People vs.

Fajardo [GR L-12172, 29 August 1958]

En Banc, Reyes JBL (J): 9 concur
Facts:
On 15 August 1950, during the incumbency of Juan F. Fajardo as mayor of themunicipality of
Baao, Camarines Sur, the municipal council passed Ordinance 7, series of 1950,providing that
any person or persons who will construct or repair a building should, beforeconstructing or
repairing, obtain a written permit from the Municipal Mayor, that a fee of notless than P2.00
should be charged for each building permit and P1.00 for each repair permitissued, and that
any violation of the provisions of the ordinance shall make the violator liable topay a fine of
not less than P25 nor more than P50 or imprisonment of not less than 12 days normore than 24
days or both, at the discretion of the court; and that if said building destroys theview of the
Public Plaza or occupies any public property, it shall be removed at the expense of the owner
of the building or house. 4 years later, after the term of Fajardo as mayor had expired,he and
his son-in-law, Pedro Babilonia, filed a written request with the incumbent municipalmayor for
a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gasoline station on a parcel of landregistered
in Fajardos name, located along the national highway and separated from the publicplaza by a
creek. On 16 January 1954, the request was denied, for the reason among others thatthe
proposed building would destroy the view or beauty of the public plaza. On 18 January
1954,Fajardo and Babilonia reiterated their request for a building permit, but again the request
wasturned down by the mayor. Whereupon, Fajardo and Babilonia proceeded with the
construction of the building without a permit, because they needed a place of residence very
badly, their formerhouse having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been living
on leased property.On 26 February 1954, Fajardo and Babilonia were charged before and
convicted by the justice of the peace court of Baao, Camarines Sur, for violation of Ordinance
7. Fajardo and Babiloniaappealed to the Court of First Instance (CDI), which affirmed the
conviction, and sentenced bothto pay a fine of P35 each and the costs, as well as to demolish
the building in question because itdestroys the view of the public plaza of Baao. From this
decision, Fajardo and Babilonia appealedto the Court of Appeals, but the latter forwarded the
records to the Supreme Court because theappeal attacks the constitutionality of the ordinance
in question.
Issue:
Whether the refusal of the Mayor of Baao to issue a building permit on the ground that
theproposed building would destroy the view of the public plaza is an undue deprivation of the
useof the property in question, and thus a taking without due compensation.
Held:
The refusal of the Mayor of Baao to issue a building permit to Fajardo and Babilonia
waspredicated on the ground that the proposed building would destroy the view of the public
plazaby preventing its being seen from the public highway. Even thus interpreted, the
ordinance isunreasonable and oppressive, in that it operates to permanently deprive the latter
of the rightto use their own property; hence, it oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to
ataking of the property without just compensation. But while property may be regulated in theinterest
of the general welfare such as to regard the beautification of neighborhoods asconducive to the
comfort and happiness of residents), and in its pursuit, the State may prohibitstructures offensive to
the sight, the State may not, under the guise of police power, permanentlydivest owners of the
beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely topreserve or assure the
aesthetic appearance of the community. As the case now stands, everystructure that may be erected
on Fajardos land, regardless of its own beauty, stands condemnedunder the ordinance in question,
because it would interfere with the view of the public plaza fromthe highway. Fajardo would, in effect,
be constrained to let their land remain idle and unused forthe obvious purpose for which it is best
suited, being urban in character. To legally achieve thatresult, the municipality must give Fajardo just
compensation and an opportunity to be heard.