Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Resolution No.27, S-1960 declaring the western part of EDSA from Shaw Boulevard to the Pasig River as an
industrial or commercial zone was passed by the Municipal Council of Mandaluyong in the exercise of police
power to safeguard/promote the health, safety, peace, good order and general welfare of the people in the
locality. Judicial notice may be taken of the conditions prevailing in the area, especially where Lots Nos. 5 and
6 are located. EDSA supports an endless stream of traffic and the resulting activity, noise and pollution which
are hardly conducive to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in its route. The Municipality of
Mandaluyong was reasonably justified under the circumstances in passing the subject resolution.
Thus, the state, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and
with business and occupations. Persons may be subjected to all kinds of restraint and burdens, in order to
secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state, and to this fundamental aim of the Government,
the rights of the individual are subordinated.
Case Digest: Ortigas & Co. vs Feati Bank & Trust Co.
Facts:
On March 4, 1952, Ortigas sold Lot 5 and 6, Block 31 of the Highway Hills Subdivision at Mandaluyong to
Augusto Padilla y Angeles and Natividad Angeles. The latter transferred their rights in favour of Emma
Chavez, upon completion of payment a deed was executed with stipulations, one of which is that the use of the
lots are to be exclusive for residential purposes only. This was annotated in the Transfer Certificate of Titles
No. 101509 and 101511. Feati then acquired Lot 5 directly from Emma Chavez and Lot 6 from Republic Flour
Mills. On May 5, 1963, Feati started construction of a building on both lots to be devoted for banking purposes
but could also be for residential use. Ortigas sent a written demand to stop construction but Feati continued
contending that the building was being constructed according to the zoning regulations as stated in Municipal
Resolution 27 declaring the area along the West part of EDSA to be a commercial and industrial zone. Civil
case No. 7706 was made and decided in favour of Feati.
Issue:
Whether or not Resolution number 27 declaring Lot 5 and 6 to be part of an industrial and commercial zone is
valid considering the contract stipulation in the Transfer Certificate of Titles.
Held:
Resolution No. 27 prevails over the contract stipulations. Section 3 of RA 2264 of the Local Autonomy Act
empowers a Municipal Council to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations for the Municipality.
Section 12 or RA 2264 states that implied power of the municipality should be liberally construed in its
favour, to give more power to the local government in promoting economic conditions, social welfare, and
material progress in the community. This is found in the General Welfare Clause of the said act. Although
non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not absolute since it has to be reconciled with
the legitimate exercise of police power, e.g. the power to promote health, morals, peace, education, good order
or safety and general welfare of the people. Resolution No. 27 was obviously passed in exercise of police
power to safeguard health, safety, peace and order and the general welfare of the people in the locality as it
would not be a conducive residential area considering the amount of traffic, pollution, and noise which results
in the surrounding industrial and commercial establishments.