BEL-AIR ASSOCIATION
V. IAC (1989)
Sarmiento, J.
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
Before the Court are six consolidated
petitions, docketed as G.R. nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, 82281 and 60727.
The first five petitions for a motion for reconsideration raise the issue of
whether Jupiter Street is for the exclusive use of Bel-Air Village residents.
Meanwhile, the last petition (G.R. 60727) raises the lone issue of whether or
not the Mayor of Makati could have validly opened Jupiter and Orbit Streets to
vehicular traffic.
Facts
·
Ayala Corporation (original owner of the
property subsequently subdivided as Bel-Air Village) executed a Deed of
Donation covering Jupiter and Orbit streets to Bel-Air Village Association
(BAVA).
·
Respondents allege that upon instructions
of the Mayor of Makati, studies were made by the on the feasibility of opening
streets in Bel-Air Village calculated to alleviate traffic congestions along
the public streets adjacent to Bel-Air Village.
o Accordingly,
it was deemed necessary by the Municipality of Makati in the interest of the
general public to open to traffic several village streets including Jupiter and
Orbit streets.
·
Respondent’s claim: BAVA had agreed to
the opening of Bel-Air Village streets and that the opening was demanded by
public necessity and in the exercise of police power.
·
Petitioner’s counter-argument: It has
never agreed on the opening of Jupiter and Orbit streets. By virtue of its
ownership of the streets, it should not be deprived without due process of law
and without just compensation.
ISSUES/HOLDING
a. W/N
the Mayor of Makati could have validly opened Jupiter and Orbit streets? – YES
b. If
yes, what is the nature of the state power being invoked by the Mayor? – POLICE POWER
RATIO
a. BAVA cannot rightfully complain that
the Mayor of Makati, in opening up Jupiter and Orbit streets, had acted
arbitrarily.
- Citing
Sangalang v. IAC, the Court held
that Jupiter street lies as the boundary between Bel-Air Village and Ayala
Corporation’s commercial section. Being considered as merely a boundary –
and hence not part of Ayala’s real estate development projects – it cannot be said to have been for
the exclusive benefit of Bel-Air Village residents.
- The
very Deed of Donation executed by Ayala Corp. covering Jupiter and Orbit
Streets, amongst others, effectively
required both passageways open to the general public.
o “…the
property will be used as a street for the use of the members of the DONEE
(BAVA), their families, personnel, guests, domestic help and under certain reasonable conditions and
restrictions, by the general public…”
- As
the Court asserted in Sangalang, the
opening of Jupiter and Orbit streets was warranted by the demands of the common good, in terms
of traffic decongestion and public convenience.
b. The act of the Mayor now challenged is
in the concept of police power.
o The
demolition of the gates at Orbit and Jupiter streets does not amount to
deprivation of property without due process of law or expropriation without
just compensation – there is no taking of property involved.
o Police power as
the “state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.”
o Even
liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act
accordingly to one’s will. It is subject to the far more overriding demands and
requirements of the greater number.
o Public
welfare when clashing with the individual right to property should not be made
to prevail through the state’s exercise of its police power.
o The
exercise of police power, however, may not be done arbitrarily or unreasonably.
But the burden of showing that it is
unjustified lies on the aggrieved party.
o In
the case at bar, BAVA has failed to show that the opening up of Orbit and
Jupiter streets was unjustified or that the Mayor acted unreasonably.
o The
fact that the opening has led to the loss of privacy of BAVA residents is no
argument against the Municipality’s effort to ease vehicular traffic in Makati.
The duty of local executive is to take care of the needs of the greater number,
in many cases at the expense, of the minority.
DISPOSITIVE:
Motion for reconsideration by Bel-Air Village Association is DENIED with
FINALITY. The petition in G.R. 60727 is GRANTED.
No comments:
Post a Comment