Salvador Villacorta, et al. vs Gregorio Bernardo, et al.

GR No. L-31249, 19 August 1986

Cruz, J.

Facts:
 The case involves the annulment of Ordinance 22, regulating subdivision plans over
parcels of land in Dagupan, adopted by Municipal Board of Dagupan City.
 CFI Pangasinan held that there is no showing that would justify the enactment of the
questioned ordinance. It imposes additional conditions to subdivision owners
 Section 1 of which clearly conflicts with Sec 44 of Act 496 because the latter law
does not require subdivision plans to be submitted to the City Engineer before it be
submitted for approval to and verification by General Land Registration Office or
by Director of Lands as provided for in Sec 58 of said act.
 Section 2 also contravenes the provisions of Sec 44 of Act 496, the latter being silent
on a service fee of P0.03/sqm of every lot subject of application
 Section 3 also conflicts with Sec 44 because latter law does not mention a
certification to be made by the City Engineer before the Register of Deeds allows
registration of subdivision plan and
 The penalty provision for violation is also not provided for in Section 44 of Act 496
 Petitioners filed present petition for certiorari against a decision of CFI Pangasinan
annulling Ordinance 22.

Issue:
WON Ordinance 22 is null and void

Held:
Yes

Ratio:
 The powers of the board in enacting such a laudable ordinance cannot be held valid
when it shall impede the exercise of rights granted in a general law and/or make a
general law subordinated to a local ordinance
 To sustain the ordinance would be to open the floodgates to other ordinances
amending and so violating national laws in the guise of implementing them.
 Regulation is a fact of life in any well-ordered community. As society becomes more
and more complex, the police power becomes correspondingly ubiquitous. This has to
be so for the individual must subordinate his interests to the common good, on the time-
honored justification of Salus populi est suprema lex (Welfare of the people is supreme
law).
 Every member of society, while paying proper deference to the general welfare, must
not be deprived of the right to be left alone or, in the idiom of the day, "to do his thing."
As long as he does not prejudice others, his freedom as an individual must not be
unduly curtailed.
 We therefore urge that proper care attend the exercise of the police power lest it
deteriorate into an unreasonable intrusion into the purely private affairs of the
individual. The so-called "general welfare" is too amorphous and convenient an excuse
for official arbitrariness.
 Let it always be remembered that in the truly democratic state, protecting the rights of
the individual is as important as, if not more so than, protecting the rights of the public.
 This advice is especially 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, Ordinance No. 22 suffers from the
additional defect of violating this authority for legislation in contravention of the
national law by adding to its requirements.