FERNANDO et al, vs. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE
G.R. No. 161107, Case Digest September 12, 2020
Facts:
Respondent SSC is the owner of four (4) parcels of land measuring a total of 56,306.80 square meters, located in Marikina Heights and covered by Transfer Certificate Title (TCT) No. 91537. Located within the property are SSA-Marikina, the residence of the sisters of the Benedictine Order, the formation house of the novices, and the retirement house for the elderly sisters. The property is enclosed by a tall concrete perimeter fence built some thirty (30) years ago. Abutting the fence along the West Drive are buildings, facilities, and other improvements.3
The petitioners are the officials of the City Government of Marikina. On September 30, 1994, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Marikina City enacted Ordinance No. 192,4 entitled “Regulating the Construction of Fences and Walls in the Municipality of Marikina.
On April 2, 2000, the City Government of Marikina sent a letter to the respondents ordering them to demolish and replace the fence of their Marikina property to make it 80% see-thru, and, at the same time, to move it back about six (6) meters to provide parking space for vehicles to park
The respondents asserted that the implementation of the ordinance on their property would be tantamount to an appropriation of property without due process of law; and that the petitioners could only appropriate a portion of their property through eminent domain.
The RTC rendered a Decision,15 dated October 2, 2002, granting the petition and ordering the issuance of a writ of prohibition commanding the petitioners to permanently desist from enforcing or implementing Ordinance No. 192 on the respondents’ property.
In its December 1, 2003 Decision, the CA dismissed the petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the RTC decision. The CA reasoned out that the objectives stated in Ordinance No. 192 did not justify the exercise of police power, as it did not only seek to regulate, but also involved the taking of the respondents’ property without due process of law
Issue:
Whether Sections 3.1 and 5 of Ordinance No. 192 are valid exercises of police power by the City Government of Marikina.
Held:
No, because the enforcement of Sect.3.1 and 5 would result in an undue interference with the respondents’ right to property and privacy.
Ordinance No. 192 was passed by the City Council of Marikina in the apparent exercise of its police power. “Police power is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people.” The State, through the legislature, has delegated the exercise of police power to local government units, as agencies of the State. This delegation of police power is embodied in Section 16 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), known as the General Welfare Clause.
Hence, Sect.3.1 and 5 of Ordinance No. 192 are not valid exercise of police power.
Real LexEcon 