Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY demolition to Justice Gancayco alleging that a portion of his building
violated the National Building Code of the Philippines in relation to
G.R. NO. 177807 | OCTOBER 11, 2011 Ordinance No. 2904. He did not comply with the notice. The MMDA
then proceeded to demolish the party wall of the ground floor
structure. The City Government of Quezon City claimed that the
Facts: ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, regulating the use of
property in a business zone. Justice Gancayco filed a Petition with
Retired Justice Emilio A. Gancayco bought a parcel of land prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
located EDSA, Quezon City. A few years later, the Quezon City injunction. The RTC ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
Council issued Ordinance No. 2904, entitled "An Ordinance The Court of Appeals reversed the RTCs decision and ruled that the
Requiring the Construction of Arcades, for Commercial Buildings to ordinance was a valid exercise of the right of the local government
be Constructed in Zones Designated as Business Zones in the Zoning unit to promote the general welfare of its constituents pursuant to its
Plan of Quezon City, and Providing Penalties in Violation Thereof. It police powers.
required the relevant property owner to construct an arcade along
EDSA. An arcade is defined as any portion of a building above the Issue:
first floor projecting over the sidewalk beyond the first storey wall
used as protection for pedestrians against rain or sun. It bears emphasis Whether Ordinance No. 2094 is a valid exercise of police
that at the time Ordinance No. 2904 was passed by the city council, power.
there was yet no building code passed by the national legislature. Thus,
the regulation of the construction of buildings was left to the discretion Held:
of local government units. Under this particular ordinance, the city
council required that the arcade is to be created by constructing the Yes, it is a valid delegation of Police Power
wall of the ground floor facing the sidewalk a few meters away from
the property line. Thus, the building owner is not allowed to construct Ratio:
his wall up to the edge of the property line, thereby creating a space or
shelter under the first floor. In effect, property owners relinquish the Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has
use of the space for use as an arcade for pedestrians, instead of using been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature
it for their own purposes. The ordinance covered the property of to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and
Justice Gancayco. Subsequently, Justice Gancayco sought the reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or
exemption of a two-storey building being constructed on his property without, not repugnant to theConstitution, as they shall judge to be for
from the application of Ordinance No. 2904 that he be exempted from the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the
constructing an arcade on his property. The City Council acted same. The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive,
favorably on Justice Gancaycos request "subject to the condition that reaching and justifying measures for publichealth, public safety,
upon notice by the City Engineer, the owner shall, within reasonable public morals, and the general welfare. In the exercise of police power,
time, demolish the enclosure of said arcade at his own expense when property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and
public interest so demands. "The MMDA then sent a notice of burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government. For this
reason, when the conditions so demand as determined by the HON. FERNANDO vs. ST. SCHOLASTICA’S COLLEGE
legislature, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power G.R NO. 161107, MARCH 12, 2013
because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield
to general welfare. Police power as an attribute to promote the
common good would be diluted considerably if on the mere plea of FACTS:
petitioners that they will suffer loss of earnings and capital, the
questioned provision is invalidated. Moreover, in the absence of Respondent’s St. Scholastica’s College (SSC) and St.
evidence demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect of the Scholastica’s Academy-Marikina, Inc. (SSA-Marikina) are
provision in question, there is no basis for its nullification in view of educational institutions organized under the laws of the Republic of
the presumption of validity which every law has in its favor. It is clear the Philippines, with principal offices and business addresses at Leon
that the primary objectives of the city council of Quezon City when it Guinto Street, Malate, Manila, and at West Drive, Marikina Heights,
issued the questioned ordinance ordering the construction of arcades Marikina City, respectively. Respondent SSC is the owner of four (4)
were the health and safety of the city and its inhabitants; the promotion parcels of land measuring a total of 56, 306. 80 square meters, located
of their prosperity; and the improvement of their morals, peace, good in Marikina Heights and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
order, comfort, and the convenience. At the time that the ordinance (TCT) No. 91537. Located within the property are SSA-Marikina, the
was passed, there was no national building code enforced to guide the residence of the sisters of Benedictine Order, the formation house of
city council; thus, there was no law of national application that the novices, and the retirement house for the elderly sisters. The
prohibited the city council from regulating the construction of property enclosed by a tall concrete perimeter fence built some thirty
buildings, arcades and sidewalks in their jurisdiction. (30) years ago. Abutting the fence along the West Drive are buildings,
facilities and other improvements.
On September 30, 1994, the Sangguniang Panglungsod
of Marikina City enacted Ordinance No. 192 entitled “Regulating the
Construction of Fences and Walls in The Municipality of Marikina.
Sections 3.1 and 5 of the ordinance are pertinent to the issue at hand,
to wit: