Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
_______________
* EN BANC.
142
143
144
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
145
ute was invalid. Their purpose is to give validity to acts done that
would have been invalid under existing laws, as if existing laws
have been complied with. Curative statutes, therefore, by their
very essence, are retroactive.”
Same; Where part of a statute is void as repugnant to the
Constitution, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if
susceptible to being separated from the invalid, may stand and be
enforced.―Sections 3.1 and 5 of Ordinance No. 192, as amended,
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
MENDOZA, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to set
aside the December 1, 2003 Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 75691.
The Facts
Respondents St. Scholastica’s College (SSC) and St.
Scholastica’s Academy-Marikina, Inc. (SSA-Marikina) are
educational institutions organized under the laws of the
Republic of
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 37-52. Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and
concurred in by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Associate
Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid.
146
_______________
2 Id., at pp. 37-38.
3 Id., at p. 38.
4 Id., at pp. 74-77.
5 Id., at pp. 78-79.
6 Id., at p. 80.
147
148
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
149
(2) Fences on the side and back yard – shall be in accordance with
the provisions of P.D. 1096 otherwise known as the National
Building Code.
Section 4. No fence of any kind shall be allowed in areas specifically
reserved or classified as parks.
Section 5. In no case shall walls and fences be built within the
five (5) meter parking area allowance located between the front
monument line and the building line of commercial and
industrial establishments and educational and religious
institutions.7
Section 6. Exemption.
(1) The Ordinance does not cover perimeter walls of residential
subdivisions.
(2) When public safety or public welfare requires, the Sangguniang
Bayan may allow the construction and/or maintenance of walls
higher than as prescribed herein and shall issue a special permit
or exemption.
Section 7. Transitory Provision.—Real property owners whose existing
fences and walls do not conform to the specifications herein are allowed
adequate period of time from the passage of this Ordinance within which
to conform, as follows:
(1) Residential houses – eight (8) years
(2) Commercial establishments – five (5) years
(3) Industrial establishments – three (3) years
(4) Educational institutions – five (5) years8
(public and privately owned)
Section 8. Penalty.—Walls found not conforming to the provisions of
this Ordinance shall be demolished by the municipal government at the
expense of the owner of the lot or structure.
Section 9. The Municipal Engineering Office is tasked to strictly
implement this ordinance, including the issuance of the necessary
_______________
7 Ordinance No. 200, Series of 1998, id.
8 Ordinance No. 217, Series of 1995, id., at p. 78.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
150
_______________
9 Id., at p. 39.
10 Id., at p. 85.
11 Id., at p. 39.
151
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 56-57.
13 Id., at p. 57.
14 Id., at pp. 39-40.
152
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 54-68. Penned by Judge Olga Palanca-Enriquez.
153
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
was valid and legal, and the ordinance did not refer to any
previous legislation that it sought to correct.
The RTC noted that the petitioners could still take
action to expropriate the subject property through eminent
domain.
The RTC, thus, disposed:
Ruling of the CA
In its December 1, 2003 Decision, the CA dismissed the
petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the RTC decision.
The CA reasoned out that the objectives stated in
Ordinance No. 192 did not justify the exercise of police
power, as it did not only seek to regulate, but also involved
the taking of the respondents’ property without due process
of law. The respondents were bound to lose an
unquantifiable sense of security, the beneficial use of their
structures, and a total of 3,762.36 square meters of
property. It, thus, ruled that the assailed ordinance could
not be upheld as valid as it clearly invaded the personal
and property rights of the respondents and “[f]or being
unreasonable, and undue restraint of trade.”17
_______________
16 Id., at p. 68.
17 Id., at p. 49.
154
_______________
18 Id., at pp. 51-52.
155
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT CITY
ORDINANCE NO. 192, SERIES OF 1994 IS NOT A VALID
EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER;
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
AFOREMENTIONED ORDINANCE IS AN EXERCISE OF
THE CITY OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN;
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE CITY
VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IN
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
_______________
19 Id., at p. 17.
20 Id., at pp. 182-188.
156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
_______________
21 Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Atienza, Jr., G.R. No. 156052,
February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 92, 136.
22 Sec. 16. General Welfare.―Every local government unit shall
exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its
efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial
jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among
other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health
and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology,
encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant
scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance
economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among
their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.
23 Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil. 956,
969; 329 SCRA 314, 325 (2000).
24 Rural Bank of Makati v. Municipality of Makati, G.R. No. 150763,
July 2, 2004, 433 SCRA 362, 371-372.
157
_______________
25 G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 416.
26 Id., at p. 433.
27 Id., at p. 437.
158
_______________
28 Supra note 21.
29 Id., at p. 138.
30 City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., 495 Phil. 289, 313; 455 SCRA 308, 332
(2005).
159
_______________
31 Rollo, p. 184.
160
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
the
_______________
32 Office of the Solicitor General v. Ayala Land, Incorporated, G.R. No.
177056, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA 617, 644-645.
33 People v. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 443, 447-448 (1958).
34 Rollo, pp. 190-310.
161
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
_______________
35 Peña v. Tolentino, G.R. Nos. 155227-28, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA
310, 324-325.
162
_______________
36 City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., supra note 30, at pp. 312-313; p. 332.
163
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
_______________
37 Gamboa v. Chan, G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012, 677 SCRA 385,
396, citing Morfe v. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415; 22 SCRA 424 (1968).
38 White Light Corporation v. City of Manila, supra note 19, at p. 441,
citing City of Manila v. Laguio, 495 Phil. 289; 455 SCRA 308 (2005).
39 Gamboa v. Chan, supra note 37, at pp. 397-398, citing Ople v.
Torres, 354 Phil. 948; 293 SCRA 141 (1998).
Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.
Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or
164
_______________
when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
x x x x x x x x x
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of
the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety, or public health as may be
provided by law.
x x x x x x x x x
Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
x x x x x x x x x
Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
40 Rollo, pp. 78-79.
165
_______________
41 Narzoles v. National Labor Relations Commission, 395 Phil. 758,
764-765; 341 SCRA 533, 538 (2000).
166
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/25
1/20/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 693
_______________
42 PKSMMN v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 147036-37, April 10,
2012, 669 SCRA 49, 74.
167
――o0o――
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fc279acba8451bd1f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/25