City of Quezon v Ericta

7/24/2019 City of Quezon v Ericta

1/4

G.R. No. L-34915 June 24, 1983

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEON CITY !n" CITY COUNCIL OF QUEON CITY, petitioners,vs.#ON. JU$GE VICENTE G. ERICT% !& Ju"'e o( )*e Cou+) o( F+&) In&)!ne o( R!/, Queon C)0, +!n* VIII#IML%Y%NG ILIINO, INC., respondents.

City Fiscal for petitioners.

Manuel Villaruel, Jr. and Feliciano Tumale for respondents.

GUTIERRE, JR., J.:

This is a petition for review which seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIIIdeclaring ection ! of "rdinance #o. $%%&, '$(, of the )uezon Cit* Council null and void.

ection ! of "rdinance #o. $%%&, '$(, entitled +"RI#-#C R/01-TI#/ T2 T-B1I23#T, 3-I#T#-#C-# "4R-TI"# "F 4RIV-T 33"RI-1 T54 C3TR5 "R B0RI-1 /R"0# 6IT2I# T2 70RIICTI"# "F)08"# CIT5 -# 4R"VII#/ 4#-1TI F"R T2 VI"1-TI"# T2R"F+ provides9

ec. !. -t least si: ;$< percent of the total area of the =e=orial park ce=eter* shall >e set aside forcharit* >urial of deceased persons who are paupers and have >een residents of )uezon Cit* for at least? *ears prior to their death, to >e deter=ined >* co=petent Cit* -uthorities. The area so designated shali==ediatel* >e developed and should >e open for operation not later than si: =onths fro= the date ofapproval of the application.

For several *ears, the afore@uoted section of the "rdinance was not enforced >* cit* authorities >ut seven *ears after theenact=ent of the ordinance, the )uezon Cit* Council passed the following resolution9

RESOLVED y t!e council of "ue#on assemled, to re@uest, as it does here>* re@uest the Cit* ngineer)uezon Cit*, to stop an* further selling andAor transaction of =e=orial park lots in )uezon Cit* where theowners thereof have failed to donate the re@uired $ space intended for paupers >urial.

4ursuant to this petition, the )uezon Cit* ngineer notified respondent 2i=la*ang 4ilipino, Inc. in writing that ection ! of"rdinance #o. $%%&, '$( would >e enforced

Respondent 2i=la*ang 4ilipino reacted >* filing with the Court of First Instance of Rizal Branch XVIII at )uezon Cit*, apetition for declarator* relief, prohi>ition and =anda=us with preli=inar* inunction ;p. 4roc. #o. )'%$DDE< seeking toannul ection ! of the "rdinance in @uestion The respondent alleged that the sa=e is contrar* to the Constitution, the)uezon Cit* Charter, the 1ocal -utono=* -ct, and the Revised -d=inistrative Code.

There >eing no issue of fact and the @uestions raised >eing purel* legal >oth petitioners and respondent agreed to therendition of a udg=ent on the pleadings. The respondent court, therefore, rendered the decision declaring ection ! of"rdinance #o. $%%&, '$( null and void.

- =otion for reconsideration having >een denied, the Cit* /overn=ent and Cit* Council filed the instant petition.

4etitioners argue that the taking of the respondents propert* is a valid and reasona>le e:ercise of police power and thatthe land is taken for a pu>lic use as it is intended for the >urial ground of paupers. The* further argue that the )uezon Cit*Council is authorized under its charter, in the e:ercise of local police power, + to =ake such further ordinances andresolutions not repugnant to law as =a* >e necessar* to carr* into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred>* this -ct and such as it shall dee= necessar* and proper to provide for the health and safet*, pro=ote the prosperit*i=prove the =orals, peace, good order, co=fort and convenience of the cit* and the inha>itants thereof, and for theprotection of propert* therein.+

"n the other hand, respondent 2i=la*ang 4ilipino, Inc. contends that the taking or confiscation of propert* is o>vious>ecause the @uestioned ordinance per=anentl* restricts the use of the propert* such that it cannot >e used for an*reasona>le purpose and deprives the owner of all >eneficial use of his propert*.

The respondent also stresses that the general welfare clause is not availa>le as a source of power for the taking of thepropert* in this case >ecause it refers to +the power of pro=oting the pu>lic welfare >* restraining and regulating the useof li>ert* and propert*.+ The respondent points out that if an owner is deprived of his propert* outright under the tatespolice power, the propert* is generall* not taken for pu>lic use >ut is urgentl* and su==aril* destro*ed in order topro=ote the general welfare. The respondent cites the case of a nuisance per se or the destruction of a house to preventthe spread of a conflagration.

6e find the stand of the private respondent as well as the decision of the respondent 7udge to >e well'founded. 6e @uotewith approval the lower courts ruling which declared null and void ection ! of the @uestioned cit* ordinance9


2/4

The issue is9 Is ection ! of the ordinance in @uestion a valid e:ercise of the police powerG

-n e:a=ination of the Charter of )uezon Cit* ;Rep. -ct #o. ?He ustified under the power granted to )uezon Cit* to ta:, fi: the license fee, and re$ulatesuchother >usiness, trades, and occupation as =a* >e esta>lished or practised in the Cit*. ;u>sections C,ec. %E, R.-. ?Hit ;4eople vs. sguerra, &% 4hi1 HH, Vega vs.3unicipal Board of Iloilo, 1'$$?, 3a* %E, %!?(J H! #.7. 1aw, D, 3ich. H!$ut alsoprohi>its the operation of a =e=orial park ce=eter*, >ecause under ection %H of said ordinance,Violation of the provision thereof is punisha>le with a fine andAor i=prison=ent and that upon convictionthereof the per=it to operate and =aintain a private ce=eter* shall >e revoked or cancelled. Theconfiscator* clause and the penal provision in effect deter one fro= operating a =e=orial park ce=eter*.#either can the ordinance in @uestion >e ustified under su>' section +t+, ection %E of Repu>lic -ct ?Hwhich authorizes the Cit* Council to'

prohi>it the >urial of the dead within the center of population of the cit* and provide fortheir >urial in such proper place and in such =anner as the council =a* deter=inesu>ect to the provisions of the general law regulating >urial grounds and ce=eteries andgoverning funerals and disposal of the dead. ;u>'sec. ;t* therespondents, donation

6e now co=e to the @uestion whether or not ection ! of the ordinance in @uestion is a valid e:ercise ofpolice power. The police power of )uezon Cit* is defined in su>'section DD, ec. %E, Rep. -ct ?H whichreads as follows9

;DD< To =ake such further ordinance and regulations not repugnant to law as =a* >enecessar* to carr* into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred >* this actand such as it shall dee= necessar* and proper to provide for the health and safet*,pro=ote, the prosperit*, i=prove the =orals, peace, good order, co=fort and convenienceof the cit* and the inha>itants thereof, and for the protection of propert* thereinJ andenforce o>edience thereto with such lawful fines or penalties as the Cit* Council =a*prescri>e under the provisions of su>section ;< of this section.

6e start the discussion with a restate=ent of certain >asic principles. "ccup*ing the forefront in the >ill ofrights is the provision which states that no person shall >e deprived of life, li>ert* or propert* without dueprocess of law ;-rt. Ill, ection % su>paragraph %, Constitution


3/4

The police power >eing the =ost active power of the govern=ent and the due process clause >eing the>roadest station on govern=ental power, the conflict >etween this power of govern=ent and the dueprocess clause of the Constitution is oftenti=es inevita>le.

It will >e seen fro= the foregoing authorities that police power is usuall* e:ercised in the for= of =ereregulation or restriction in the use of li>ert* or propert* for the pro=otion of the general welfare. It doesnot involve the taking or confiscation of propert* with the e:ception of a few cases where there is anecessit* to confiscate private propert* in order to destro* it for the purpose of protecting the peace andorder and of pro=oting the general welfare as for instance, the confiscation of an illegall* possessedarticle, such as opiu= and firear=s.

It see=s to the court that ection ! of "rdinance #o. $%%&, eries of %!$( of )uezon Cit* is not a =erepolice regulation >ut an outright confiscation. It deprives a person of his private propert* without dueprocess of law, na*, even without co=pensation.

In sustaining the decision of the respondent court, we are not un=indful of the heav* >urden shouldered >* whoeverchallenges the validit* of dul* enacted legislation whether national or local -s earl* as %!%H, this Court ruled in Case %&oard of 'ealt!;E( 4hi1 E?D< that the courts resolve ever* presu=ption in favor of validit* and, =ore so, where the =acorporation asserts that the ordinance was enacted to pro=ote the co==on good and general welfare.

In the leading case of Ermita(Malate 'otel and Motel Operators )ssociation *nc. %. City Mayor of Manila ;ED CR- &(!the Court speaking through the then -ssociate 7ustice and now Chief 7ustice nri@ue 3. Fernando stated

4ri=aril* what calls for a reversal of such a decision is the a of an* evidence to offset the presu=ption ofvalidit* that attaches to a statute or ordinance. -s was e:pressed categoricall* >* 7ustice 3alcol= The

presu=ption is all in favor of validit*. ... The action of the elected representatives of the people cannot >elightl* set aside. The councilors =ust, in the ver* nature of things, >e fa=iliar with the necessities of theirparticular ... =unicipalit* and with all the facts and lances which surround the su>ect and necessitateaction. The local legislative >od*, >* enacting the ordinance, has in effect given notice that the regulationsare essential to the well'>eing of the people. ... The 7udiciar* should not lightl* set aside legislative actionwhen there is not a clear invasion of personal or propert* rights under the guise of police regulation. ;0.v. alaveria ;%!%&K, H! 4hil. %DE, at p. %%%. There was an affir=ation of the presu=ption of validit* of=unicipal ordinance as announced in the leading alaveria decision in >ona v. aet, L%!?DK&? 4hilH$!.*virtue of its police power, =a* adopt ordinances to the peace, safet*, health, =orals and the >est andhighest interests of the =unicipalit*. It is a well'settled principle, growing out of the nature of well'orderedand societ*, that ever* holder of propert*, however a>solute and =a* >e his title, holds it under thei=plied lia>ilit* that his use of it shall not >e inurious to the e@ual eno*=ent of others having an e@ualright to the eno*=ent of their propert*, nor inurious to the rights of the co==unit*. -n propert* in thestate is held su>ect to its general regulations, which are necessar* to the co==on good and generawelfare. Rights of propert*, like all other social and conventional rights, are su>ect to such reasona>leli=itations in their eno*=ent as shall prevent the= fro= >eing inurious, and to such reasona>le restraintsand regulations, esta>lished >* law, as the legislature, under the governing and controlling power vestedin the= >* the constitution, =a* think necessar* and e:pedient. The state, under the police power, ispossessed with plenar* power to deal with all =atters relating to the general health, =orals, and safet* ofthe people, so long as it does not contravene an* positive inhi>ition of the organic law and providing thatsuch power is not e:ercised in such a =anner as to ustif* the interference of the courts to preventpositive wrong and oppression.

>ut find the= not applica>le to the facts of this case.There is no reasona>le relation >etween the setting aside of at least si: ;$< percent of the total area of an privatece=eteries for charit* >urial grounds of deceased paupers and the pro=otion of health, =orals, good order, safet*, or thegeneral welfare of the people. The ordinance is actuall* a taking without co=pensation of a certain area fro= a privatece=eter* to >enefit paupers who are charges of the =unicipal corporation. Instead of >uilding or =aintaining a pu>licce=eter* for this purpose, the cit* passes the >urden to private ce=eteries.

The e:propriation without co=pensation of a portion of private ce=eteries is not covered >* ection %E;t< of Repu>lic -ct?H, the Revised Charter of )uezon Cit* which e=powers the cit* council to prohi>it the >urial of the dead within thecenter of population of the cit* and to provide for their >urial in a proper place su>ect to the provisions of general lawregulating >urial grounds and ce=eteries. 6hen the 1ocal /overn=ent Code, Batas 4a=>ansa Blg. HH provides inection % ;@< that a angguniang panlungsod =a* +provide for the >urial of the dead in such place and in such =anneras prescri>ed >* law or ordinance+ it si=pl* authorizes the cit* to provide its own cit* owned land or to >u* or e:propriate


4/4

private properties to construct pu>lic ce=eteries. This has >een the law and practise in the past. It continues to thepresent. :propriation, however, re@uires pa*=ent of ust co=pensation. The @uestioned ordinance is different fro= lawsand regulations re@uiring owners of su>divisions to set aside certain areas for streets, parks, pla*grounds, and otherpu>lic facilities fro= the land the* sell to >u*ers of su>division lots. The necessities of pu>lic safet*, health, andconvenience are ver* clear fro= said re@uire=ents which are intended to insure the develop=ent of co==unities withsalu>rious and wholeso=e environ=ents. The >eneficiaries of the regulation, in turn, are =ade to pa* >* the su>divisiondeveloper when individual lots are sold to ho=e'owners.

-s a =atter of fact, the petitioners rel* solel* on the general welfare clause or on i=plied powers of the =unicipacorporation, not on an* e:press provision of law as statutor* >asis of their e:ercise of power. The clause has alwa*s

received >road and li>eral interpretation >ut we cannot stretch it to cover this particular taking. 3oreover, the @uestionedordinance was passed after 2i=la*ang 4ilipino, Inc. had incorporated. received necessar* licenses and per=its andco==enced operating. The se@uestration of si: percent of the ce=eter* cannot even >e considered as having >eeni=pliedl* acknowledged >* the private respondent when it accepted the per=its to co==ence operations.

62RF"R, the petition for review is here>* I3I. The decision of the respondent court is affir=ed.

" "RR.

Tee!an+ee C!airman-, Melencio('errera, lana, Vas/ue# and Relo%a, JJ., concur.

Documents

City of Quezon v Ericta