Source: Supreme Court E-Library
This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)
CARPIO, J.:
11.5 C-1 LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL ZONESOn 27 January 1998, the United BF Homeowners' Associations, Inc. (UBFHAI),[7] several homeowners' associations, and residents of BF Homes Parañaque (collectively petitioners) filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition with an application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of Sections 11.5, 11.6, 15,[8] 17,[9] and 19.6[10] of Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08.
x x x x
BARANGAY BF HOMES
Lot deep both side[s] along Aguirre Avenue from Governor A. Santos Street eastward to Gng. Elsie Gatches Street
Lot deep both side[s] along El Grande Avenue from Lopez Avenue gate southward to corner Aguirre Avenue
x x x x
11.6 C-2 MAJOR COMMERCIAL ZONES
x x x x
BARANGAY BF HOMES
Lot deep both side[s] along Aguirre Avenue from Dallas to El Grande Avenue
Lot deep both side[s] along Aguirre Avenue from El Grande Avenue to Gov. A. Santos Street
BF Parañaque Commercial Plaza
Area bounded on theNorth - Pres. Quezon Street
South - A. Aguirre Avenue
East - President's Avenue
West - MMP, Creek along BF Homeowner's Association clubhouse
Lot deep east side along President's Avenue from Mac Donald southward to M. Rufino Street
Area bounded on theNorth - A. Aguirre Avenue
South - A. Soriano Sr. & M. Rufino Street
East - President's Avenue
West - Gng. Elsie Ga[t]ches Street
x x x x[6]
The declaration of El Grande and Aguirre Avenues as commercial zones through Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08 is an exercise of police power.
Obviously, because of the rapid and tremendous increase in population, the needs of the homeowners in the BF Parañaque Subdivision grew. The commercial zones in the area proved inadequate to service the needs of its residents. There was therefore a need to open more commercial districts. In fact, records show that several homeowners along El Grande and Aguirre Avenues converted their residences into business establishments. El Acto's members are among them.
Aside from the increasing number of commercial establishments therein, judicial notice may be taken of the fact that El Grande and Aguirre Avenues are main thoroughfares of BF Homes Parañaque which have long been commercialized. The local government therefore responded to these changes in the community by enacting Ordinance No. 97-08 x x x.[12]
The resolution of these issues turns on the validity of Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08.
- Whether R.A. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991 has repealed PD 957, the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer's Protective Decree;
- Whether the power of local government units to enact comprehensive zoning ordinances has legal limitations;
- Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08 is a legitimate exercise of police power;
- Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08 is constitutional considering that it impairs a contractual obligation annotated in homeowners' titles and violates the doctrine of separation of powers;
- Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08 is enforceable pending review by the MMDA, the Metro Manila Mayor's Council and the HLURB.[13]
(2) Generate and maximize the use of resources and revenues for the development plans, program objectives and priorities of the municipality as provided for under Section 18 of this Code with particular attention to agro-industrial development and countryside growth and progress, and relative thereto, shall:On the other hand, Executive Order No. 72 provides:
x x x x(vii) Adopt a comprehensive land use plan for the municipality: Provided, That the formulation, adoption, or modification of said plan shall be in coordination with the approved provincial comprehensive land use plan;
(viii) Reclassify land within the jurisdiction of the municipality subject to the pertinent provision of this Code;
(ix) Enact integrated zoning ordinances in consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations; establish fire limits or zones, particularly in populous centers; and regulate the construction, repair or modification of buildings within aid fire limits or zones in accordance with the provisions of the Fire Code; (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 1. Plan formulation or updating. - (a) Cities and municipalities shall continue to formulate or update their respective comprehensive land use plans, in conformity with the land use planning and zoning standards and guidelines prescribed by the HLURB pursuant to national policies.Under Section 3(m), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, there is a presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that public officers performed their official duties regularly and legally and in compliance with applicable laws, in good faith, and in the exercise of sound judgment.[15]
As a policy recommending body of the LGU, the city or municipal development council (CDC/MDC) shall initiate the formulation or updating of its land use plan, in consultation with the concerned sectors in the community. For this purpose, the CDC/MDC may seek the assistance of any local official or field officer of NGA's operation in the LGU.
The city or municipal planning and development coordinator (CPDC/MPDC) and/or the city or municipal agriculturist, if there is any, shall provide the technical support services and such other assistance as may be required by the CDC/MDC to effectively carry out this function.
The comprehensive land use plan prepared by the CDC/MDC shall be submitted to the sangguniang panglungsod or sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, for enactment into a zoning ordinance. Such ordinance shall be enacted and approved in accordance with Articles 107 and 108 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the LGC.
(b) The comprehensive land use plans of component cities and municipalities shall be formulated, adopted, or modified in accordance with the approved provincial comprehensive land use plans.
(c) Cities and municipalities of metropolitan Manila shall continue to formulate or update their respective comprehensive land use plans, in accordance with the land use planning and zoning standards and guidelines prescribed by the HLURB pursuant to EO 392, S. of 1990, and other pertinent national policies.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Subject to the approval of BF Homes, Inc., the Local Zoning Official/Planning Officer of Parañaque and the Metro Manila Commission and in recognition of the fact that the subdivision has tremendously grown in size and population since 1983 when the above-mentioned guidelines of the MMC [Ordinance 81-01] were promulgated, such that one commercial zone for the entire subdivision is now inadequate vis-a-vis the needs of the residents, the UBFHAI is proposing another commercial zone in Phase III of the Subdivision, in the vicinity of the Parish of the Presentation of the Child Jesus as follows:Thus, UBFHAI's proposed new commercial area, encompassing El Grande and Aguirre Avenues, is substantially the same area, which Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08 later reclassified as a commercial zone.One lot deep along Aguirre Avenue from Gov. Santos St., to the end of Aguirre Avenue and two lots deep along El Grande from where it intersects Aguirre Avenue.Pending approval of the aforesaid proposal, commercial buildings constructed and existing in the aforesaid area will be given temporary-use permits good for five (5) years from December 31, 1986 or until December 31, 1991, after which, the same must revert to residential status, unless, in the meantime the proposal is approved, provided all such buildings must comply with the set-back and parking provision of the Metro Manila Commission Ordinance 81-01; I.M. 09-83.
x x x x
The term for temporary use permits of the designated commercial area shall be considered extended for 8 years from December 31, 1991 to December 31, 1998; without prejudice to the official conversion of the area under existing MMA/LGC guidelines to commercial.[18] (Emphasis supplied)
With regard to the contention that said resolution cannot nullify the contractual obligations assumed by the defendant-appellee-referring to the restrictions incorporated in the deeds of sale and later in the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title issued to defendant-appellee-it should be stressed, that while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power, i.e., "the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people." Invariably described as "the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers" and "in a sense, the greatest and most powerful attribute of government," the exercise of the power may be judicially inquired into and corrected only if it is capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, there having been a denial of due process or a violation of any other applicable constitutional guarantee. As this Court held through Justice Jose P. Bengzon in Philippine Long Distance Company v. City of Davao, et al., police power "is elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions; it is not confined within narrow circumscriptions of precedents resting on past conditions; it must follow the legal progress of a democratic way of life." We were even more emphatic in Vda. De Genuino v. The Court of Agrarian Relations, et al., when We declared: "We do not see why the 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."Likewise, in Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court,[32] the Court upheld Metro Manila Commission Ordinance No. 81-01, which reclassified Jupiter Street in Makati into a high-density commercial zone, as a legitimate exercise of police power. The Court held that the power of the Metro Manila Commission and the Makati Municipal Council to enact zoning ordinances for the general welfare prevails over the deed restrictions on the lot owners in Bel-Air Village which restricted the use of the lots for residential purposes only. The Court held:
Resolution No. 27. s-1960 declaring the western part of Highway 54, now E. de los Santos Avenue (EDSA, for short) from Shaw Boulevard to the Pasig River as an industrial and commercial zone, was obviously passed by the Municipal Council of Mandaluyong, Rizal in the exercise of police power to safeguard or promote the health, safety, peace, good order and general welfare of the people in the locality. Judicial notice may be taken of the conditions prevailing in the area, especially where Lots Nos. 5 and 6 are located. The lots themselves not only front the highway; industrial and commercial complexes have flourished about the place. EDSA, a main traffic artery which runs through several cities and municipalities in the Metro Manila area, supports an endless stream of traffic and the resulting activity, noise and pollution are hardly conducive to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in its route. Having been expressly granted the power to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations, the municipality of Mandaluyong, through its Municipal Council, was reasonably, if not perfectly, justified under the circumstances, in passing the subject resolution.[31] (Emphasis supplied)
It is not that we are saying that restrictive easements, especially the easements herein in question, are invalid or ineffective. As far as the Bel-Air subdivision itself is concerned, certainly, they are valid and enforceable. But they are, like all contracts, subject to the overriding demands, needs, and interests of the greater number as the State may determine in the legitimate exercise of police power. Our jurisdiction guarantees sanctity of contract and is said to be the "law between the contracting parties," but while it is so, it cannot contravene "law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy." Above all, it cannot be raised as a deterrent to police power, designed precisely to promote health, safety, peace, and enhance the common good, at the expense of contractual rights, whenever necessary. x x x[33] (Emphasis supplied)Similarly, in this case, Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08 is a legitimate exercise of police power and the reclassification of El Grande and Aguirre Avenues in BF Homes Parañaque is not arbitrary or unreasonable.
[9] Section 17. CERTIFICATE OF NON-CONFORMANCE
- That the zone or area in which the property subject of the application is located, or the area within the immediate vicinity, or a radius of five (5) kilometers from such property, is not yet built up or being developed according to the original ordinance, or no noticeable and desirable dominant trend has been observed in the area for a reasonable period or at least two (2) years; for the purposes of this condition, non-built up area is one where the dominant use is less than 40% of the area;
- That the proposed project shall not in any way pose danger or hazard to the health and safety of its environment and surrounding neighborhood;
- That the return on investment is capable of achievement within the maximum period allowed for temporary uses by its ordinance;
- That the proposed activity shall be subject to the requirements of initial environmental examination and environmental impact assessment;
- That the permit shall be granted on an annual basis, and may be renewed from year to year upon satisfactory showing that compliance with all the conditions imposed by this ordinance and the permit, for a maximum period of five (5) years;
- That the proponent shall submit a monthly report of the progress of its operations; and
- That the proponent shall relocate the project facilities and equipment to another site at his own cost in the event that the Municipal Council finds that its continued existence is undesirable wherein the relocation shall take place upon the expiration of the permit, such other period stated in the notice of the relocation which must be given not earlier than 6 months nor later than 3 months before the expiration of the permit.