PEOPLE VS. FAJARDO
Facts:
The municipal council of baao, camarines sur stating among others that
construction of a building, which will destroy the view of the plaza, shall not
be allowed and therefore be destroyed at the expense of the owner, enacted an
ordinance. Herein appellant filed a written request with the incumbent
municipal mayor for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gasoline
station on a parcel of land registered in Fajardo's name, located along the
national highway and separated from the public plaza by a creek. The request
was denied, for the reason among others that the proposed building would
destroy the view or beauty of the public plaza. Defendants reiterated their
request for a building permit, but again the mayor turned down the request.
Whereupon, 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. Thereafter, defendants were charged in violation of
the ordinance and subsequently convicted. Hence this appeal.
Issue:Whether or Not the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power.
Held:
No. It is not a valid exercise of police power. 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 appellant’s property without
just compensation. We do not overlook that the modern tendency is to regard the
beautification of neighborhoods as conducive to the comfort and happiness of
residents.
As the case now stands,
every structure that may be erected on appellants' land, regardless of its own
beauty, stands condemned under the ordinance in question, because it would
interfere with the view of the public plaza from the highway. The appellants
would, in effect, be constrained to let their land remain idle and unused for
the obvious purpose for which it is best suited, being urban in character. To
legally achieve that result, the municipality must give appellants just compensation
and an opportunity to be heard.
