People v Fajardo G.R. No.

L-12172 August 29, 1958

J. B. L . Reyes

Facts:
Fajardo was mayor in Baao, Camrines Sur when the municipal council
passed the ordinance that prohibits the construction of a building that
blocks the view of the town plaza. Moreover, it redirects the grant of
permission to 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. He continued with the construction under the rationale
that he needed a house to stay in because the old one was destroyed by a
typhoon.
He was convicted and ordered to pay a fine and demolish the building due
to its obstructing view.
He appealed to the CA, which in turn forwarded the petition due to the
question of the ordinances constitutionality.

Issue: Is the ordinance constitutional?

Held: No, petition granted.

Ratio:
The ordinance doesnt state any standard that limits the grant of power to
the mayor. It is an arbitrary and unlimited conferment.
Ordinances which thus invest a city council with a discretion which is
purely arbitrary, and which may be exercised in the interest of a favored
few, are unreasonable and invalid. The ordinance should have established
a rule by which its impartial enforcement could be secured. All of the
authorities cited above sustain this conclusion.
The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that it operates to
permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property;
hence, it oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a taking of
appellants property without just compensation.
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.
The validity was also refuted by the Administrative Code which states:
SEC. 2243. Certain legislative powers of discretionary character. The
municipal council shall have authority to exercise the following
discretionary powers:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) To establish fire limits in populous centers, prescribe the kinds of
buildings that may be constructed or repaired within them, and issue
permits for the creation or repair thereof, charging a fee which shall be
determined by the municipal council and which shall not be less than two
pesos for each building permit and one peso for each repair permit issued.
The fees collected under the provisions of this subsection shall accrue to
the municipal school fund.
Since, there was absolutely no showing in this case that the municipal
council had either established fire limits within the municipality or set
standards for the kind or kinds of buildings to be constructed or repaired
within them before it passed the ordinance in question, it is clear that said
ordinance was not conceived and promulgated under the express
authority of sec. 2243 (c)