Ortigas & Co. vs Feati Bank & Trust Co.
results in the surrounding industrial and commercial
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 it’s 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
establishments.
Decision dismissing the complaint of Ortigas is
AFFIRMED.
Facts:
Plaintiff is engaged in real estate business, developing
and selling lots to the public, particularly the Highway
Hills Subdivision along EDSA. On March 4, 1952,
plaintiff, as vendor, and Augusto Padilla and Natividad
Angeles, as vendees, entered into separate
agreements of sale on installments over two parcels of
land of the Subdivision. On July 19, 1962, the said
vendees transferred their rights and interests over the
aforesaid lots in favor of one Emma Chavez. Upon
completion of payment of the purchase price, the
plaintiff executed the corresponding deeds of sale in
favor of Emma Chavez. Both the agreements (of sale on
installment) and the deeds of sale contained the
stipulations or restrictions that:
1. The parcel of land shall be used exclusively for
residential purposes, and she shall not be entitled to
take or remove soil, stones or gravel from it or any
other lots belonging to the Seller.
2. All buildings and other improvements (except the
fence) which may be constructed at any time in said lot
must be, (a) of strong materials and properly painted,
(b) provided with modern sanitary installations
connected either to the public sewer or to an approved
septic tank, and (c) shall not be at a distance of less
than two (2) meters from its boundary lines.
Eventually said lots were bought by defendant. Lot 5
directly from Chavez and Lot 6 from Republic Flour
Mills by deed of exchange, with same restrictions.
Plaintiff claims that restriction is for the beautification
of the subdivision. Defendant claimed of the
commercialization of western part of EDSA. Defendant
began constructing a commercial bank building.
Plaintiff demand to stop it, which forced him to file a
case, which was later dismissed, upholding police
power. Motion for recon was denied, hence the
appeal.
Issue:
Whether or Not non-impairment clause violated.
Held:
No. Resolution is a valid exercise of police power. EDSA,
a main traffic artery which runs through several cities
and municipalities in the Metro Manila area, supports
an endless stream of traffic and the resulting activity,
noise and pollution are hardly conducive to the health,
safety or welfare of the residents in its route. Health,
safety, peace, good order and general welfare of the
people in the locality are justifications for this. It should
be stressed, that while non-impairment of contracts is
constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not absolute,
since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate
exercise of police power.
Ganzon v Inserto
FACTS:
Petitioner Rodolfo Ganzon executed a deed of absolute
sale of a parcel of land in favor of private respondents.
Several months later, a deed of real estate mortgage
was executed between the same parties to secure the
payment by the private respondents of a promissory
not in favor of petitioner. Private respondents filed a
civil action against petitioners after Ganzon initiated
extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the said mortgage.
Respondent judge ordered the substitution of the
mortgage lien with a surety bond.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the order of respondent judge violates
the non-impairment clause of the Constitution.
ISSUE:
Should an incorporated foundation (serving indigent
litigants) be exempted from paying docket fees?
RULING:
NO. The Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., being a
corporation invested by the State with a juridical
personality separate and distinct from that of its
members, is a juridical person. Among others, it has the
power to acquire and possess property of all kinds as
well as incur obligations and bring civil or criminal
actions, in conformity with the laws and regulations of
their organization. As a juridical person, therefore, it
cannot be accorded the exemption from legal and filing
fees granted to indigent litigants.
There are other reasons that warrant the rejection of
the request for exemption in favor of a juridical person.
For one, extending the exemption to a juridical person
on the ground that it works for indigent and
underprivileged people may be prone to abuse (even
with the imposition of rigid documentation
requirements), particularly by corporations and
entities bent on circumventing the rule on payment of
the fees. Also, the scrutiny of compliance with the
documentation requirements may prove too time-
consuming and wasteful for the courts.

RULING:

YES. Substitution of the mortgage with a surety bond

to ensure the payment of a loan would in effect change
the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract.
Even before trial on the very issues affecting the
contract, the respondent court has directed a deviation
from its terms, diminished its efficiency and dispensed
with a primary condition.

Instant petition si GRANTED. Orders of the trial court

are SET ASIDE.

RE: Query of Mr. Prioreschi Re Exemption from Legal

and Filing Fees of the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc.

FACTS:

In his letter dated May 22, 2009 addressed to the Chief

Justice, Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi, administrator of the
Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., wrote that it be
granted the same exemption from paying docket fees
as that of poor litigants.