[Digest] People vs. Fajardo (1958)

PEOPLE V. FAJARDO (1958)

 Reyes, J.B.L.

Facts

 Aug. 15, 1950 - Juan Fajardo was the mayor of Baoo, Camarines Sur. During his term the municipal council passed Ordinance No. 7 which prohibited the construction or repair of any building without a written permit from the mayor prior to construction or repairing.

1954 - Fajardo and Babillonia (Fajardo’s son-in-law) applied for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gas station, still on Fajardo’s private land, separated from public plaza by a creek.

 Jan. 16, 1954 – request denied because it would destroy the view of the public plaza.
o    Applicants appealed but were turned down again on Jan. 18, 1954.

 Fajardo and Babillonia proceeded to construct even without a permit because they claimed that they needed a residence badly due to a typhoon destroying their previous place of residence

Feb. 26, 1954 – Fajardo et at., were charged and convicted by peace court of Baoo for violating Ordinance no. 7

o    CFI – Affirmed

o    CA forwarded the case to the SC because “the appeal attacks the constitutionality of the ordinance in question.”

Issue/Held: W/N Ordinance No. 7 is a valid exercise police power in its regulation of property.

NO. Ordinance No. 7 went beyond the authority that the municipality could enact and is therefore null and void. Fajardo et al., acquitted.

Ratio:

•      The ordinance is not merely lacking in providing standards to guide and/or control the discretion vested by the ordinance. STANDARDS ARE ENTIRELY LACKING IN THIS CASE.

o    Ordinance grants mayor arbitrary and unrestricted power to grant/deny construction/repair permits

•         Legislation may validly regulate property in the interest of general welfare

à Prohibition of offensive structures. HOWEVER, ‘the state may not under the guise of police power 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.’

o    IN THIS CASE: Structures regardless of their own beauty and regardless of the fact that they are built on private land are condemned by the ordinance à appellants constrained would be constrained to leave their land to idle without receiving just compensation for the virtual confiscation of their private land

•      Municipal government justified the ordinance under Revised Administrative Code – Sec. 2243 – C – that municipal council shall have authority to exercise discretionary powers regarding establishing fire limits in populous centers à empowers municipal government to require construction/repair permits, to charge fees for such permits

o    IN THIS CASE: there were no fire limits or safety regulations that the municipal council promulgated in order to set a standard in the type of building that can be safely constructed in the public plaza.