PEOPLE V. FAJARDO - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Kenzo
PEOPLE V. FAJARDO                         G.R. No. L-12172; August 29, 1958

FACTS:

Fajardo and Babilonia (son-in law) are charged with violation of Ordinance 7 Series of 1950 of the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur which penalizes a person who constructs a building without permit from the mayor.

After his incumbency, Fajardo applied for a permit to build a building beside the gasoline station near the town plaza. His request was repeatedly denied due to the reason that it hinders the view of travelers from the National Highway to the public plaza.

Appellants proceeded with the construction of the building without a permit, because they needed a place of residence very badly, their former house having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been living on leased property.

Appellants were charged and convicted by peace court of Baoo for violating such ordinance.

ISSUE:

WON Ordinance No. 7 is a valid exercise police power in its regulation of property.

HELD:

NO. The ordinance doesnt state any standard that limits the grant of power to the mayor. It is an arbitrary and unlimited conferment.

The subject ordinance fails to state any policy, or to set up any standard to guide or limit the mayors action. The standards of the ordinance are entirely lacking making it unreasonable and oppressive, hence, not a valid ordinance. While property may be regulated to the interest of the general welfare, and the state may eliminate structures offensive to the sight, the state may not permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community.

Fajardo would be constrained to let the land be fallow and not be used for urban purposes. To do this legally, there must be just compensation and they must be given an opportunity to be heard.

An ordinance which permanently so restricts the use of property that it can not be used for any reasonable purpose goes, it is plain, beyond regulation and must be recognized as a taking of the property.

Hence, the conviction of herein appellants is reversed, and said accused are acquitted, with costs de oficio. 

Post a Comment

Cookie Consent
We serve cookies on this site to analyze traffic, remember your preferences, and optimize your experience.
Oops!
It seems there is something wrong with your internet connection. Please connect to the internet and start browsing again.
AdBlock Detected!
We have detected that you are using adblocking plugin in your browser.
The revenue we earn by the advertisements is used to manage this website, we request you to whitelist our website in your adblocking plugin.
Site is Blocked
Sorry! This site is not available in your country.