G.R. No. L-12172
August 29, 1958
Facts
Fajardo is a former mayor. During his incumbency, the municipal council passed Ordinance No. 7 which which requires that any person who will construct or repair a building should, before constructing or repairing, obtain a written permit from the Municipal Mayor. Such non-compliance will result to a violation and a fine imposed upon the violator. The ordinance also states that, “If said building destroys the view of the Public Plaza or occupies any public property, it shall be removed at the expense of the owner of the building or house.”
After Fajardo’s term ended, he filed a request for a building permit to construct a house near a gas station along the national highway and also near the public plaza. The request was denied for the reason that it would destroy the view of the plaza. Despite refusal, Fajardo proceeded w/ the construction as he needed a home badly. Fajardo was charged for violation of the ordinance. Hence, this petition attacking the constitutionality of the said ordinance.
Issue
Whether or not the ordinance in question is constitutional?
Held
No. A regulation which substantially deprives an owner of all beneficial use of his property is confiscation and is a deprivation within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. While a property may be regulated in the interest of general welfare, 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, the ordinance permanently deprives appellant of the right to use their own property, oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a taking of appellants property without just compensation. As the case now stands, every structure that may be erected on appellants’ land, regardless of its own beauty, stands condemned under the ordinance in question, because it would interfere with the view of the public plaza from the highway. The appellants would, in effect, be constrained to let their land remain idle and unused for the obvious purpose for which it is best suited, being urban in character.
Hence, ordinance is unconstitutional.