VILLACORTA VS?

BERNARDO

FACTS:
Ordinance 22 entiltled an ordinance regulating subdivision plans over
parcels of land in the city of Dagupan was enacted by the municipal board of
Dagupan City. The said ordinance was imposing additional requirments to that
of the national law Act 496. Ordinance 22 was annuled by the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals whose decision
reads as follows:
Section 1. Of said ordinance clearly conflicts with Section 44 of Act 496, the
latter law does not require subdivisionplans to be submitted to the City Engineer
before the same ordinance also contravenes the provisions of Section 44 of Act
496, the latter being silent on a service fee of PO.03 per square meter of every
lot subject of such subdivision application;
Section. 3 of the ordinance in question also conflicts with Section 44 of Act 496,
because the latter law does not mention of a certification to be made by the City
Engineer before the Register of Deeds allows registration of the subdivision plan;
plan and the last section of said ordinance imposes a penalty for its violation,
which Section 44 of Act 496 does not impose. In other words, ordinance 22 of
the City of Dagupan imposes upon a subdivision owner additional conditions.

ISSUE:
Where the decisions of the CFI and CA to anul the said ordinance was corrct?

HELD:
YES! to sustain the ordinance would be to open the floodgates to other
odinaces amending and so violating national laws in the guise of implementing
them. thus, Ordinances could be passed imposing additional requirements for the
issuance of marriage licenses, to prevent bigamy, the registration of vehicles,to
minimize carnaping, the execution of contracts, to forestall fraud, the validation
of passports, to deter imposture, the exercise of freedom of speech, to reduce
disorder, and so on. This advice is specially addressed to the local governments
which exercise the police power only by virtue of a valid delegation from the
national legislature under the general welfare clause. In the instant case,
Ordinace No.22 suffers from the addituinal defect of violating this authority for
legislation in contravention of the national law by adding to requirements

PEOPLE VS. FAJARDO

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 (Fajardos son-in-law) applied for a permit to
construct a building adjacent to their gas station, still on Fajardos private land,
separated from public plaza by a creek.
Jan. 16, 1954 request denied because it would destroy the view of the
public plaza. 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

---CA forwarded the case to the SC because the appeal attacks the
constitutionality of the ordinance in question.

ISSUE
Whether or Not Ordinance No. 7 is a valid exercise police power in its regulation
of property.

HELD:
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. Ordinance grants mayor arbitrary and unrestricted
power to grant/deny construction/repair permits?
Legislation may validly regulate property in the interest of general welfare.
A 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.
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 a
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 empowers municipal government to require construction/repair permits,
to charge fees for such permits
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.