You are on page 1of 1

The Office of the Solicitor General, petitioner

vs. Ayala Land Incorporated, Robinsons Land Corporation, Shangri-La-Plaza

Corporation and SM Prime Holdings, respondents.
Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal and setting
aside of the decision of the court of appeals which affirmed the decision of the
Makati RTC in two civil cases and the resolution of the appellate court in the same
case which denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the OSG.
Respondents herein are operators of shopping malls in various locations in Metro
Manila that have parking facilities (inside the main buildings, in separate buildings
and/or in adjacent lots solely provided for parking use). The respondents are also
the one which maintains the parking spaces and in turn, they collect parking fees
subject to their imposed parking rates.
The Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce and on Justice and Human
Rights conducted a joint investigation to inquire on the legality of the parking fees
and to find out the basis and reasonableness of the parking rates. More
importantly, to determine the legality of the policy of the shopping malls denying
liability in cases of theft, robbery or carnapping by invoking the waiver clause at the
back of the parking tickets.
After the public hearings, the Senate Committees jointly concluded that the
collection parking fee is contrary to the National Building Code and that the
reasonable interpretation of the code is that the parking spaces are for free; thus,
the Committee recommended that the Office of the Solicitor General should

institute the necessary action to enjoin the collection of parking fees as well as to
enforce the penal sanctions of the National Building Code.
Two civil cases arise and by being of the same subject matter, the RTC Makati
issued an order to consolidate the cases. The court ruled that the respondents are
not obligated to provide parking spaces that are free of charge, compelling them to
do so would be an unlawful taking of property right without just compensation. The
petitioners sought for relief by filing a Motion for Reconsideration in the Court of
Appeals but the appellate court denied the appeal and affirmed the joint decision
by the RTC.
Hence, this present petition with a single assignment of error that the Court of
Appeals erred in affirming the ruling of the lower court.
Issue: Whether or not the property right of the respondents can be taken so as to
provide free parking spaces for the general public welfare.
Held: The court affirmed the previous decision that the respondents are not
obliged to provide free parking spaces. There is no pertaining provision in the
National Building Code that expressly provides the same. The law is clear and
unequivocal that it needs no further interpretation, it only provides for
measurement requirements of the parking spaces. The OSG cannot rely on their
invoked provisions; they even failed to consider the substantial differences and
legal backgrounds on the jurisprudence they are insisting.
Wherefore, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Previous ruling AFFIRMED. No