 9rmita3.alate -otel decisionA 7To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and
narrow the scope of police power which has been properly characteri4ed as the most essential, insistent and the
least limitable of powers, e+tending as it does <to all the great public needs!< 5t would be to destroy the very purpose
of the state if it could be deprived or allowed itself to be deprived of its competence to promote public health, public
morals, public safety and the general welfare! Negatively put, police power is <that inherent and plenary power in
the =tate which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society!< 7
6urthermore, the %ourt observed that there was no violation of equal protection! There was a situation that called
for a corrective measure and &:5 was the solution which for the *resident e+pressing a power validly lodged in
him, recommended itself! -e decided that what was issued by him would do @ust that or, at the very least, help in
easing the situation! 5f it did not cover other matters which could very well have been regulated does not call for a
declaration of nullity! The *resident 7is not required by the %onstitution to adhere to the policy of all or none7 (&ut4
v! raneta)!
6
bsent, therefore, of the alleged infringement of constitutional rights, more precisely the due process and equal
protection guarantees, the %ourt cannot ad@udge &etter of 5nstruction No! )"( as tainted by unconstitutionality! The
.emorandum %ircular No! 3( was li;ewise considered valid for as long as it is limited to what is provided for in the
legislative enactment and it relates solely to carrying into effect the provisions of the law!
/NOT 0S. *AC ?16! SCRA "9'@ G.R. NO. 669@ 27 MAR 1'!A
Sun1a<& .eb%ua%< 71& 277' Poste1 b< Coffeeholic B%ites
-abels3 Case #iCests& Political -aD
.acts3 9+ecutive :rder No! "0"3 prohibited the transportation of carabaos and carabeef from one province to
another! The carabaos of petitioner were confiscated for violation of 9+ecutive :rder No "0"3 while he was
transporting them from .asbate to 5loilo! *etitioner challenged the constitutionality of 9+ecutive :rder No! "0"3!
The government argued that 9+ecutive :rder No! "0"3 was issued in the e+ercise of police power to conserve the
carabaos that were still fit for farm wor; or breeding!
*ssue3 Jhether or Not 9: No! "0"3 is a violation of =ubstantive 2ue *rocess!
,el13 The challenged measure is an invalid e+ercise of police power, because it is not reasonably necessary for
the purpose of the law and is unduly oppressive! 5t is difficult to see how prohibiting the transfer of carabaos from
one province to another can prevent their indiscriminate ;illing! Retaining the carabaos in one province will not
prevent their slaughter there! *rohibiting the transfer of carabeef, after the slaughter of the carabaos, will not
prevent the slaughter either!
/not + *AC 81'!: 16! SCRA "9'
2. C%uE
.acts3
*etitioner transported " caracbaos from .asbate to 5loilo in '()1 and these wer confiscated by the station
commander in Barotac, 5loilo for violating 9!:! "0" which prohibits transportation of a carabao or carabeef from
one province to another! %onfiscation will be a result of this!
The petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial %ourt of 5loilo %ity issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of
a supersedeas bond of *'0,///!//! fter considering the merits of the case, the court sustained the confiscation of
the carabaos and, since they could no longer be produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond! The court also
declined to rule on the constitutionality of the e+ecutive order, as raise by the petitioner, for lac; of authority and
also for its presumed validity!
The same result was decided in the trial court!
5n the =upreme %ourt, he then petitioned against the constitutionality of the 9!:! due to the outright confiscation
without giving the owner the right to heard before an impartial court as guaranteed by due process! -e also
challenged the improper e+ercise of legislative power by the former president under mendment " of the '($3
constitution wherein .arcos was given emergency powers to issue letters of instruction that had the force of law!
*ssue3 5s the 9!:! constitutionalS
,ol1inC3 The 9: is unconstitutional! *etition granted!
Ratio3
The lower courts are not prevented from e+amining the constitutionality of a law!
%onstitutional grant to the supreme court to review!
8ustice &aurel<s said, Lcourts should not follow the path of least resistance by simply presuming the constitutionality
of a law when it is questioned! :n the contrary, they should probe the issue more deeply, to relieve the abscess,
and so heal the wound or e+cise the affliction!M
The challenged measure is denominated an e+ecutive order but it is really presidential decree, promulgating a new
rule instead of merely implementing an e+isting law due to the grant of legislative authority over the president under
mendment number "!
*rovisions of the constitution should be cast in precise language to avoid controvery! 5n the due process clause,
however, the wording was ambiguous so it would remain resilient! This was due to the avoidance of an Liron rule
Llaying down a stiff command for all circumstances! There was fle+ibility to allow it to adapt to every situation with
varying degrees at protection for the changing conditions!
%ourts have also refrained to adopt a standard definition for due processlest they be confined to its interpretation
li;e a strait@ac;et!
There must be requirements of notice and hearing as a safeguard against arbitrariness!
There are e+ceptions such as conclusive presumption which bars omission of contrary evidence as long as such
presumption is based on human e+perience or rational connection between facts proved and fact presumed! n
e+amples is a passport of a person with a criminal offense cancelled without hearing!
The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of police power which both restrains and is restrained
by dure process! This power was invo;ed in "0"3, in addition to "0" which prohibits slaughter of carabos with an
e+ception!
Jhile "0"3 has the same lawful sub@ectas the original e+ecutive order, it canTt be said that it complies with the
e+istence of a lawful method! The transport prohibition and the purpose sought has a gap!
=ummary action may be ta;en in valid admin proceedings as procedural due process is not @uridical only due to the
urgency needed to correct it!
There was no reason why the offense in the 9!:! would not have been proved in a court of @ustice with the accused
acquired the rights in the constitution!
The challenged measure was an invalid e+ercise of police power because the method toconfiscate carabos was
oppressive!
2ue process was violated because the owener was denied the right to be heard or his defense and punished
immediately!
This was a clear encroachment on @udicial functions and against the separataion of powers!
The policeman wasnTt liable for damages since the law during that time was valid!
#a+i1 +s. MacapaCal4A%%o<o 8G.R. No. 115'" Ma< 5& 277": #iCest
7Ta;e %are7 *ower of the *resident
*owers of the %hief 9+ecutive
The power to promulgate decrees belongs to the &egislature
.ACTS3
These $ consolidated petitions question the validity of ** '/'$ (declaring a state of national emergency) and
Deneral :rder No! # issued by *resident Dloria .acapagal3rroyo! Jhile the cases are pending, *resident rroyo
issued ** '/0', declaring that the state of national emergency has ceased to e+ist, thereby, in effect, lifting **
'/'$!
*SSUE3
Jhether or not ** '/'$ and D!:! No! # arrogated upon the *resident the power to enact laws and decrees
5f so, whether or not ** '/'$ and D!:! No! # are unconstitutional
,E-#3
LTa;e3%areM *ower
This refers to the power of the *resident to ensure that the laws be faithfully e+ecuted, based on =ec! '$, rt! B55A
LThe *resident shall have control of all the e+ecutive departments, bureaus and offices! -e shall ensure that the
laws be faithfully e+ecuted!M
s the 9+ecutive in whom the e+ecutive power is vested, the primary function of the *resident is to enforce the
laws as well as to formulate policies to be embodied in e+isting laws! -e sees to it that all laws are enforced by the
officials and employees of his department! Before assuming office, he is required to ta;e an oath or affirmation to
the effect that as *resident of the *hilippines, he will, among others, Le+ecute its laws!M 5n the e+ercise of such
function, the *resident, if needed, may employ the powers attached to his office as the %ommander3in3%hief of all
the armed forces of the country, including the *hilippine National *olice under the 2epartment of 5nterior and &ocal
Dovernment!
7
The specific portion of ** '/'$ questioned is the enabling clauseA Lto enforce obedience to all the laws and to all
decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction!M
5s it within the domain of *resident rroyo to promulgate LdecreesMS
The *resident is granted an :rdinance *ower under %hap! 0, Boo; 555 of 9!:! 0(0! *resident rroyoTs ordinance
power is limited to those issuances mentioned in the foregoing provision! =he cannot issue decrees similar to those
issued by 6ormer *resident .arcos under ** '/)'! *residential 2ecrees are laws which are of the same category
and binding force as statutes because they were issued by the *resident in the e+ercise of his legislative power
during the period of .artial &aw under the '($3 %onstitution!
This %ourt rules that the assailed ** '/'$ is unconstitutional insofar as it grants *resident rroyo the authority to
promulgate Ldecrees!M &egislative power is peculiarly within the province of the &egislature! =ec! ', rt! B5
categorically states that Lthe legislative power shall be vested in the %ongress of the *hilippines which shall consist
Republic of the *hilippines
=C*R9.9 %:CRT
.anila
9N BN%
D!R! No! 11'10 2ecember 01, '(3)
B5%9NT9 N:B&9, plaintiff3appellee,
vs!
%5TK :6 .N5&, defendant3appellant!
.ACTS3
Cnder a contract entered into between 8ose =yquia and the %ity of .anila on :ctober '), '(0", the former
constructed on a piece of land of the latter on Tayuman =treet, Tondo, .anila, a school building, containing twenty
compartments, pursuant to the instructions, specifications and conditions imposed by the city! The contract
contains the following two clausesA
.r! =yquia shall lease the building to the %ity, after the construction thereof, for a period of not more than three
years, at a monthly rental of *"//, payable within the first five days of every month following!
The %ity shall buy the building from .r! =yquia within three years from the occupancy thereof for
*1","//!lawphil!net
:n pril '3, '(0$, this contract was amended in part by the following clausesA
(c) That the contractor shall lease the building to the %ity of .anila for a period of not more than three (3) years and
for a monthly rent of not more than *3/ per roomA *rovided, however, That the %ity of .anila, in turn, shall lease to
the contractor for the same period of not more than three years, the land of the %ity on which the building is to be
constructed, for the nominal price of one peso a month? and
(d) That the %ity of .anila shall buy the school building within the said period of three (3) years according to the
price stipulated in the contractA *rovided, however, That, if at the end of three years, the %ity of .anila, for any
reason, shall be unable to pay the stipulated sales price, the contract of lease of the land and of the building nne+
shall be deemed e+tended for the same period, and so on successively!
The terms and conditions of the contract of :ctober '), '(0" are ;ept alive and confirmed, as forming a part of this
amended contract, e+cept as it is incompatible therewith!
:n .ay '3th following, with the conformity of the city in consideration of the amount of *1/,///, =yquia conveyed
to &utgarda =andoval all his right, title and interest or participation in the building, as well as all his right, title or
participation in the contract of lease thereof with the city under the stipulated conditions!
:n 8uly 00, '(0$, also with the conformity of the city, &utgarda =andoval, in consideration of the same sum of
*1/,///, transferred the same building to Bicente Noble, with all her right, interest or participation in the contract of
lease thereof with the city under the same stipulated conditions!
Cnder the terms of these transfers, all the rights of =yquia flowing from his contract with the city, were fully
transferred, first, to =andoval, and, thereafter, to Noble!
fter the construction of the building, the %ity of .anila occupied it in accordance with the contract, paying its
monthly rental of *"//!
:n .arch 0', '(33, the then mayor of the city, Tomas 9arnshaw, proposed to Bicente Noble that, in order to
comply with the rules of accounting then e+isting, the contract be amended in the sense that, the lease be made
renewable every year, instead of every three years (9+hibit '), and for this purpose it was agreed, by the document
9+hibit 8, that it be renewable from year to year until the leased building is purchased in accordance with the
original contract of 8uly 00, '(0$!
The %ity of .anila failed to pay the stipulated rent corresponding to the month of 6ebruary, '(31, and following,
whereupon Bicente Noble, on pril '/, '(31, filed the complaint which gave rise to this case, wherein he as;s that
the city be ordered to purchase the building for the price of *1","//, with legal interest thereon from the filing of the
complaint, and to pay the rentals at the rate of *"// a month, corresponding to the month of 6ebruary, '(31 and
following, until the purchase of the building is effected and the price thereof paid!
5n this answer, the defendant %ity of .anila after admitting some allegations of the complaint and denying others,
prayed by way of cross3complaint that the lease of the building by the city be rescinded and set aside and that the
same be e+propriated!
,E-#3
Je conclude that, despite the amendment of the original contract, the obligation of the city to purchase the building
was ;ept alive, although not necessarily within the first three years of its occupancy! The defendant itself has
ac;nowledged this obligation on .arch 0', '(33 in 9+hibit 8, wherein it was stated that the lease was renewable
from year to year until the leased building is purchased pursuant to the original contract of 8uly 00, '(0$!
The contract, therefore, in so far as it refers to the purchase of the building, as we have interpreted it, is in force,
not having been revo;ed by the parties or by @udicial decision! This being the case, the city being bound to buy the
building at an agreed price, under a valid and subsisting contract, and the plaintiff being agreeable to its sale, the
e+propriation thereof, as sought by the defendant, is baseless! 9+propriation lies only when it is made necessary
by the opposition of the owner to the sale or by the lac; of any agreement as to the price! There being in the
present case a valid and subsisting contract, between the owner of the building and the city, for the purchase
thereof at an agreed price, there is no reason for the e+propriation! 9+propriation, as a manifestation of the right of
eminent domain of the state and as a limitation upon private ownership, is based upon the consideration that it
should not be an obstacle to human progress and to the development of the general welfare of the community! 5n
the circumstances of the present case, however, the e+propriation would depart from its own purposes and turn out
to be an instrument to repudiate compliance with obligations legally and validly contracted!
5t is said that the contract should be rescinded as unfair and against morals, not because it was so when it was
entered into, but because after what has already been paid by way of rentals for the lease, if the sale is now made,
the same would be e+cessively favorable to the plaintiff and pre@udicial to the defendant! But if this state of things is
the result of too much delay in effecting the purchase, this is attributable to the defendant itself, for it was up to it
entirely to ma;e the purchase at any time since the contract was entered into! .oreover, the fact that a contract
turns out to be more favorable to a party than to another does not of itself constitute a legal ground to set aside the
contract! t any rate, the evidence shows that, at the price of *1","// the sale would not give the plaintiff more
than '0 per cent profit, more or less, on his invested capital, which cannot be considered as e+cessive!
8
s the defendant has abandoned the lease, we concur in the conclusion of the court that it is bound, under its
contract with the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff, to purchase the building for *1","// and that it is not
entitled to the e+propriation proceedings! This conclusion resolves the other errors assigned on his appeal!
Republic of the *hilippines
=C*R9.9 %:CRT
.anila
=9%:N2 25B5=5:N
D!R! No! '3$#"( 8une 03, 0///
R9*CB&5% :6 T-9 *-5&5**5N9=, plaintiff3appellee,
vs!
=&9. 5NB9=T.9NT %:R*:RT5:N, .R5 29& %R.9N R:P= 29 9&5G&29, %:N%9*%5:N
%BRRC= B2! 29 =NT:=, defendants3appellees,
.5&DR:= N2 5N:%9NT9= 29 & R., petitioners,
&6R92: DC9RR9R:, respondent!
6%T=A
The main petition in this case is for determination of @ust compensation for the e+propriation of lands under B!*!
Blg! 31/! lfredo Duerrero intervened in this proceeding arguing that, instead of the 2e la Ramas, he should
receive the @ust compensation for the sub@ect land! The trial court and the %ourt of ppeals declared him the rightful
recipient of the amount! This is an appeal from the decision' of the %ourt of ppeals! Je affirm!
The facts are as followsA
:n 6ebruary '$, '()3, Batas *ambansa Blg! 31/ was passed authori4ing the e+propriation of parcels of lands in
the names of defendants in this case, including a portion of the land, consisting of ',3)/ square meters, belonging
to .ilagros and 5nocentes 2e la Rama covered by T%T No! '"0'3!
:n 2ecember '1, '()), or five years thereafter, .ilagros and 5nocentes 2e la Rama entered into a contract0 with
intervenor lfredo Duerrero whereby the 2e la Ramas agreed to sell to Duerrero the entire property covered by
T%T No! '"0'3, consisting of 1,/$# square meters for the amount of *'',)//,///!//! The 2e la Ramas received
the sum of *0,0//,///!// as partial payment of the purchase price, the balance thereof to be paid upon release of
the title by the *hilippine Beterans Ban;!
:n November 3, '()(, Duerrero filed in the Regional Trial %ourt in *asay %ity a complaint for specific performance
(%ivil %ase No! "($13*) to compel the 2e la Ramas to proceed with the sale!
-9&2A
Je find the 2e la Ramas< contention without merit! Je hold that Duerrero is entitled to receive payment of @ust
compensation for the ta;ing of the land!
The power of eminent domain
The power of eminent domain is an inherent power of the =tate! No constitutional conferment is necessary to vest it
in the =tate! The constitutional provision on eminent domain, rt! 555, U(, provides a limitation rather than a basis for
the e+ercise of such power by the government! Thus, it states that 7*rivate property shall not be ta;en for public
use without @ust compensation!7
9+propriation may be initiated by court action or by legislation!0# 5n both instances, @ust compensation is
determined by the courts!0"
The e+propriation of lands consists of two stages! s e+plained in .unicipality of BiVan v! DarciaA0$
The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to e+ercise the power of eminent
domain and the propriety of its e+ercise in the conte+t of the facts involved in the suit! 5t ends with an order, if not of
dismissal of the action, 7of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to ta;e the property sought to
be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of @ust compensation to
be determined as of the date of the filing of the
complaint7! ! ! !
The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the court of 7the @ust
compensation for the property sought to be ta;en!7 This is done by the court with the assistance of not more than
three (3) commissioners! ! ! !
5t is only upon the completion of these two stages that e+propriation is said to have been completed! .oreover, it is
only upon payment of @ust compensation that title over the property passes to the government!0) Therefore, until
the action for e+propriation has been completed an terminated, ownership over the property being e+propriated
remains with the registered owner! %onsequently, the latter can e+ercise all rights pertaining to an owner, including
the right to dispose of his property, sub@ect to the power of the =tate ultimately to acquire it through e+propriation!
5n the case at hand, the first stage of e+propriation was completed when B!*! Blg! 31/ was enacted providing for
the e+propriation of ',3)/ square meters of the land in question! The constitutionality of this law was upheld in the
case of Republic v! 2e Onecht!0( 5n '((/, the government commenced the second stage of e+propriation through
the filing of a petition for the determination of @ust compensation! This stage was not completed, however, because
of the intervention of Duerrero which gave rise to the question of ownership of the sub@ect land! Therefore, the title
to the e+propriated property of the 2e la Ramas remained with them and did not at that point pass to the
government!
The 2e la Ramas are mista;en in arguing that the two stages of e+propriation cited above only apply to @udicial,
and not to legislative, e+propriation! lthough %ongress has the power, to determine what land to ta;e, it can not do
so arbitrarily! 8udicial determination of the propriety of the e+ercise of the power, for instance, in view of allegations
of partiality and pre@udice by those adversely affected,3/ and the @ust compensation for the sub@ect property is
provided in our constitutional system!
Je see no point in distinguishing between @udicial and legislative e+propriation as far as the two stages mentioned
above are concerned! Both involve these stages and in both the process is not completed until payment of @ust
compensation is made! The %ourt of ppeals was correct in saying that B!*! Blg! 31/ did not effectively e+propriate
the land of the 2e la Ramas! s a matter of fact, it merely commenced the e+propriation of the sub@ect property!
Thus, in '()), the 2e la Ramas still had authority to transfer ownership of their land and convey all rights, including
the right to receive @ust compensation, to Duerrero!
s the trial court in the case for specific performance ruled, the contract to sell covered the entire &ot )31, including
the e+propriated area, which was then owned by the 2e la Ramas!
5t is true that the contract to sell did not convey to Duerrero the sub@ect parcel of land described therein! -owever, it
created an obligation on the part of the 2e la Ramas to convey the land, sub@ect to the fulfillment of the suspensive
conditions therein stated! The declaration of this contract<s validity, which paved the way for the subsequent
e+ecution of the 2eed of bsolute =ale on .arch ), '((1, following the order of the Regional Trial %ourt for its
e+ecution, by the %ler; of %ourt, Branch ''3, *asay %ity, effectively conveyed ownership of said parcel of land to
Duerrero!
The contention that the 2eed of bsolute =ale e+cluded the portion e+propriated by the government is untenable!
Tuason +s ReCiste% of #ee1s 19 SCRA "15
.ACTS
9
A*etitioners =ps! Tuason bought a parcel of land from%armel 6arms! By virtue of *2 0(3 issued by then
*resident.arcos, the title of the TuasonsT vendor, %armel 6arms wasinvalidated! %armel 6arm had earlier
purchased from theDovernment the land which it subsequently subdivided forsale to the public, the Tuasons being
one of the buyers! *20(3 made the finding that %armel 6arms failed to completepayment for said land and
invalidated the title of %armel6arms and all those derived therefrom! *2 0(3 furtherdeclared the members of the
.alacanang -omeownersT ssociation 5nc! as the present bona fide occupants!*ursuant to said decree the register
of deeds of %aloocancancelled the title of the Tuasons to said property!
5==C9
AJhether or not *2 0(3 is constitutional!
,E-#
AThe =upreme %ourt ruled that *2 0(3 isCnconstitutional! 5n issuing *2 0(3, .r! .arcos e+ercised aclearly @udicial
function! -e made a determination of facts,applied the law to said facts declaring what the legal rightsof parties
were in the premises! 6urthermore, *2 0(3 isviolative of due process and equal protection of the law!
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 76!6 2anua%< 2'& 1'!!
ROMAN C. TUASON an1 REME#*OS 0. TUASON& b< atto%ne<4in4fact T%ini1a1 S. 0ia1o& petitione%s&
+s.
REG*STER O. #EE#S& CA-OOCAN Cit<& M*N*STR/ O. 2UST*CE& an1 the NAT*ONA- TREASURER&
%espon1ents. TOMASA BARTO-OME& in he% oDn behalf an1 in behalf of the othe% $e$be%s of the
FConsuelo ,eiChts ,o$eoDne%s Association&F petitione%s4inte%+eno%s.
.ACTS3
*etitioner spouses, the Tuasons, were retired public school teachers! :n pril ", '("#, with funds pooled from their
retirement benefits and savings, they bought from %armel 6arms, 5nc! (hereafter simply, %armel) a piece of land
measuring about ),$#" square meters, in the latter<s subdivision in Barrio .a;atipo, %aloocan %ity! 5n virtue of this
sale, %armel<s Torrens title (No! "1//$) over the lot was cancelled and a new one (No! )3'1) issued in the name of
the Tuasons! The Tuasons too; possession of their property!
=ome eight ()) years thereafter, the Tuasons< travails began! They wo;e up one morning to discover that by
presidential flat, they were no longer the owners of the land they had purchased with their hard3earned money, and
that their land and the other lots in the subdivision had been 7declared open for disposition and sale to the
members of the .alacanang -omeowners ssociation, 5nc!, the present bona fide occupants thereof!7
:n =eptember '1, '($33a year almost to the day after the declaration of martial law .r! 6erdinand .arcos, then
president of the country, invo;ing his emergency powers, issued *residential 2ecree No! 0(3 with immediate
effect! The decree invalidated inter alia the title of the Tuasons< vendor, %armel, which had earlier purchased from
the Dovernment the land it had subsequently subdivided into several lots for sale to the public (the Tuasons being
among the buyers)! The land bought by %armel was part of the Tala 9state (one of the so3called 76riar &ands7)!
%armel had bought the land under ct No! ''0/ and %!! No! 30, as amended! Cnder these statutesA
') a bona fide settler or occupant was allowed to purchase (if he did not wish to lease) the portion
occupied by him at the price fi+ed by the Dovernment, in cash or on installment? the interested buyer was given a
certificate of sale, which was regarded as an agreement by him to pay the purchase price in the and at the interest
specified, the acceptance of such certificate ma;ing the occupant a debtor of the government?
0) until the price was fully paid however, title was reserved in the Dovernment, and any sale or
encumbrance made by the purchaser prior to such full payment was e+plicitly declared to <be invalid as against the
Dovernment !!! and !!! in all respects subordinate to its prior claim?7
3) in the event of default by a purchaser to pay any installment of purchase money and interest thereon,
the %hief of the Bureau of *ublic &ands (now 2irector of &ands) had the duty at once to protect the Dovernment
from loss by bringing suit to obtain @udicial authority to enforce the Dovernment<s lien on the 7and by selling it in the
same manner as for foreclosure of mortgages, the purchaser at such sale being deemed to acquire a good and
indefeasible title, and the proceeds of the sale being applied to the payment of the costs of the court and all
installments due or to become due? and
1) in the event of completion of payment, the Dovernment transferred title to the land to the purchaser 7by
proper instrument of conveyance,7 the certificate of title over the land to issue and become effective in the manner
provided by the &and Registration ct! '
=aid *residential 2ecree No! 0(3 made the finding 0 that %armel had failed to complete payment of the price! 5t
ad@udged that E
!!! according to the records of the Bureau of &ands, neither the original purchasers nor their subsequent transferees
have made full payment of all installments of the purchase money and interest on the lots claimed by the %armel
6arms, 5nc!, including those on which the dwellings of the members of said ssociation 3 stand! -ence, title to said
land has remained with the Dovernment, and the land now occupied by the members of said association has never
ceased to form part of the property of the Republic of the *hilippines, any and all acts affecting said land and
purporting to segregate it from the said property of the Republic of the *hilippines being therefore null and void ab
initio as against the law and public policy!
Cpon this ad@udgment, .r! .arcos invalidated the titles of %armel 6arms, 5nc! and all those derived therefrom, and
declared as aforestated 7the members of the .alacanang -omeowners ssociation, 5nc! the present bona fide
occupants7 of the lots which, in consequence, thereby became open to them for 7disposition and sale !!! pursuant
to %ommonwealth ct No! 30, as amended!7 1
5t seems to have completely escaped .r! .arcos< attention that his decree contained contradictory declarations!
Jhile ac;nowledging on the one hand that the lots in the %armel =ubdivision were occupied by the buyers thereof,
and in fact the latter<s dwellings stood thereon, he states on the other that the 7members of the .alacanang
-omeowners ssociation, 5nc! (are) the present bona fide occupants7 of all said lots! The latter averment is not only
essentially inconsistent with the former but is both a physical and legal fallacy! Jell ;nown is the rule of physics
that two ob@ects cannot occupy the same space at the same time! nd the absurdity of the subsumed proposition is
self3evident for persons not in possession of land, who probably have not even set foot thereon, cannot be deemed
7occupants7 thereof, much less 7bona fide7 occupants!
But this notwithstanding, and upon the factual premise already indicated, .r! .arcos disposed of the land of the
petitioner spouses and others similarly situated as they, in the following imperious mannerA
N:J, T-9R96:R9, 5, 69R25NN2 9! .R%:=, *resident of the *hilippines, by virtue of the powers vested in
me by the %onstitution as %ommander3in3%hief of all the rmed 6orces of the *hilippines, and pursuant to
*roclamation '/)', dated =eptember 0', '($0, and Deneral :rder No! ', dated =eptember 00, '($0, do hereby
order and decree that any and all sales contracts between the government and the original purchasers, are hereby
cancelled, and those between the latter and the subsequent transferees, and any and all transfers thereafter,
covering lots ($(, ()', ()0, ()#, ()), ()(, ((/, ((' new, '00", '00), '03/, and ()/3%30 (&R% *=23'$3/), all of
Tala 9state, %aloocan %ity, are hereby declared invalid and null and void ab initio as against the Dovernment? that
Transfer %ertificates of Title Nos! "0"/3, "0"/1, "0"/#, covering lots ', 0 and 3, *%=313)3, all in the name of
%armel 6arms, 5nc!, which are a consolidation and subdivision survey of the lots hereinbefore enumerated, are
declared invalid and considered cancelled as against the Dovernment? and that said lots are declared open for
disposition and sale to the members of the .alacanang -omeowners ssociation, 5nc!, the present bona fide
occupants thereof, pursuant to %ommonwealth ct No! 30, as amended!
:n the strength of this presidential decree, the Register of 2eeds of %aloocan %ity caused the inscription on the
Tuasons< title, T%T No! )3'1, of the followingA
.9.:RN2C.! E *ursuant to *residential 2ecree No! 0(3, this certificate of title is declared invalid and null and
void ab initio and considered cancelled as against the Dovernment and the property described herein is declared
open for disposition and sale to the members of the .alacanang -omeowners ssociation, 5nc!
10
The Tuason =pouses thereupon filed with this %ourt a petition for certiorari assailing the .arcos decree as an
arbitrary measure which deprived them of their property in favor of a selected group, in violation not only of the
constitutional provisions on due process and eminent domain # but also of the provisions of the &and Registration
ct on the indefeasibility of Torrens titles? " and they prayed that the Register of 2eeds be directed to cancel the
derogatory inscription on their title and restore its efficacy, or in the alternative, that they be compensated for the
loss from the ssurance 6und!
-9&2A
The decree reveals that .r! .arcos e+ercised an obviously @udicial function! -e made a determination of facts, and
applied the law to those facts, declaring what the legal rights of the parties were in the premises! These acts
essentially constitute a @udicial function, '/ or an e+ercise of @urisdiction E which is the power and authority to hear
or try and decide or determine a cause! '' -e ad@udged it to be an established fact that neither the original
purchasers nor their subsequent transferees have made full payment of all installments of the purchase money and
interest on the lots claimed by %armel 6arms, 5nc!, including those on which the dwellings of the members of !!!
(the) ssociation (of homeowners) stand!7 nd applying the law to that situation, he made the ad@udication that 7title
to said land has remained with the Dovernment, and the land now occupied by the members of said association
has never ceased to form part of the property of the Republic of the *hilippines,7 and that <any and all acts affecting
said land and purporting to segregate it from the said property of the Republic !!! (were) null and void ab initio as
against the law and public policy!
These acts may thus be properly struc; down by the writ of certiorari, because done by an officer in the
performance of what in essence is a @udicial function, if it be shown that the acts were done without or in e+cess of
@urisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion! =ince .r! .arcos was never vested with @udicial power, such power,
as everyone ;nows, being vested in the =upreme %ourt and such inferior courts as may be established by law '0
E the @udicial acts done by him were in the circumstances indisputably perpetrated without @urisdiction! The acts
were completely alien to his office as chief e+ecutive, and utterly beyond the permissible scope of the legislative
power that he had assumed as head of the martial law regime!
.oreover, he had assumed to e+ercise power E i!e! determined the relevant facts and applied the law thereto
without a trial at which all interested parties were accorded the opportunity to adduce evidence to furnish the basis
for a determination of the facts material to the controversy! -e made the finding ostensibly on the basis of 7the
records of the Bureau of &ands!7 *rescinding from the fact that there is no indication whatever the nature and
reliability of these records and that they are in no sense conclusive, it is undeniable that the petitioner Tuasons
(and the petitioners in intervention) were never confronted with those records and afforded a chance to dispute
their trustworthiness and present countervailing evidence! This is yet another fatal defect! The ad@udication was
patently and grossly violative of the right to due process to which the petitioners are entitled in virtue of the
%onstitution! .r! .arcos, in other words, not only arrogated unto himself a power never granted to him by the
%onstitution or the laws but had in addition e+ercised it unconstitutionally!
5n any event, this %ourt has it in its power to treat the petition for certiorari as one for prohibition if the averments of
the former sufficiently made out a case for the latter! '3 %onsidered in this wise, it will also appear that an
e+ecutive officer had acted without @urisdiction E e+ercised @udicial power not granted to him by the %onstitution or
the laws E and had furthermore performed the act in violation of the constitutional rights of the parties thereby
affected! The %ourt will grant such relief as may be proper and efficacious in the premises even if not specifically
sought or set out in the prayer of the appropriate pleading, the permissible relief being determined after all not by
the prayer but by the basic averments of the parties< pleadings! '1
There is no dispute about the fact that title to the land purchased by %armel was actually issued to it by the
Dovernment! This of course gives rise to the strong presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, '#
that official duty being in this case the ascertainment by the %hief of the Bureau of *ublic &ands of the fulfillment of
the condition prescribed by law for such issuance, i!e!, the payment in full of the price, together with all accrued
interest! gainst this presumption there is no evidence! 5t must hence be accorded full sway in these proceedings!
6urthermore, the title having been duly issued to %armel, it became 7effective in the manner provided in section
one hundred and twenty3two of the &and Registration ct!7 '"
5t may well be the fact that %armel really did fail to ma;e full payment of the price of the land purchased by it from
the Dovernment pursuant to the provisions of ct ''0/! This is a possibility that cannot be totally discounted! 5f this
be the fact, the Dovernment may bring suit to recover the unpaid installments and interest, invalidate any sale or
encumbrance involving the land sub@ect of the sale, and enforce the lien of the Dovernment against the land by
selling the same in the manner provided by ct Numbered :ne -undred and Ninety for the foreclosure of
mortgages! '$ This it can do despite the lapse of a considerable period of time! *rescription does not lie against
the Dovernment! But until and unless such a suit is brought and results in a @udgment favorable to the Dovernment,
the acquisition of title by %armel and the purchases by the petitioners and the petitioners3intervenors from it of
portions of the land covered by its original title must be respected! t any rate, the eventuation of that contingency
will not and cannot in any manner affect this %ourt<s conclusion, herein affirmed, of the unconstitutionality and
invalidity of *residential 2ecree No! 0(3, and the absolute lac; of any right to the land or any portion thereof on the
part of the members of the so3called 7.alacanang -omeowners ssociation, 5nc!7 The decree was not as claimed
a licit instance of the application of social @ustice principles or the e+ercise of police power! 5t was in truth a
disguised, vile stratagem deliberately resorted to favor a few individuals, in callous and disdainful disregard of the
rights of others! 5t was in reality a ta;ing of private property without due process and without compensation
whatever, from persons relying on the indefeasibility of their titles in accordance with and as e+plicitly guaranteed
by law!
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. -412'2 .eb%ua%< 2!& 1'"1
REPUB-*C O. T,E P,*-*PP*NES& plaintiff4appellant&
+s.
-A OR#EN #E PP. BENE#*CT*NOS #E .*-*P*NAS& 1efen1ant4appellee.
:ffice of the =olicitor Deneral for plaintiff3appellant!
&edesma, *uno, Duytingco, ntonio and ssociates for defendant3appellee!
25G:N, 8!A
To ease and solve the daily traffic congestion on &egarda =treet, the Dovernment drew plans to e+tend 4carraga
street from its @unction with .endiola street, up to the =ta! .esa Rotonda, =ampaloc, .anila! To carry out this plan
it offered to buy a portion of appro+imately ",/// square meters of a bigger parcel belonging to &a :rden de **!
Benedictinos de 6ilipinas, a domestic religious corporation that owns the =an Beda %ollege, a private educational
institution situated on .endiola street! Not having been able to reach an agreement on the matter with the owner,
the Dovernment instituted the present e+propriation proceedings!
:n .ay 0$, '(#$ the trial court, upon application of the Dovernment E hereinafter referred to as appellant E
issued an order fi+ing the provisional value of the property in question at *0$/,///!// and authori4ing appellant to
ta;e immediate possession thereof upon depositing said amount! The deposit having been made with the %ity
Treasurer of .anila, the trial court issued the corresponding order directing the =heriff of .anila to place appellant
in possession of the property aforesaid!
:n 8une ), '(#$, as directed by the Rules of %ourt, the herein appellee, in lieu of an answer, filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint based on the following groundsA
5! That the property sought to be e+propriated is already dedicated to public use and therefore is not sub@ect to
e+propriation!
55! That there is no necessity for the proposed e+propriation!
555! That the proposed 4carraga 9+tension could pass through a different site which would entail less e+pense to
the Dovernment and which would not necessitate the e+propriation of a property dedicated to education!
11
5B! That the present action filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is discriminatory!
B! That the herein plaintiff does not count with sufficient funds to push through its pro@ect of constructing the
proposed 4carraga 9+tension and to allow the plaintiff to e+propriate defendant<s property at this time would be
only to needlessly deprive the latter of the use of its property!7!
The government filed a written opposition to the motion to dismiss (Record on ppeal, pp! 3/33$) while appellee
filed a reply thereto (5d!, pp! 3)31))! :n 8uly 0(, '(#$, without receiving evidence upon the questions of fact arising
from the complaint, the motion to dismiss and the opposition thereto filed, the trial court issued the appealed order
dismissing the case!
The appealed order shows that the trial court limited itself to deciding the point of whether or not the e+propriation
of the property in question is necessary (Rec! on p!, p! #/) and, having arrived at the conclusion that such
e+propriation was not of e+treme necessity, dismissed the proceedings!
5t is to be observed that paragraph 5B of the complaint e+pressly alleges that appellant needs, among other
properties, the portion of appellee<s property in question for the purpose of constructing the 4carraga street
e+tension, and that paragraph B55 of the same complaint e+pressly alleges that, in accordance with =ection "1(b) of
the Revised dministrative %ode, the *resident of the *hilippines had authori4ed the acquisition, thru
condemnation proceedings, of the aforesaid parcel of land belonging to appellee, as evidenced by the third
indorsement dated .ay '#, '(#$ of the 9+ecutive =ecretary, :ffice of the *resident of the *hilippines, a copy of
which was attached to the complaint as nne+ 7%7 and made an integral part thereof! 5n denial of these allegations
appellee<s motion to dismiss alleged that 7there is no necessity for the proposed e+propriation7! Thus, the question
of fact decisive of the whole case arose!
5t is the rule in this @urisdiction that private property may be e+propriated for public use and upon payment of @ust
compensation? that condemnation of private property is @ustified only if it is for the public good and there is a
genuine necessity therefor of a public character! %onsequently, the courts have the power to inquire into the legality
of the e+ercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether or not there is a genuine necessity therefor
(%ity of .anila vs! %hinese %ommunity, 1/ *hil! 31(? .anila Railroad %ompany vs! -acienda Benito, 5nc!, 3$ :!D!
'(#$)!
Cpon the other hand, it does not need e+tended argument to show that whether or not the proposed opening of the
4carraga e+tension is a necessity in order to relieve the daily congestion of traffic on &egarda =t!, is a question of
fact dependent not only upon the facts of which the trial court very liberally too; @udicial notice but also up on other
factors that do not appear of record and must, therefore, be established by means of evidence! Je are, therefore,
of the opinion that the parties should have been given an opportunity to present their respective evidence upon
these factors and others that might be of direct or indirect help in determining the vital question of fact involved,
namely, the need to open the e+tension of 4carraga street to ease and solve the traffic congestion on &egarda
street!
J-9R96:R9, the appealed order of dismissal is set aside and the present case is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings in accordance with this decision! Jithout costs!
Republic +s. -a O%1en #e PP. Bene1ictinos #e .ilipinas&G.R. No. -412'2& .eb%ua%< 2!& 1'"1
The *ower of 9minent 2omain
To ease and solve the daily traffic congestion on &egarda =treet, the Dovernment drew plansto e+tend 4carraga
street from its @unction with .endiola street, up to the =ta! .esaRotonda, =ampaloc, .anila!The petitioner in this
case is the
Republic of the *hilippines through the :ffice of the=olicitor Deneral
?
and the respondent is
&a :rden de **! Benedictinos de 6ilipinas, adomestic religious corporation that owns the =an Beda %ollege!
.acts3
To ease and solve the daily traffic congestion on &egarda =treet, the Dovernmentdrew plans to e+tend
4carraga =t! (now Recto)
from its @unction with .endiola =t!, up tothe =ta! .esa Rotonda, =ampaloc, .anila! To carry out this plan it offered
to buy a portionof appro+imately ",/// square meters
of a bigger parcel belonging to &a :rden situatedon .endiola =t! Not having been able to reach an agreement on
the matter with the owner,the Dovernment instituted an e+propriation proceeding! :n
.ay 0$, '(#$
the trial courtvalued the property in question at
*0$/,///!//
and authori4ed appellant to ta;e immediatepossession upon depositing said amount! The deposit having been
made with the %ityTreasurer of .anila, the trial court issued the corresponding order directing the =heriff of .anila
to place appellant in possession of the property aforesaid!5n answer, the herein appellee filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint based on the groundsthatA (') the property sought to be e+propriated is already dedicated to public
use andtherefore is not sub@ect to e+propriation? (0) there is no necessity for the proposede+propriation? (3) the
proposed 4carraga 9+tension could pass through a different sitewhich would entail less e+pense to the
Dovernment and which would not necessitate thee+propriation of a property dedicated to education!The trial court
granted the motion, holding that the e+propriation was not of e+tremenecessity! -ence this present petition!
*ssue3
Jhether or not there is a genuine necessity for the e+ercise of the *ower of 9minent2omain!
,el13
5t is the rule in this @urisdiction that private property may be e+propriated for publicuse and upon payment of @ust
compensation? that condemnation of private property is @ustified only if it is for the public good and there is a
genuine necessity therefor of a publiccharacter! %onsequently, the courts have the power to inquire into the legality
of the e+erciseof the right of eminent domain and to determine whether or not there is a genuine
necessitytherefor!5t does not need e+tended argument to show that whether or not the proposed opening of the
4carraga e+tension is a necessity in order to relieve the daily congestion of traffic on
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
.*RST #*0*S*ON
G.R. No. !559 .eb%ua%< 12& 1''7
REPUB-*C O. T,E P,*-*PP*NES& petitione%&
+s.
CR*ST*NA #E ;NEC,T AN# T,E COURT O. APPEA-S& %espon1ents.
.ACTS3
The issue posed in this case is whether an e+propriation proceeding that was determined by a final @udgment of
this %ourt may be the sub@ect of a subsequent legislation for e+propriation!
:n 6ebruary 0/, '($( the Republic of the *hilippines filed in the %ourt of 6irst 5nstance (%65) of Ri4al in *asay %ity
an e+propriation proceedings against the owners of the houses standing along 6ernando Rein32el *an streets
among them %ristina 2e Onecht (de Onecht for short) together with %oncepcion %abarrus, and some fifteen other
defendants, doc;eted as %ivil %ase No! $//'3*!
:n .arch '(, '($( de Onecht filed a motion to dismiss alleging lac; of @urisdiction, pendency of appeal with the
*resident of the *hilippines, prematureness of complaint and arbitrary and erroneous valuation of the properties!
:n .arch 0(, '($( de Onecht filed an e+ parte urgent motion for the issuance by the trial court of a restraining
order to restrain the Republic from proceeding with the ta;ing of immediate possession and control of the property
sought to be condemned! 5n 8une, '($( the Republic filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession of the
property to be e+propriated on the ground that it had made the required deposit with the *hilippine National Ban;
(*NB) of '/> of the amount of compensation stated in the complaint! 5n an order dated 8une '1, '($( the lower
court issued a writ of possession authori4ing the Republic to enter into and ta;e possession of the properties
sought to be condemned, and created a %ommittee of three to determine the @ust compensation for the lands
involved in the proceedings!
12
:n 8uly '", '($( de Onecht filed with this %ourt a petition for certiorari and prohibition doc;eted as D!R! No! &3
#'/$) and directed against the order of the lower court dated 8une '1, '($( praying that the respondent be
commanded to desist from further proceeding in the e+propriation action and from implementing said order! :n
:ctober 3/, '()/ this %ourt rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which reads as followsA
J-9R96:R9, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereby granted! The order of 8une '1, '($( authori4ing
the Republic of the *hilippines to ta;e c enter upon the possession of the properties sought to be condemned is set
aside and the respondent 8udge is permanently en@oined from ta;ing any further action on %ivil %ase No! $//'3*,
entitled <Republic of the *hilippines vs! %oncepcion %abarrus Bda! de =antos, et al!< e+cept to dismiss said case! '
,E-#3
The petition is impressed with merit! There is no question that as early as '($$, pursuant to the Revised
dministrative %ode, the national government, through the 2epartment of *ublic Jor;s and -ighways began wor;
on what was to be the westward e+tension of 9pifanio de los =antos venue (92=) outfall (or outlet) of the .anila
and suburbs flood control and drainage pro@ect and the 9stero Tripa de Dallina! These pro@ects were aimed atA (')
easing traffic congestion in the Baclaran and outlying areas? (0) controlling flood by the construction of the outlet for
the 9stero Tripa de Dallina (which drains the area of .ari;ina, *asay, .anila and *aranaque)? and (3) thus
completing the .anila 6lood and %ontrol and 2rainage *ro@ect!
=o the petitioner acquired the needed properties through negotiated purchase starting with the lands from Taft
venue up to Ro+as Boulevard including the lands in 6ernando Rein32el *an streets! 5t acquired through
negotiated purchases about )/ to )# percent of the lands involved in the pro@ect whose owners did not raise any
ob@ection as to arbitrariness on the choice of the pro@ect and of the route! 5t is only with respect to the remaining '/
to '# percent along the route that the petitioner cannot negotiate through a sales agreement with a few land
owners, including de Onecht whose holding is hardly #> of the whole route area! Thus, as above related on
6ebruary 0/, '($( the petitioner filed the e+propriation proceedings in the %ourt of 6irst 5nstance!
There is no question that in the decision of this %ourt dated :ctober 3/, '()/ in 2e Onecht vs! Bautista, D!R! No!
&3#'/$), this %ourt held that the 7choice of the 6ernando Rein32el *an streets as the line through which the 92=
should be e+tended to Ro+as Boulevard is arbitrary and should not receive @udicial approval!7 # 5t is based on the
recommendation of the -uman =ettlements %ommission that the choice of %uneta street as the line of the
e+tension will minimi4e the social impact factor as the buildings and improvement therein are mostly motels! "
5n view of the said finding, this %ourt set aside the order of the trial court dated 8une '1, '($( authori4ing the
Republic of the *hilippines to ta;e possession of the properties sought to be condemned and en@oined the
respondent @udge from ta;ing any further action in the case e+cept to dismiss the same!
=aid decision having become final no action was ta;en by the lower court on the said directive of this %ourt to
dismiss the case! =ubsequently B!*! Blg! 31/ was enacted by the Batasang *ambansa on 6ebruary '$, '()3! :n
the basis of said law petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the case before the trial court and this was granted!
:n appeal by de Onecht to the %ourt of ppeals the appellate court held that the decision of the =upreme %ourt
having become final, the petitioner<s right as determined therein should no longer be disturbed and that the same
has become the law of the case between the parties involved! Thus, the appellate court set aside the questioned
order of the trial court and issued another order dismissing the e+propriation proceedings before the lower court
pursuant to the ruling in 2e Onecht case!
Jhile it is true that said final @udgment of this %ourt on the sub@ect becomes the law of the case between the
parties, it is equally true that the right of the petitioner to ta;e private properties for public use upon the payment of
the @ust compensation is so provided in the %onstitution and our laws! $ =uch e+propriation proceedings may be
underta;en by the petitioner not only by voluntary negotiation with the land owners but also by ta;ing appropriate
court action or by legislation! )
Jhen on 6ebruary '$, '()3 the Batasang *ambansa passed B!*! Blg! 31/ e+propriating the very properties
sub@ect of the present proceedings, and for the same purpose, it appears that it was based on supervening events
that occurred after the decision of this %ourt was rendered in 2e Onecht in '()/ @ustifying the e+propriation through
the 6ernando Rein32el *an =treets!
The social impact factor which persuaded the %ourt to consider this e+tension to be arbitrary had disappeared! ll
residents in the area have been relocated and duly compensated! 9ighty percent of the 92= outfall and 3/> of
the 92= e+tension had been completed! :nly private respondent remains as the solitary obstacle to this pro@ect
that will solve not only the drainage and flood control problem but also minimi4e the traffic bottlenec; in the area!
#e ;necht +. Bautista
177 SCRA ""7 81'!7:
.ACTS3
The plan to e+tend 92= to Ro+as Boulevard to be ultimately lin;ed to the %avite %oastal Road *ro@ect, originally
called for the e+propriation of properties along %uneta venue in *asay %ity! &ater on, however, the .inistry of
*ublic -ighways decided to ma;e the proposed e+tension pass through 6ernando Rein and 2el *an =treets!
Because of the protests of residents of the latter, the %ommission on -uman =ettlements recommended the
reversion to the original plan, but the .inistry argued the new route which save the government *0 million! The
government filed e+propriation proceedings against the owners of 6ernando Rein and 2el *an =treets, among
whom was petitioner!
*SSUE3
Jhether or not there is a genuine need to e+propriate the properties owned by 2e Onecht and others similarly
situated on the ground that the choice of properties to be e+propriated seemed arbitrarily made by the 2*J-!
,E-#3
No! choice of 6ernando Rein and 2el *an =treets is arbitrary and should not receive @udicial approval! The -uman
=ettlements %ommission concluded that the cost factor is so minimal that it can be disregarded in ma;ing a choice
between the two lines! The factor of functionality strongly militates against the choice of 6ernando Rein and 2el
*an =treets, while the factor of social and economic impact bears grievously on the residents of %uneta venue!
Jhile the issue would seem to boil down to a choice between people, on one hand, and progress and
development, on the other, it is to be remembered that progress and development are carried out for the benefit of
the people!
P-#T +s. NTC
GR !!676& 1! Octobe% 1''7@ En Banc& Melencio4,e%%e%a 82:
.ACTS3 :n 00 8une '(#), R 0/(/ was enacted granting 6eli+ lberto , %o! (later 9T%5) a franchise to establish
radio stations for domestic and transoceanic telecommunications! :n '3 .ay '()$, 9T%5 filed an application with
the NT% for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate, etc! a %ellular .obile
Telephone =ystem and an alpha numeric paging system in .etro .anila and in the =outhern &u4on regions, with a
prayer for provisional authority to operate within .etro .anila! *&2T filed an opposition with a motion to dismiss!
:n '0 November '()$, NT% overruled *&2TTs opposition and declared R 0/(/ should be liberally construed so
as to include the operation of a cellular mobile telephone service as part of services of the franchise! :n '0
2ecember '()), NT% granted 9T%5 provisional authority to install, operate, and maintain a cellular mobile
telephone service initially in .etro .anila sub@ect to the terms and conditions set forth in its order, including an
interconnection agreement to be entered with *&2T! *&2T filed a motion to set aside order which was denied by
the NT% on ) .ay '()(! *&2T challenged the '0 2ecember '()) and ) .ay '()( NT% orders before the
=upreme %ourt through a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition!
*SSUES3
(') Jhether the provisional authority was properly granted!
(0) Jhether 9T%5Ts franchise includes operation of cellular mobile telephone system (%.T=)
(3) Jhether *&2T can refuse interconnection with 9T%5!
RU-*NG3
(') The provisional authority granted by the NT% (which is the regulatory agency of the National Dovernment over
all telecommunications entities) has a definite e+piry period of ') months unless sooner renewed? may be revo;ed,
amended or revised by the NT%? covers one of four phases? limited to .etro .anila only? and does not authori4e
13
the installation and operation of an alphanumeric paging system! 5t was further issued after due hearing, with *&2T
attending and granted after a prima facie showing that 9T%5 had the necessary legal, financial and technical
capabilities? and that public interest, convenience and necessity so demanded! *rovisional authority would be
meaningless if the grantee were not allowed to operate, as its lifetime is limited and may be revo;ed by the NT% at
any time in accordance with law!
(0) The NT% construed the technical term LradiotelephonyM liberally as to include the operation of a cellular mobile
telephone system! The construction given by an administrative agency possessed of the necessary special
;nowledge, e+pertise and e+perience and deserves great weight and respect! 5t can only be set aside by @udicial
intervention on proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law!
(3) The NT% merely e+ercised its delegated authority to regulate the use of telecommunication networ;s when it
decreed interconnection! *&2T cannot refuse interconnection as such is mandated under R "(1( or the .unicipal
Telephone ct of '()(! Jhat interconnection see;s to accomplish is to enable the system to reach out to the
greatest number of people possible in line with governmental policies! Jith the broader reach, public interest and
convenience will be better served! *ublic need, public interest, and the common good are the decisive, if not the
ultimate, considerations! To these public and national interests, public utility companies must yield!
The NT% order does not deprive *&2T due process as it allows the parties themselves to discuss and agree upon
the specific terms and conditions of the interconnection agreement instead of the NT% itself laying down the
standards of interconnection which it can very well impose!
,ei%s of 2uancho A%1ona +. Re<es 125 SCRA 227
.acts3 The *hilippine Tourism uthority sought the e+propriation of 0)0 -a of land in Barangay .alubog and
Babag in %ebu %ity! upon deposit of an amount equivalent to '/> of the value of the property, the %65 authori4ed
the *T to ta;e immediate possession of the property! The charter of the *T authori4es it to acquire through
condemnation proceedings lands for tourist 4one development of a sports comple+! The petitioners who are
occupants of the lands, filed a petition for certiorari in the =%! They contended that (') the ta;ing was not for public
use? (0) the land was covered by the land reform program? and (3) e+propriation would impair the obligation of
contracts!
,E-#3 The concept of public use is not limited to traditional purposes for the construction of roads, bridges, and
the li;e! The idea that 7public use7 means 7use by the public7 has been discarded! s long as the purpose of the
ta;ing is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play! 5t is accurate to state then that at present
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use! The
petititioners have not shown that the area being developed is land reform area and that the affected persons have
been given emancipation patents and certificates of land transfer! The contract clause has never been regarded as
a barrier to the e+ercise of the police power and li;ewise eminent domain!
Su$ulonC +. Gue%%e%o 196 SCRA 6"1 81'!:
.ACTS3 :n 2ecember #, '($$, the National -ousing uthority filed a complaint for the e+propriation of 0#
hectares of land in ntipolo, Ri4al pursuant to *2 '001 authori4ing the e+propriation of private lands for sociali4ed
housing! mong those lands sought to be e+propriated are the petitioners<< lands! They brought this suit in the =%
challenging the constitutionality of *2 '001!
,E-#3 *etitioners contend that sociali4ed housing for the purpose of condemnation proceedings is not public use
since it will benefit only a handful of people! The 7public use7 requirement is an evolving concept influences by
changing conditions! Crban renewal or redevelopment and the construction of low3cost housing is recogni4ed as a
public purpose, not only because of the e+panded concept of public use but also because of specific provisions in
the %onstitution! =hortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly and significantly affects public
health, safety, the environment and, in sum, the general welfare! *etitioners claim that there are vast areas of lands
in Ri4al hundreds of hectares of which are owned by a few landowners only! Jhy should the N- pic; their small
lotsS 9+propriation is not confined to landed estates! The test to be applied for a valid e+propriation of private lands
was the area of the land and not the number of people who stood to be benefitted! The =tate acting through the
N- is vested with broad discretion to designate the property! The property owner may not interpose ob@ections
merely because in their @udgment some other property would have been more suitable! The provisions on @ust
compensation found in *2 '001, '0#(, and '3'3 are the same provisions which were declared unconstitutional in
9*G v! 2ulay ('()$) for being encroachments on @udicial prerogatives!
Su$ulonC +s. Gue%%e%o ?No. -46!"!9&Septe$be% 57& 1'!A

.acts3 :n 2ecember #, '(($ the National -ousing uthority (N-) filed a complaint for e+propriation of parcels of
land for the e+pansion of Bagong Nayon -osing *ro@ect to provide housing facilities to low3salaried government
employees, covering appro+imately twenty five (0#) hectares in ntipolo, Ri4al! This included the lots of petitioners
&oren4o =umulong (",""$ sq!m!) and 9milia Bidanes3Balaoing (3,333 sq!m!)! The land sought to be e+propriated
were valued by the N- at one peso (*'!//) per square meter adopting the mar;et value fi+ed by the provincial
assessor in accordance with presidential decrees prescribing the valuation of property in e+propriation
proceedings!
Together with the complaint was a motion for immediate possession of the properties! The N- deposited the
amount of *'#),()/!// with the *hil! NatTl Ban;, representing the Ltotal mar;et valueM of the sub@ect 0# ha! of land,
pursuant to *!2! No! '001 which defines Lthe policy on the e+propriation of private property for sociali4ed housing
upon payment of @ust compensation!M
:n 8anuary '$, '($), respondent 8udge Buenaventura =! Duerrero issued a writ of possession pertaining to the
sub@ect parcels of land! *etitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that they had been deprived of
the possession of their property without due process of law! This was however, denied! -ence, this petition
challenging the orders of respondent 8udge and assailing the constitutionality of *!2! No! '001, as amended!
*etitioners contend that the ta;ing of their property subsumed under the topics of public use, @ust compensation,
and due process!
*ssues3
(') Jhether Lsociali4ed housingM as defined in *!2! '001, as amended, for the purpose of condemnation
proceedings is not Lpublic useM since it will benefit only La handful of people, bereft of public character,M hence it is
not a valid e+ercise of the =tateTs power of eminent domain!
(0) Jhether N- has the discretion to determine the si4e of the propertyNproperties to be e+propriated!
(3) Jhether *!2! '001, as amended, allows un@ust and unfair valuations arbitrarily fi+ed by government assessors!
(1) Jhether petitioners were denied due process because their parcels of land were immediately possessed by the
N- by virtue of the writ of possession ordered by the respondent @udge!
,el13
(') *!2! '001 defines Lsociali4ed housingM as, Lthe construction of dwelling units for the middle and lower class
members of our society, including the construction of the supporting infrastructure and other facilities!M The Lpublic
useM requirement for a valid e+ercise of the power of eminent domain is a fle+ible and evolving concept influenced
by changing conditions! The ta;ing to be valid must be for public use! s long as the purpose of the ta;ing is public,
then the power of eminent domain comes into play! 5t is accurate to state then that at present, whatever may be
beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use! 9rgo, Lsociali4ed housingM falls
within the confines of Lpublic use!M
(0) The =tate acting through the N- is vested with broad discretion to designate the particular propertyNproperties
to be ta;en for sociali4ed housing purposes and how much thereof may be e+propriated! bsent a clear showing of
fraud, bad faith, or gross abuse of discretion, which petitioners failed to demonstrate, the %ourt will give due weight
to and leave undisturbed the N-Ts choice and the si4e of the site for the pro@ect! The right to use, en@oyment and
disposal of private property is tempered by and has to yield to the demands of the common good!
(3) Kes! The provisions on @ust compensation found in *residential 2ecrees No! '001, '0#(, and '3'3 are the
same provisions found in *!2! No!Ts $", 1"1, $(1, and '#33 which were declared unconstitutional for being
14
encroachments on @udicial prerogative! 8ust compensation means the value of the property at the time of the
ta;ing! 5t means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained! Ta+ values can serve as guides but cannot be
absolute substitute for @ust compensation!
(1) Kes! The petitioners were denied of due process! *!2! '001, as amended, violates procedural due process as it
allows immediate ta;ing of possession, control and disposition of property without giving the owner his day in court!
Respondent 8udge ordered the issuance of a writ of possession without notice and without hearing!
EPGA 0S. #U-A/ ?16! SCRA 579@ G.R. No. -49'"75@ 2' Ap% 1'!A
.acts3 The four parcels of land which are the sub@ect of this case is where the .actan 9+port *rocessing Gone
uthority in %ebu (9*G) is to be constructed! *rivate respondent =an ntonio 2evelopment %orporation (=an
ntonio, for brevity), in which these lands are registered under, claimed that the lands were e+propriated to the
government without them reaching the agreement as to the compensation! Respondent 8udge 2ulay then issued
an order for the appointment of the commissioners to determine the @ust compensation! 5t was later found out that
the payment of the government to =an ntonio would be *'# per square meter, which was ob@ected to by the latter
contending that under *2 '#33, the basis of @ust compensation shall be fair and according to the fair mar;et value
declared by the owner of the property sought to be e+propriated, or by the assessor, whichever is lower! =uch
ob@ection and the subsequent .otion for Reconsideration were denied and hearing was set for the reception of the
commissionerTs report! 9*G then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus en@oining the respondent from
further hearing the case!
*ssue3 Jhether or Not the e+clusive and mandatory mode of determining @ust compensation in *2 '#33 is
unconstitutional!
,el13 The =upreme %ourt ruled that the mode of determination of @ust compensation in *2 '#33 is
unconstitutional!
The method of ascertaining @ust compensation constitutes impermissible encroachment to @udicial prerogatives! 5t
tends to render the courts inutile in a matter in which under the %onstitution is reserved to it for financial
determination! The valuation in the decree may only serve as guiding principle or one of the factors in determining
@ust compensation, but it may not substitute the courtTs own @udgment as to what amount should be awarded and
how to arrive at such amount! The determination of @ust compensation is a @udicial function! The e+ecutive
department or the legislature may ma;e the initial determination but when a party claims a violation of the
guarantee in the Bill of Rights that the private party may not be ta;en for public use without @ust compensation, no
statute, decree, or e+ecutive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the courtTs findings!
.uch less can the courts be precluded from loo;ing into the @ustness of the decreed compensation!
EPGA +. #ula< 16' SCRA 579 81'!:
.ACTS3 The =an ntonio 2evelopment %orporation was the owner of a piece of land in &apu3&apu %ity which the
9*G e+propriated in '($(! The commissioners appointed by the trial court recommended that the =an ntonio
2evelopment %orp! be paid *'#!// per square meter! 9*G filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that under *2
'#33 the compensation should be the fair and current mar;et value declared by the owner or the mar;et value
determined by the assessor, whichever is lower!
,E-#3 The method of ascertaining @ust compensation under *2 '#33 constitutes impermissible encroachment on
@udicial prerogatives! lthough the court technically would still have the power to determine the @ust compensation
for the property, following the decree, its tas; would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the property
as declared either by the owner or the assessor! 8ust compensation means the value of the property at the time of
the ta;ing! 5t means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained! ll the facts as to the condition of the property
and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities should be considered! 5n this case, the ta+ declarations
used as basis for the @ust compensation were made long before the declaration of martial law when the land was
much cheaper! To peg the value of the lots on the basis of those documents which are outdated would be arbitrary
and confiscatory
C*R +s. AlCue *nc.
Co$$issione% of *nte%nal Re+enue +s. AlCue *nc.
GR No. -42!!'" H .eb. 1& 1'!!
.acts3
W lgue 5nc! is a domestic corp engaged in engineering, construction and other allied activities
W :n 8an! '1, '("#, the corp received a letter from the %5R regarding its delinquency income ta+es from '(#)3
'(#(, amtg to *)3,')3!)#
W letter of protest or reconsideration was filed by lgue 5nc on 8an ')
W :n .arch '0, a warrant of distraint and levy was presented to lgue 5nc! thru its counsel, tty! Duevara, who
refused to receive it on the ground of the pending protest
W =ince the protest was not found on the records, a file copy from the corp was produced and given to B5R
gent Reyes, who deferred service of the warrant
W :n pril $, tty! Duevara was informed that the B5R was not ta;ing any action on the protest and it was only
then that he accepted the warrant of distraint and levy earlier sought to be served
W :n pril 03, lgue filed a petition for review of the decision of the %5R with the %ourt of Ta+ ppeals
W %5R contentionsA
3 the claimed deduction of *$#,///!// was properly disallowed because it was not an ordinary reasonable or
necessary business e+pense
3 payments are fictitious because most of the payees are members of the same family in control of lgue and
that there is not enough substantiation of such payments
W %TA $#O had been legitimately paid by lgue 5nc! for actual services rendered in the form of promotional
fees! These were collected by the *ayees for their wor; in the creation of the Begetable :il 5nvestment %orporation
of the *hilippines and its subsequent purchase of the properties of the *hilippine =ugar 9state 2evelopment
%ompany!
*ssue3 JNN the %ollector of 5nternal Revenue correctly disallowed the *$#,///!// deduction claimed by lgue as
legitimate business e+penses in its income ta+ returns
RulinC3
W Ta+es are the lifeblood of the government and so should be collected without unnecessary hindrance, made
in accordance with law!
W R ''0#A the appeal may be made within thirty days after receipt of the decision or ruling challenged
W 2uring the intervening period, the warrant was premature and could therefore not be served!
W :riginally, %5R claimed that the $#O promotional fees to be personal holding company income, but later on
conformed to the decision of %T
W There is no dispute that the payees duly reported their respective shares of the fees in their income ta+
returns and paid the corresponding ta+es thereon! %T also found, after e+amining the evidence, that no
distribution of dividends was involved
W %5R suggests a ta+ dodge, an attempt to evade a legitimate assessment by involving an imaginary deduction
W lgue 5nc! was a family corporation where strict business procedures were not applied and immediate
issuance of receipts was not required! at the end of the year, when the boo;s were to be closed, each payee made
an accounting of all of the fees received by him or her, to ma;e up the total of *$#,///!//! This arrangement was
understandable in view of the close relationship among the persons in the family corporation
W The amount of the promotional fees was not e+cessive! The total commission paid by the *hilippine =ugar
9state 2evelopment %o! to lgue 5nc! was *'0#O! fter deducting the said fees, lgue still had a balance of
*#/,///!// as clear profit from the transaction! The amount of *$#,///!// was "/> of the total commission! This
was a reasonable proportion, considering that it was the payees who did practically everything, from the formation
of the Begetable :il 5nvestment %orporation to the actual purchase by it of the =ugar 9state properties!
W =ec! 3/ of the Ta+ %odeA allowed deductions in the net income Q 9+penses 3 ll the ordinary and necessary
e+penses paid or incurred during the ta+able year in carrying on any trade or business, including a reasonable
allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered +++
W the burden is on the ta+payer to prove the validity of the claimed deduction
15
W 5n this case, lgue 5nc! has proved that the payment of the fees was necessary and reasonable in the light of
the efforts e+erted by the payees in inducing investors and prominent businessmen to venture in an e+perimental
enterprise and involve themselves in a new business requiring millions of pesos!
W Ta+es are what we pay for civili4ation society! Jithout ta+es, the government would be paraly4ed for lac; of
the motive power to activate and operate it! -ence, despite the natural reluctance to surrender part of one<s hard
earned income to the ta+ing authorities, every person who is able to must contribute his share in the running of the
government! The government for its part, is e+pected to respond in the form of tangible and intangible benefits
intended to improve the lives of the people and enhance their moral and material values
W Ta+ation must be e+ercised reasonably and in accordance with the prescribed procedure! 5f it is not, then the
ta+payer has a right to complain and the courts will then come to his succor
lgue 5nc!Ts appeal from the decision of the %5R was filed on time with the %T in accordance with Rep! ct No!
''0#! nd we also find that the claimed deduction by lgue 5nc! was permitted under the 5nternal Revenue %ode
and should therefore not have been disallowed by the %5R!
-UTG 0S. ARANETA ?'! Phil 16!@ G.R. No. -4!9'@ 22 #ec 1'99A
.acts3 Jalter &ut4, as the 8udicial dministrator of the 5ntestate 9state of ntonio 8ayme &edesma, see;s to
recover from 8! ntonio raneta, the %ollector of 5nternal Revenue, the sum of money paid by the estate as ta+es,
pursuant to the =ugar d@ustment ct! Cnder =ection 3 of said ct, ta+es are levied on the owners or persons in
control of the lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane! 6urthermore, =ection " states all the collections made
under said ct shall be for aid and support of the sugar industry e+clusively! &ut4 contends that such purpose is not
a matter of public concern hence ma;ing the ta+ levied for that cause unconstitutional and void! The %ourt of 6irst
5nstance dismissed his petition, thus this appeal before the =upreme %ourt!
*ssue3 Jhether or Not the ta+ levied under the =ugar d@ustment ct ( %ommonwealth ct #"$) is unconstitutional!
,el13 The ta+ levied under the =ugar d@ustment ct is constitutional! The ta+ under said ct is levied with a
regulatory purpose, to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabili4ation of the threatened sugar industry! =ince
sugar production is one of the great industries of our nation, its promotion, protection, and advancement, therefore
redounds greatly to the general welfare! -ence, said ob@ectives of the ct is a public concern and is therefore
constitutional! 5t follows that the &egislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is necessary for its
protection and e+pedient for its promotion! 5f ob@ectives and methods are ali;e constitutionally valid, no reason is
seen why the state may not levy ta+es to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment! Ta+ation may be made
with the implement of the stateTs police power! 5n addition, it is only rational that the ta+es be obtained from those
that will directly benefit from it! Therefore, the ta+ levied under the =ugar d@ustment ct is held to be constitutional!
BA-TER -UTG 0S. ANTON*O ARANETA
G.R. NO. -4!9'
#ECEMBER 22& 1'99
.ACTS3 This case was initiated in the %ourt of 6irst 5nstance of Negros :ccidental to test the legality of the ta+es
imposed by %ommonwealth ct No! #"$, otherwise ;nown as the =ugar d@ustment ct!
*romulgated in '(1/, the due to the threat to our industry by the imminent imposition of e+port ta+es upon sugar as
provided in the Tydings3.c2uffe ct, and the 7eventual loss of its preferential position in the Cnited =tates mar;et7?
wherefore, the national policy was e+pressed 7to obtain a read@ustment of the benefits derived from the sugar
industry by the component elements thereof7 and 7to stabili4e the sugar industry so as to prepare it for the
eventuality of the loss of its preferential position in the Cnited =tates mar;et and the imposition of the e+port ta+es!7
5n section 0, %ommonwealth ct #"$ provides for an increase of the e+isting ta+ on the manufacture of sugar, on a
graduated basis, on each picul of sugar manufactured? while section 3 levies on owners or persons in control of
lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane and ceded to others for a consideration, on lease or otherwise a ta+
equivalent to the difference between the money value of the rental or consideration collected and the amount
representing '0 per centum of the assessed value of such land!
*laintiff, Jalter &ut4, in his capacity as 8udicial dministrator of the 5ntestate 9state of ntonio 8ayme &edesma,
see;s to recover from the %ollector of 5nternal Revenue the sum of *'1,"""!1/ paid by the estate as ta+es, under
section 3 of the ct, for the crop years '(1)3'(1( and '(1(3'(#/? alleging that such ta+ is unconstitutional and
void, being levied for the aid and support of the sugar industry e+clusively, which in plaintiff<s opinion is not a public
purpose for which a ta+ may be constitutionally levied! The action having been dismissed by the %ourt of 6irst
5nstance, the plaintiffs appealed the case directly to this %ourt (8udiciary ct, section '$)!
*SSUE3 Jhether or not the % No! #"$ or =ugar d@ustment ct is constitutional and for public purpose!
,E-#3 The basic defect in the plaintiff<s position is his assumption that the ta+ provided for in %ommonwealth ct
No! #"$ is a pure e+ercise of the ta+ing power! nalysis of the ct, and particularly of section ", will show that the
ta+ is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabili4ation of the threatened
sugar industry! 5n other words, the act is primarily an e+ercise of the police power!
This %ourt can ta;e @udicial notice of the fact that sugar production is one of the great industries of our nation,
sugar occupying a leading position among its e+port products? that it gives employment to thousands of laborers in
fields and factories? that it is a great source of the state<s wealth, is one of the important sources of foreign
e+change needed by our government, and is thus pivotal in the plans of a regime committed to a policy of currency
stability! 5ts promotion, protection and advancement, therefore redounds greatly to the general welfare! -ence it
was competent for the legislature to find that the general welfare demanded that the sugar industry should be
stabili4ed in turn? and in the wide field of its police power, the lawma;ing body could provide that the distribution of
benefits therefrom be read@usted among its components to enable it to resist the added strain of the increase in
ta+es that it had to sustain!
:nce it is conceded, as it must, that the protection and promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of public
concern, it follows that the &egislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is necessary for its protection
and e+pedient for its promotion! -ere, the legislative discretion must be allowed fully play, sub@ect only to the test of
reasonableness? and it is not contended that the means provided in section " of the law bear no relation to the
ob@ective pursued or are oppressive in character! 5f ob@ective and methods are ali;e constitutionally valid, no reason
is seen why the state may not levy ta+es to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment! Ta+ation may be made
the implement of the state<s police power!
That the ta+ to be levied should burden the sugar producers themselves can hardly be a ground of complaint?
indeed, it appears rational that the ta+ be obtained precisely from those who are to be benefited from the
e+penditure of the funds derived from it! t any rate, it is inherent in the power to ta+ that a state be free to select
the sub@ects of ta+ation, and it has been repeatedly held that 7inequalities which result from a singling out of one
particular class for ta+ation, or e+emption infringe no constitutional limitation7!
6rom the point of view we have ta;en it appears of no moment that the funds raised under the =ugar =tabili4ation
ct, now in question, should be e+clusively spent in aid of the sugar industry, since it is that very enterprise that is
being protected! 5t may be that other industries are also in need of similar protection? that the legislature is not
required by the %onstitution to adhere to a policy of 7all or none!7 s ruled in .innesota e+ rel! *earson vs! *robate
%ourt, 3/( C! =! 0$/, )1 &! 9d! $11, 7if the law presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be
overthrown because there are other instances to which it might have been applied?7 and that 7the legislative
authority, e+erted within its proper field, need not embrace all the evils within its reach7!
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. -49'256 Septe$be% 57& 1'!2
16
TA(*CAB OPERATORS O. METRO MAN*-A& *NC.& .E-*C*S*MO CAB*GAO an1 ACE TRANSPORTAT*ON
CORPORAT*ON& petitione%s&
+s.
T,E BOAR# O. TRANSPORTAT*ON an1 T,E #*RECTOR O. T,E BUREAU O. -AN# TRANSPORTAT*ON&
%espon1ents.
.ACTS3
This *etition for 7%ertiorari, *rohibition and mandamus with *reliminary 5n@unction and Temporary Restraining
:rder7 filed by the Ta+icab :perators of .etro .anila, 5nc!, 6elicisimo %abigao and ce Transportation, see;s to
declare the nullity of .emorandum %ircular No! $$310, dated :ctober '/, '($$, of the Board of Transportation, and
.emorandum %ircular No! #0, dated ugust '#, '()/, of the Bureau of &and Transportation!
*etitioner Ta+icab :perators of .etro .anila, 5nc! (T:..5) is a domestic corporation composed of ta+icab
operators, who are grantees of %ertificates of *ublic %onvenience to operate ta+icabs within the %ity of .anila and
to any other place in &u4on accessible to vehicular traffic! *etitioners ce Transportation %orporation and
6elicisimo %abigao are two of the members of T:..5, each being an operator and grantee of such certificate of
public convenience!
:n :ctober '/, '($$, respondent Board of Transportation (B:T) issued .emorandum %ircular No! $$310 which
readsA
=CB89%TA *hasing out and Replacement of
:ld and 2ilapidated Ta+is
J-9R9=, it is the policy of the government to insure that only safe and comfortable units are used as public
conveyances?
J-9R9=, the riding public, particularly in .etro3.anila, has, time and again, complained against, and
condemned, the continued operation of old and dilapidated ta+is?
J-9R9=, in order that the commuting public may be assured of comfort, convenience, and safety, a program of
phasing out of old and dilapidated ta+is should be adopted?
J-9R9=, after studies and inquiries made by the Board of Transportation, the latter believes that in si+ years of
operation, a ta+i operator has not only covered the cost of his ta+is, but has made reasonable profit for his
investments?
N:J, T-9R96:R9, pursuant to this policy, the Board hereby declares that no car beyond si+ years shall be
operated as ta+i, and in implementation of the same hereby promulgates the following rules and regulationsA
'! s of 2ecember 3', '($$, all ta+is of .odel '($' and earlier are ordered withdrawn from public
service and thereafter may no longer be registered and operated as ta+is! 5n the registration of cards for '($), only
ta+is of .odel '($0 and later shall be accepted for registration and allowed for operation?
0! s of 2ecember 3', '($), all ta+is of .odel '($0 are ordered withdrawn from public service and
thereafter may no longer be registered and operated as ta+is! 5n the registration of cars for '($(, only ta+is of
.odel '($3 and later shall be accepted for registration and allowed for operation? and every year thereafter, there
shall be a si+3year lifetime of ta+i, to witA
'()/ E .odel '($1
'()' E .odel '($#, etc!
ll ta+is of earlier models than those provided above are hereby ordered withdrawn from public service as of the
last day of registration of each particular year and their respective plates shall be surrendered directly to the Board
of Transportation for subsequent turnover to the &and Transportation %ommission!
6or an orderly implementation of this .emorandum %ircular, the rules herein shall immediately be effective in
.etro3.anila! 5ts implementation outside .etro3 .anila shall be carried out only after the pro@ect has been
implemented in .etro3.anila and only after the date has been determined by the Board! '
*ursuant to the above B:T circular, respondent 2irector of the Bureau of &and Transportation (B&T) issued
5mplementing %ircular No! #0, dated ugust '#, '()/, instructing the Regional 2irector, the .B Registrars and
other personnel of B&T, all within the National %apitol Region, to implement said %ircular, and formulating a
schedule of phase3out of vehicles to be allowed and accepted for registration as public conveyances! To quote said
%ircularA
*ursuant to B:T .emo3%ircular No! $$310, ta+i units with year models over si+ (") years old are now banned from
operating as public utilities in .etro .anila! s such the units involved should be considered as automatically
dropped as public utilities and, therefore, do not require any further dropping order from the B:T!
:n 8anuary 0$, '()', petitioners filed a *etition with the B:T, doc;eted as %ase No! )/3$##3, see;ing to nullify
.% No! $$310 or to stop its implementation? to allow the registration and operation in '()' and subsequent years
of ta+icabs of model '($1, as well as those of earlier models which were phased3out, provided that, at the time of
registration, they are roadworthy and fit for operation!
,E-#3
On Equal Protection of the Law:
*etitioners alleged that the %ircular in question violates their right to equal protection of the law because the same
is being enforced in .etro .anila only and is directed solely towards the ta+i industry! t the outset it should be
pointed out that implementation outside .etro .anila is also envisioned in .emorandum %ircular No! $$310! To
repeat the pertinent portionA
6or an orderly implementation of this .emorandum %ircular, the rules herein shall immediately be effective in .etro
.anila! 5ts implementation outside .etro .anila shall be carried out only after the pro@ect has been implemented in
.etro .anila and only after the date has been determined by the Board! 1
5n fact, it is the understanding of the %ourt that implementation of the %irculars in %ebu %ity is already being
effected, with the B:T in the process of conducting studies regarding the operation of ta+icabs in other cities!
The Board<s reason for enforcing the %ircular initially in .etro .anila is that ta+icabs in this city, compared to those
of other places, are sub@ected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use! This is of common ;nowledge!
%onsidering that traffic conditions are not the same in every city, a substantial distinction e+ists so that infringement
of the equal protection clause can hardly be successfully claimed!
s enunciated in the preambular clauses of the challenged B:T %ircular, the overriding consideration is the safety
and comfort of the riding public from the dangers posed by old and dilapidated ta+is! The =tate, in the e+ercise, of
its police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general
welfare of the people! 5t can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society! # 5t may also
regulate property rights! " 5n the language of %hief 8ustice 9nrique .! 6ernando 7the necessities imposed by public
welfare may @ustify the e+ercise of governmental authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly
assert that their interests are disregarded7! $
5n so far as the non3application of the assailed %irculars to other transportation services is concerned, it need only
be recalled that the equal protection clause does not imply that the same treatment be accorded all and sundry! 5t
applies to things or persons 5dentically or similarly situated! 5t permits of classification of the ob@ect or sub@ect of the
law provided classification is reasonable or based on substantial distinction, which ma;e for real differences, and
17
that it must apply equally to each member of the class! ) Jhat is required under the equal protection clause is the
uniform operation by legal means so that all persons under 5dentical or similar circumstance would be accorded the
same treatment both in privilege conferred and the liabilities imposed! ( The challenged %irculars satisfy the
foregoing criteria!
9vident then is the conclusion that the questioned %irculars do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity! To
declare a law unconstitutional, the infringement of constitutional right must be clear, categorical and undeniable! '/
J-9R96:R9, the Jrits prayed for are denied and this *etition is hereby dismissed! No costs!
0elasco +s. 0illeCas ?G.R. No. -426195 8127 SCRA:& .eb%ua%< 16& 1'!5A

.acts3 *etitioners herein are members of the =ta! %ru4 Barbershop ssociation! This is an appeal from the lower
court<s(&%) order dismissing their suit for declatory relief! They are challenging the constitutionality of :rd! No!
1("1! They contend that it amounts to deprivation of properties and their means of livelihood without due process
of law!
The assailed ordinance is worded thusA 75t shall be prohibited for any operator of any barber shop to conduct the
business of massaging customers or other persons in any ad@acent room or rooms of said barber shop, or in any
room or rooms within the same building where the barber shop is located as long as the operator of the barber
shop and the room where massaging is conducted is the same person!7
Respondent in its reply, said that the :rdinance No! 1("1 is constitutional and such is @ust an e+ercise of the state<s
inherent power (police power)!
*ssue3 Jhether or not the assailed :rdinance violated the petitioner<s right to property and their means of
livelihood!
,el13 :rdinance is %onstitutional! *etition is dismissed, &% decision affirmed!
9nactment of such (:rdinance) is a valid e+ercise of *olice *ower!
The ob@ectives of the :rdinance areA
(') To impose payment of license fees for engaging in the business of massage clinics, and?
(0) To forestall possible immorality which might grow from the construction of a separate room for massaging
customers!
This %ourt has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the general welfare clause! nd for that
reason, the petitionersT rights were not violated and they are not deprived of the due process of law!
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. -426195 .eb%ua%< 16& 1'!5
TOMAS 0E-ASCO& -OUR#ES RAM*REG& S/ P*N& E#MUN#O UNSON& APO-ON*A RAM*REG an1 -OUR#ES
-OM*BAO& as co$ponent $e$be%s of the STA. CRUG BARBERS,OP ASSOC*AT*ON& in thei% oDn behalf
an1 in %ep%esentation of the othe% oDne%s of ba%be%shops in the Cit< of Manila& petitione%s4appellants&
+s.
,ON. ANTON*O 2. 0*--EGAS& Cit< Ma<o% of Manila& ,ON. ,ERM*N*O A. ASTORGA& 0ice4Ma<o% an1
P%esi1inC Office% of the Municipal Boa%1 in %elation to Republic Act 67"9& T,E MUN*C*PA- BOAR# O. T,E
C*T/ O. MAN*-A an1 E#UAR#O =U*NTOS SR.& Chief of Police of the Cit< of Manila& %espon1ents4
appellees.
-eona%1o -. A%Cuelles fo% %espon1ent4appellant.
69RNN2:, %!8!A
This is an appeal from an order of the lower court dismissing a suit for declaratory relief challenging the
constitutionality based on :rdinance No! 1("1 of the %ity of .anila, the contention being that it amounts to a
deprivation of property of petitioners3appellants of their means of livelihood without due process of law! The
assailed ordinance is worded thusA 75t shall be prohibited for any operator of any barber shop to conduct the
business of massaging customers or other persons in any ad@acent room or rooms of said barber shop, or in any
room or rooms within the same building where the barber shop is located as long as the operator of the barber
shop and the room where massaging is conducted is the same person!7 ' s noted in the appealed order,
petitioners3appellants admitted that criminal cases for the violation of this ordinance had been previously filed and
decided! The lower court, therefore, held that a petition for declaratory relief did not lie, its availability being
dependent on there being as yet no case involving such issue having been filed! 0
9ven if such were not the case, the attac; against the validity cannot succeed! s pointed out in the brief of
respondents3appellees, it is a police power measure! The ob@ectives behind its enactment areA 7(') To be able to
impose payment of the license fee for engaging in the business of massage clinic under :rdinance No! 3"#( as
amended by :rdinance 1$"$, an entirely different measure than the ordinance regulating the business of
barbershops and, (0) in order to forestall possible immorality which might grow out of the construction of separate
rooms for massage of customers!7 3 This %ourt has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the
general welfare clause! s far bac; as C!=! v! =alaveria, 1 a '(') decision, this %ourt through 8ustice .alcolm
made clear the significance and scope of such a clause, which 7delegates in statutory form the police power to a
municipality! s above stated, this clause has been given wide application by municipal authorities and has in its
relation to the particular circumstances of the case been liberally construed by the courts! =uch, it is well to really is
the progressive view of *hilippine @urisprudence!7 # s it was then, so it has continued to be! " There is no
showing, therefore, of the unconstitutionality of such ordinance!
J-9R96:R9, the appealed order of the lower court is affirmed! No costs!
.a;asiar, %oncepcion, 8r!, Duerrero, bad =antos, 2e %astro, .elencio3 -errera, *lana, 9scolin, Basque4, Relova
and Dutierre4, 8r!, 88!, concur!
Teehan;ee, 8!, reserves his vote!
quino 8!, too; no part!
Spouses SanCalanC +s. *AC an1 A<ala Co%po%ation& ?G.R. No. 11"'. AuCust 57& 1'!'.A

.acts3 (') Bel3ir Billage is located north of Buendia venue e+tension (now =en! Dil 8! *uyat ve!) across a
stretch of commercial bloc; from Reposo =treet in the west up to Godiac =treet in the east, Jhen Bel3ir Billage
was planned, this bloc; between Reposo and Godiac =treets ad@oining Buendia venue in front of the village was
designated as a commercial bloc;! (%opuyoc T=N, p! '/, 6eb! '0, '()0)!
(0) Bel3ir Billage was owned and developed into a residential subdivision in the '(#/s by .a;ati
2evelopment %orporation (hereinafter referred to as .2%), which in '(") was merged with appellant yala
%orporation!
(3) ppellees3spouses =angalang reside at No! '': 8upiter =treet between .a;ati venue and Reposo
=treet? appellees3spouses Daston reside at No! "1 8upiter =treet between .a;ati venue and Godiac =treet?
appellees3spouses Briones reside at No! "" 8upiter =treet also between .a;ati venue and Godiac =treet? while
appellee Bel3ir Billage ssociation, 5nc! (hereinafter referred to as BB) is the homeowners< association in Bel3
ir Billage which ta;es care of the sanitation, security, traffic regulations and general welfare of the village!
18
(1) The lots which were acquired by appellees =angalang and spouse Daston and spouse and Briones
and spouse in '("/, '(#$ and '(#), respectively, were all sold by .2% sub@ect to certain conditions and
easements contained in 2eed Restrictions which formed a part of each deed of sale! The pertinent provisions in
said 2eed Restrictions, which are common to all lot owners in Bel3ir Billage, are as followsA
(#) Jhen .2% sold the above3mentioned lots to appellees< predecessors3in3interest, the whole stretch of
the commercial bloc; between Buendia venue and 8upiter =treet, from Reposo =treet in the west to Godiac =treet
in the east, was still undeveloped! ccess, therefore, to Bel3ir Billage was opened to all ;inds of people and even
animals! =o in '("", although it was not part of the original plan, .2% constructed a fence or wall on the
commercial bloc; along 8upiter =treet! 5n '($/, the fence or wall was partly destroyed by typhoon 7Koling!7 The
destroyed portions were subsequently rebuilt by the appellant! (%opuyoc T=N, pp! 3'331, 6eb! '0, '()0)! Jhen
8upiter =treet was widened in '($0 by 3!# meters, the fence or wall had to be destroyed! Cpon request of BB,
the wall was rebuilt inside the boundary of the commercial bloc;! (%opuyoc T=N, pp! 111$, 6eb! '0,'()0)!
(") Jhen the appellant finally decided to subdivide and sell the lots in the commercial bloc; between
Buendia and 8upiter, BB wrote the appellant on .ay (, '($0, requesting for confirmation on the use of the
commercial lots! The appellant replied on .ay '", '($0, informing BB of the restrictions intended to be imposed
in the sale and use of the lots! mong these restrictions areA that the building shall have a set bac; of '( meters?
and that with respect to vehicular traffic along Buendia venue, entrance only will be allowed, and along 8upiter
=treet and side streets, both entrance and e+it will be allowed!
($) :n 8une 3/, '($0, appellant informed BB that in a few months it shall subdivide and sell the
commercial lots bordering the north side of Buendia venue 9+tension from Reposo =treet up to Godiac =treet!
ppellant also informed BB that it had ta;en all precautions and will impose upon the commercial lot owners
deed restrictions which will harmoni4e and blend with the development and welfare of Bel3ir Billage! ppellant
further applied for special membership in BB of the commercial lot owners! copy of the deed restrictions for the
commercial lots was also enclosed! The proposed deed restrictions shall include the '( meter set bac; of buildings
from 8upiter =treet, the requirement for par;ing space within the lot of one (') par;ing slot for every seventy five
($#) meters of office space in the building and the limitation of vehicular traffic along Buendia to entrance only, but
allowing both vehicular entrance and vehicular e+it through 8upiter =treet and any side street!
5n its letter of 8uly '/, '($0, BB ac;nowledged the above letter of appellant and informed the latter that the
application for special membership of the commercial lot owners in BB would be submitted to BB<s board of
governors for decision!
()) :n =eptember 0#, '($0, appellant notified BB that, after a careful study, it was finally decided that
the height limitation of buildings on the commercial lots shall be increased from '0!# meters to '# meters! ppellant
further informed BB that 8upiter =treet shall be widened by 3!# meters to improve traffic flow in said street! BB
did not reply to said letter, but on 8anuary 00, '($3, BB wrote a letter to the appellant informing the latter that the
ssociation had assessed the appellant, as special member of the association, the amount of *1/,$(#!// (based
on )',#(/ square meters at *!#/ per square meter) representing the membership dues to the commercial lot
owners for the year '($3, and requested the appellant to remit the amount which its board of governors had
already included in its current budget! 5n reply, appellant on 8anuary 3', '($3 informed BB that due to the
widening of 8upiter =treet, the area of the lots which were accepted by the ssociation as members was reduced to
$",$0" square meters! Thus, the corresponding dues at *!#/ per square meter should be reduced to *3),3"3!//!
This amount, therefore, was remitted by the appellant to BB! =ince then, the latter has been collecting
membership dues from the owners of the commercial lots as special members of the ssociation! s a matter of
fact, the dues were increased several times! 5n '()/, the commercial lot owners were already being charged dues
at the rate of *3!// per square meter! (2omingo, T=N, p! 3", .arch '(, '()/)! t this rate, the total membership
dues of the commercial lot owners amount to *03/,'$)! // annually based on the total area of $",$0" square
meters of the commercial lots!
(() .eantime, on pril 1, '($#, the municipal council of .a;ati enacted its ordinance No! )',
providing for the 4onification of .a;ati (9+h! '))! Cnder this :rdinance, Bel3ir Billage was
classified as a %lass Residential Gone, with its boundary in the south e+tending to the center
line of 8upiter =treet (9+h! ')3)!
('/) .eanwhile, in '($0, BB had installed gates at strategic locations across 8upiter =treet which were
manned and operated by its own security guards who were employed to maintain, supervise and enforce traffic
regulations in the roads and streets of the village! (Billavicencio, T=N, pp, 0030#, :ct! 3/, '()/? BB *etition, par!
'', 9+h! '$)!
Then, on 8anuary '$, '($$, the :ffice of the .ayor of .a;ati wrote BB directing that, in the interest of public
welfare and for the purpose of easing traffic congestion, the following streets in Bel3ir Billage should be opened for
public useA
mapola =treet 3 from 9strella =treet to .ercedes =treet
mapola =treet 3@unction of *alma =treet gate going to 8! Billena =treet
.ercedes =treet 33 from 92= to 5melda venue and mapola @unction
Godiac =treet 3 from .ercedes =treet to Buendia venue
8upiter =treet 33 from Godiac =treet to Reposo =treet connecting .etropolitan venue to *asong Tamo and B! %ru4
9+tension intersection
Neptune =treet 3 from .a;ati venue to Reposo =treet :rbit =treet 3 from 6! Gobel3%andelaria intersection to
8upiter =treet
*aseo de Ro+as 3 from .ercedes =treet to Buendia venue (9+h! '$, nne+ , BB *etition)
:n 6ebruary '/, '($$, BB wrote the .ayor of .a;ati, e+pressing the concern of the residents about the opening
of the streets to the general public, and requesting specifically the indefinite postponement of the plan to open
8upiter =treet to public vehicles! (9+h! '$, nne+ B, BB *etition)!
-owever, BB voluntarily opened to the public mapola, .ercedes, Godiac, Neptune and *aseo de Ro+as
streets! (9+h! '$3, nswer of .a;ati par! 33$)!
&ater, on 8une '$,'($$, the Barangay %aptain of Bel3ir Billage was advised by the :ffice of the .ayor that, in
accordance with the agreement entered into during the meeting on 8anuary 0), ' ($$, the .unicipal 9ngineer and
the =tation %ommander of the .a;ati *olice were ordered to open for public use 8upiter =treet from .a;ati venue
to Reposo =treet! ccordingly, he was requested to advise the village residents of the necessity of the opening of
the street in the interest of public welfare! (9+h! '$, nne+ 9, BB *etition)!
Then, on 8une '/, '($$, the .unicipal 9ngineer of .a;ati in a letter addressed to BB advised the latter to open
for vehicular and pedestrian traffic the entire portion of 8upiter =treet from .a;ati venue to Reposo =treet (9+h!
'$, BB *etition, par! '1)!
6inally, on ugust '0, '($$, the municipal officials of .a;ati concerned allegedly opened, destroyed and removed
the gates constructedNlocated at the corner of Reposo =treet and 8upiter =treet as well as the gatesNfences
locatedNconstructed at 8upiter =treet and .a;ati venue forcibly, and then opened the entire length of 8upiter =treet
to public traffic! (9+h! '$, BB *etition, pars! '" and '$)!
('') Before the gates were3removed, there was no par;ing problem or traffic problem in 8upiter =treet,
because 8upiter =treet was not allowed to be used by the general public (Billavicencio, T=N, pp! 0130#, :ct! 3/,
'()/)! -owever, with the opening of Godiac =treet from 9strella =treet to 8upiter =treet and also the opening to the
public of the entire length of 8upiter =treet, there was a tremendous increase in the volume of traffic passing along
8upiter =treet coming from 92= to 9strella =treet, then to Godiac =treet to 8upiter =treet, and along the entire
length of 8upiter =treet to its other end at Reposo =treet! (Billavicencio, T=N, pp! 3/330, :ct! 3/, '()/)!
5n the meantime, the purchasers of the commercial lots between 8upiter =treet and Buendia venue e+tension had
started constructing their respective buildings in '($13'($#! They demolished the portions of the fence or wall
19
standing within the boundary of their lots! .any of the owners constructed their own fences or walls in lieu of the
wall and they employed their own security guards! (T=N, p! )3, 6eb! 0/,'()'? T=N, pp! #33#1? $03$1, .arch
0/,'()'? T=N, pp! #13##, 8uly 03, '()')!
('0) Then, on 8anuary 0$, '($), appellant donated the entire 8upiter =treet from .etropolitan venue to
Godiac =treet to BB (9+h! $)3 -owever, even before '($), the .a;ati *olice and the security force of BB were
already the ones regulating the traffic along 8upiter =treet after the gates were opened in '($$! =ancianco T=N,
pp! 0"33/, :ct! 0,'()')!
5n :ctober, '($(, the fence at the corner of :rbit and Neptune =treets was opened and removed (BB *etition,
par! 00, 9+h! '$)! The opening of the whole stretch of :rbit =treet from 8!*! Ri4al venue up to 5melda venue and
later to 8upiter =treet was agreed to at the conference attended by the *resident of BB in the office of the =tation
%ommander of .a;ati, sub@ect to certain conditions, to witA
That, maintenance of :rbit =t! up to 8upiter =t! shall be shouldered by the .unicipality of .a;ati!
That, street lights will be installed and maintenance of the same along :rbit =t! from 8!*! Ri4al ve! up to 8upiter =t!
shall be underta;en by the .unicipality!
That for the security of the residents of =an .iguel Billage and Bel3ir Billage, as a result of the opening of :rbit
=treet, police outposts shall be constructed by the .unicipality of .a;ati to be headed by personnel of =tation No!
1, in close coordination with the =ecurity Duards of =an .iguel Billage and Bel3ir Billage!7 (%6! 9+h! 3 to %ounter3
ffidavit, of =tation %ommander, Ruperto cle p! 0#3, records)7 (:rder, %ivil %ase No! 31(1), 9+h! '$3c)!
('3) Thus, with the opening of the entire length of 8upiter =treet to public traffic, the different residential lots
located in the northern side of 8upiter =treet ceased to be used for purely residential purposes! They became, for
all purposes, commercial in character!
('1) =ubsequently, on :ctober 0(, '($(, the plaintiffs3appellees 8ose 2! =angalang and &utgarda 2!
=angalang brought the present action for damages against the defendant3appellant yala %orporation predicated
on both breach of contract and on tort or quasi3delict supplemental complaint was later filed by said appellees
see;ing to augment the reliefs prayed for in the original complaint because of alleged supervening events which
occurred during the trial of the case! %laiming to be similarly situated as the plaintiffs3appellees, the spouses 6eli+
%! Daston and 2olores R! Daston, 8ose B! Briones and licia R! Briones, and the homeowners< association (BB)
intervened in the case!
,el13 5t is not that we are saying that restrictive easements, especially the easements herein in question, are
invalid or ineffective! s far as the Bel3ir subdivision itself is concerned, certainly, they are valid and enforceable!
But they are, li;e all contracts, sub@ect to the overriding demands, needs, and interests of the greater number as
the =tate may determine in the legitimate e+ercise of police power! :ur @urisdiction guarantees sanctity of contract
and is said to be the 7law between the contracting parties, "# but while it is so, it cannot contravene <law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy! "" bove 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 e+pense of contractual
rights, whenever necessary!
Cndoubtedly, the ..% :rdinance represents a legitimate e+ercise of police power! The petitioners have not shown
why we should hold otherwise other than for the supposed 7non3impairment7 guaranty of the %onstitution, which, as
we have declared, is secondary to the more compelling interests of general welfare! The :rdinance has not been
shown to be capricious or arbitrary or unreasonable to warrant the reversal of the @udgments so appealed! 5n that
connection, we find no reversible error to have been committed by the %ourt of ppeals!
2MM P%o$otion an1 ManaCe$ent& *nc. +s. CA& G.R. No. 1277'9& AuCust 9& 1''"@ 2"7 SCRA 51'
(&abor =tandards Q rtist Record Boo; as a requirement for overseas employment contract)
.acts3 The deployment of female entertainers to 8apan was controlled by the government through 2epartment
:rder No! 3, wherein said entertainers were required an rtist Record Boo; as a precondition to the processing by
the *:9 of any contract for overseas employment! *etitioners contends that overseas employment is a property
right within the meaning of the %onstitution and avers that the alleged deprivation thereof through the onerous
requirement of an RB violates due process and constitutes an invalid e+ercise of police power!
*ssue3 J:N an rtist Record Boo; is a valid requirement for overseas employment!
,el13 Kes! The RB requirement and the questioned 2epartment order related to its issuance were issued
pursuant to a valid e+ercise of police power which considers the welfare of 6ilipino performing artists, particularly
the women!
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
.*RST #*0*S*ON
G.R. No. 1277'9 AuCust 9& 1''"
2MM PROMOT*ON AN# MANAGEMENT& *NC.& an1 ;AR/ *NTERNAT*ONA-& *NC.& petitione%&
+s.
,ON. COURT O. APPEA-S& ,ON. MA. N*E0ES CON.ESSOR& then Sec%eta%< of the #epa%t$ent of -abo%
an1 E$plo<$ent& ,ON. 2OSE BR*--ANTES& in his capacit< as actinC Sec%eta%< of the #epa%t$ent of -abo%
an1 E$plo<$ent an1 ,ON. .E-*C*S*MO 2OSON& in his capacit< as A1$inist%ato% of the Philippine
O+e%seas E$plo<$ent A1$inist%ation& %espon1ents.
.ACTS3
6ollowing the much3publici4ed death of .aricris =ioson in '((', former *resident %ora4on %! quino ordered a
total ban against the deployment of performing artists to 8apan and other foreign destinations! The ban was,
however, rescinded after leaders of the overseas employment industry promised to e+tend full support for a
program aimed at removing ;in;s in the system of deployment! 5n its place, the government, through the =ecretary
of &abor and 9mployment, subsequently issued 2epartment :rder No! 0), creating the 9ntertainment 5ndustry
dvisory %ouncil (95%), which was tas;ed with issuing guidelines on the training, testing certification and
deployment of performing artists abroad!
*ursuant to the 95%<s recommendations, ' the =ecretary of &abor, on 8anuary ", '((1, issued 2epartment :rder
No! 3 establishing various procedures and requirements for screening performing artists under a new system of
training, testing, certification and deployment of the former! *erforming artists successfully hurdling the test, training
and certification requirement were to be issued an rtist<s Record Boo; (RB), a necessary prerequisite to
processing of any contract of employment by the *:9! Cpon request of the industry, implementation of the
process, originally scheduled for pril ', '((1, was moved to :ctober ', '((1!
Thereafter, the 2epartment of &abor, following the 95%<s recommendation, issued a series of orders fine3tuning
and implementing the new system! *rominent among these orders were the following issuancesA
'! 2epartment :rder No! 33, providing for additional guidelines on the training, testing, certification and
deployment of performing artists!
0! 2epartment :rder No! 33B, pertaining to the rtist Record Boo; (RB) requirement, which could be
processed only after the artist could show proof of academic and s;ills training and has passed the required tests!
3! 2epartment :rder No! 339, providing the minimum salary a performing artist ought to received (not
less than C=X"//!// for those bound for 8apan) and the authori4ed deductions therefrom!
1! 2epartment :rder No! 336, providing for the guidelines on the issuance and use of the RB by
returning performing artists who, unli;e new artists, shall only undergo a =pecial :rientation *rogram (shorter than
the basic program) although they must pass the academic test!
20
5n %ivil %ase No! (#3$0$#/, the 6ederation of 9ntertainment Talent .anagers of the *hilippines (69T.:*), on
8anuary 0$, '((# filed a class suit assailing these department orders, principally contending that said orders ')
violated the constitutional right to travel? 0) abridged e+isting contracts for employment? and 3) deprived individual
artists of their licenses without due process of law! 69T.:*, li;ewise, averred that the issuance of the rtist
Record Boo; (RB) was discriminatory and illegal and 7in gross violation of the constitutional right!!! to life liberty
and property!7 =aid 6ederation consequently prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary in@unction against the
aforestated orders!
:n 6ebruary 0, '((0, 8.. *romotion and .anagement, 5nc! Oary 5nternational, 5nc!, herein petitioners, filed a
.otion for 5ntervention in said civil case, which was granted by the trial court in an :rder dated '# 6ebruary, '((#!
-owever, on 6ebruary 0', '((#, the trial court issued an :rder denying petitioners< prayed for a writ of preliminary
in@unction and dismissed the complaint!
:n appeal from the trial court<s :rder, respondent court, in % D!R! =* No! 3"$'3 dismissed the same! Tracing the
circumstances which led to the issuance of the RB requirement and the assailed 2epartment :rder, respondent
court concluded that the issuance constituted a valid e+ercise by the state of the police power!
,E-#3
Je agree!
The latin ma+im salus populi est surprema le+ embodies the character of the entire spectrum of public laws aimed
at promoting the general welfare of the people under the =tate<s police power! s an inherent attribute of
sovereignty which virtually 7e+tends to all public needs,7 0 this 7least limitable7 3 of governmental powers grants a
wide panoply of instruments through which the state, as parens patriae gives effect to a host of its regulatory
powers!
%learly, the welfare of 6ilipino performing artists, particularly the women was paramount in the issuance of
2epartment :rder No! 3! =hort of a total and absolute ban against the deployment of performing artists to 7high
ris;7 destinations, a measure which would only drive recruitment further underground, the new scheme at the very
least rationali4es the method of screening performing artists by requiring reasonable educational and artistic s;ills
from them and limits deployment to only those individuals adequately prepared for the unpredictable demands of
employment as artists abroad! 5t cannot be gainsaid that this scheme at least lessens the room for e+ploitation by
unscrupulous individuals and agencies!
5n the case at bar, the challenged 2epartment :rder clearly applies to all performing artists and entertainers
destined for @obs abroad! These orders, we stressed hereinfore, further the %onstitutional mandate requiring
government to protect our wor;force, particularly those who may be prone to abuse and e+ploitation as they are
beyond the physical reach of government regulatory agencies! The tragic incidents must somehow stop, but short
of absolutely curtailing the right of these performers and entertainers to wor; abroad, the assailed measures enable
our government to assume a measure of control!
=olicitor Deneral vs! .etropolitan .anila uthority
.acts3:n 8uly '3, '((/ the %ourt held in the case of .etropolitan Traffic %ommand,Jest Traffic 2istrict vs! -on!
rsenio .! Donong, that the confiscation of the licenseplates of motor vehicles for traffic violations was not among
the sanctions thatcould be imposed by the .etro .anila %ommission under *2 '"/# and waspermitted only under
the conditions laid down by &:5 13 in the case of stalledvehicles obstructing the public streets! 9ven the
confiscation of driverTs licenses fortraffic violations was not directly prescribed or allowed by the decree! fter
nomotion for reconsideration of the decision was filed the @udgment became final ande+ecutor!Jithstanding the
Donong decision still violations of the said decisiontranspired, wherein there were several persons who sent
complaint letters to the%ourt regarding the confiscation of driverTs licenses and removal of license platenumbers!:n
.ay 01, '((/ the .. issued :rdinance No! '', =eries of '((',authori4ing itself Lto detach license plateNtow and
impoundattendedNunattendedNabandoned motor vehicles illegally par;ed or obstructing theflow of traffic in .etro
.anila!M:n 8uly 0, '((', the %ourt issued a resolution regarding the matter whichstated that the :rdinance No! '',
=ection 0 appears to be in conflict with thedecision of the %ourt, and that the %ourt has received several complaints
againstthe enforcement of such ordinance!
*ssue3JNN :rdinance No! '' =eries of '((' and :rdinance No! $, =eries of '(() arevalid in the e+ercise of such
delegated power to local government acting only asagents of the national legislatureS
,el13No, the %ourt rendered @udgmentA ') declaring :rdinance No! '', =eries of '((', of the .. and :rdinance
No! $, =eries of '((), of the .unicipality of .andaluyong, Null and Boid? and 0) en@oining all law3enforcement
authorities in.etropolitan .anila from removing the license plates of motor vehicles (e+ceptwhen authori4ed under
&:513) and confiscating driverTs licenses for traffic violationswithin the said area! To test the validity of said acts the
principles governing municipalcorporations was applied, according to 9lliot for a municipal ordinance to be validthe
following requisites should be compliedA ') must not contravene the %onstitution or any statute? 0) must not be
unfair or oppressive? 3) must not bepartial or discriminatory? 1) must not prohibit but may regulate trade? #) must
notbe unreasonable? and ") must be general and consistent with public policy!5n the Donong decision it was shown
that the measures under considerationdid not pass the first criterion because it did not conform to e+isting law! *2
'"/#does not allow either the removal of license plates or the confiscation of driverTslicenses for traffic violations
committed in .etropolitan .anila! There is nothing inthe decree authori4ing the .. to impose such sanctions!
Thus &ocal politicalsubdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of legislativepower from the
national legislature (e+cept only that the power to create their ownsources of revenue and to levy ta+es is conferred
by the %onstitution itself)! Theyare mere agents vested with what is called the power of subordinate legislation!
sdelegates of the %ongress, the local government unit cannot contravene but mustobey at all times the will of the
principal! 5n the case at bar the enactments inquestion, which are merely local in origin, cannot prevail against the
decree, whichhas the force and effect of a statute!
MaCtaIas +s P%<ce P%ope%ties& *nc. ?256 SCRA 299A
.acts3 The *hilippine musement and Daming %orporation (*D%:R) is a corporation created directly by *!2!
')"( to help centrali4e and regulate all games of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial
@urisdiction of the *hilippines! 5n Basco v! *hilippine musements and Daming %orporation, this %ourt sustained
the constitutionality of the decree and even cited the benefits of the entity to the national economy as the third
highest revenue3earner in the government!
*D%:R decided to e+pand its operations to %agayan de :ro %ity by leasing a portion of a building belonging to
*ryce *roperties %orporation 5nc! for its casino!
:n 2ecember $, '((0, =angguniang *anlungsod of %2: enacted ordinance 33#3, prohibiting the issuance of
business permit and cancelling e+isting business permit to any establishment for the using and allowing to be used
its premises or portion thereof for the operation of a casino!
:n 8anuary 1, '((3, it enacted :rdinance 33$#3(3, prohibiting the operation of casino and providing penalty for
violation therefore!
*ryce assailed the ordinances before the %, where it was @oined by *D%:R as intervenor!
The %ourt found the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibit their enforcement! %2: %ity and
its mayor filed a petition for review under Rules of %ourt with the =upreme %ourt!
*ssue3 J:N the =angguniang *anlungsod can prohibit the establishment of casino operated by *D%:R through
an ordinance or resolution!
,el13 No! Dambling is not illegal per se! Jhile it is generally considered inimical to the interests of the people,
there is nothing in the %onstitution categorically proscribing or penali4ing gambling or, for that matter, even
mentioning it at all! 5n the e+ercise of its own discretion, the %ongress may prohibit gambling altogether or allow it
without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of gambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider
sufficient!
21
Cnder =ec! 1#) of the &ocal Dovernment %ode, local government units are authori4ed to prevent or suppress,
among others, Lgambling and other prohibited games of chance!M
:rdinances should not contravene a statue as municipal governments are only agents of the national government!
&ocal councils e+ercise only delegated powers conferred on them by %ongress as the national lawma;ing body!
The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or e+ercise powers higher than those of the latter!
The tests of a valid ordinance are well established! long line of decisions has held that to be valid, an ordinance
must conform to the following substantive requirementsA
') 5t must not contravene the constitution or any statute!
0) 5t must not be unfair or oppressive!
3) 5t must not be partial or discriminatory!
1) 5t must not prohibit but may regulate trade!
#) 5t must be general and consistent with public policy!
") 5t must not be unreasonable!
This basic relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not been enfeebled by
the new provisions in the %onstitution strengthening the policy of local autonomy! Jithout meaning to detract from
that policy, we here confirm that %ongress retains control of the local government units although in significantly
reduced degree now than under our previous %onstitutions! The power to create still includes the power to destroy!
The power to grant still includes the power to withhold or recall! True, there are certain notable innovations in the
%onstitution, li;e the direct conferment on the local government units of the power to ta+, '0 which cannot now be
withdrawn by mere statute! By and large, however, the national legislature is still the principal of the local
government units, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it!
The %ourt understands and admires the concern of the petitioners for the welfare of their constituents and their
apprehensions that the welfare of %agayan de :ro %ity will be endangered by the opening of the casino! Je share
the view that 7the hope of large or easy gain, obtained without special effort, turns the head of the wor;man7 '3 and
that 7habitual gambling is a cause of la4iness and ruin!7 '1 5n *eople v! Dorosti4a, '# we declaredA 7The social
scourge of gambling must be stamped out! The laws against gambling must be enforced to the limit!7 Deorge
Jashington called gambling 7the child of avarice, the brother of iniquity and the father of mischief!7 Nevertheless,
we must recogni4e the power of the legislature to decide, in its own wisdom, to legali4e certain forms of gambling,
as was done in *!2! ')"( and impliedly affirmed in the &ocal Dovernment %ode! That decision can be revo;ed by
this %ourt only if it contravenes the %onstitution as the touchstone of all official acts! Je do not find such
contravention here!
Je hold that the power of *D%:R to centrali4e and regulate all games of chance, including casinos on land and
sea within the territorial @urisdiction of the *hilippines, remains unimpaired! *!2! ')"( has not been modified by the
&ocal Dovernment %ode, which empowers the local government units to prevent or suppress only those forms of
gambling prohibited by law!
%asino gambling is authori4ed by *!2! ')"(! This decree has the status of a statute that cannot be amended or
nullified by a mere ordinance! -ence, it was not competent for the =angguniang *anlungsod of %agayan de :ro
%ity to enact :rdinance No! 33#3 prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of a casino and :rdinance No!
33$#3(3 prohibiting the operation of casinos! 6or all their praiseworthy motives, these ordinances are contrary to
*!2! ')"( and the public policy announced therein and are therefore ultra vires and void!
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. -427!' Octobe% 51& 1'6'
2USTA G. GU*#O& petitione%&
+s.
RURA- PROGRESS A#M*N*STRAT*ON& cJo .AUST*NO AGU*-AR& ManaCe%& Ru%al P%oC%ess A1$inist%ation&
%espon1ent.
6%T=A
This a petition for prohibition to prevent the Rural *rogress dministration and 8udge :scar %astelo of the %ourt
of 6irst 5nstance of Ri4al from proceeding with the e+propriation of the petitioner 8usta D! Duido<s land, two
ad@oining lots, part commercial, with a combined area of 00,"## square meters, situated in .aypa@o, %aloocan,
Ri4al, @ust outside the north .anila boundary, on the main street running from this city to the north! 6our grounds
are adduced in support of the petition, to witA
(') That the respondent R* (Rural *rogress dministration) acted without @urisdiction or corporate power in filling
the e+propriation complaint and has no authority to negotiate with the R6% a loan of *'//,/// to be used as part
payment of the value of the land!
(0) That the land sought to be e+propriated is commercial and therefore e+cluded within the purview of the
provisions of ct #3(!
(3) That ma@ority of the tenants have entered with the petitioner valid contracts for lease, or option to buy at an
agreed price, and e+propriation would impair those e+isting obligation of contract!
(1) That respondent 8udge erred in fi+ing the provisional value of the land at *''),$)/ only and in ordering its
delivery to the respondent R*!
,E-#3
Je will ta;e up only ground No! 0! :ur conclusion on this branch of the case will ma;e superfluous a decision on
the other questions raised!
=ections ' and 0 of %ommonwealth ct No! #3(, copied verbatim, are as followsA
=9%T5:N '! The *resident of the *hilippines is authori4ed to acquire private lands or any interest therein,
through purchaser or farms for resale at reasonable prices and under such conditions as he may fi+ to their bona
fide tenants or occupants or to private individuals who will wor; the lands themselves and who are qualified to
acquire and own lands in the *hilippines!
=9%! 0! The *resident may designated any department, bureau, office, or instrumentality of the National
Dovernment, or he may organi4e a new agency to carry out the ob@ectives of this ct! 6or this purpose, the agency
so created or designated shall be considered a public corporation!
The National ssembly approved this enactment on the authority of section 1 of rticle P555 of the
%onstitution which, copied verbatim, is as followsA
The %ongress may authori4e, upon payment of @ust compensation, the e+propriation of lands to be
subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to individuals!
Jhat lands does this provision have in viewS 2oes it comprehend all lands regardless of their location,
nature and areaS
The condemnation of a small property in behalf of '/, 0/ or #/ persons and their families does not inure to the
benefit of the public to a degree sufficient to give the use public character! The e+propriation proceedings at bar
have been instituted for the economic relief of a few families devoid of any consideration of public health, public
peace and order, or other public advantage! Jhat is proposed to be done is to ta;e plaintiff<s property, which for all
22
we ;now she acquired by sweat and sacrifice for her and her family<s security, and sell it at cost to a few lessees
who refuse to pay the stipulated rent or leave the premises!
No fi+ed line of demarcation between what ta;ing is for public use and what is not can be made? each case
has to be @udge according to its peculiar circumstances! 5t suffices to say for the purpose of this decision that the
case under consideration is far wanting in those elements which ma;e for public convenience or public use! 5t is
patterned upon an ideology far removed from that consecrated in our system of government and embraced by the
ma@ority of the citi4ens of this country! 5f upheld, this case would open the gates to more oppressive e+propriations!
5f this e+propriation be constitutional, we see no reason why a '/3, '#3, or 0#3hectare farm land might not be
e+propriated and subdivided, and sold to those who want to own a portion of it! To ma;e the analogy closer, we find
no reason why the Rural *rogress dministration could not ta;e by condemnation an urban lot containing an area
of ',/// or 0,/// square meters for subdivision into tiny lots for resale to its occupants or those who want to build
thereon!
The petition is granted without special findings as to costs!
23