9/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 143

480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Villacorta vs. Bernardo

*
No. L-31249. August 19, 1986.

SALVADOR VILLACORTA as City Engineer of Dagupan

City, and JUAN S. CAGUIOA as Register of Deeds of
Dagupan City, petitioners, vs. GREGORIO BERNARDO
and HON. MACARIO OFILADA as Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan, respondents.

Political Law; Municipal Corporations; Ordinances; An

Ordinance which amends and violates national laws in the guise
of implementing them by imposing additional requirements would
be ultra vires.—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. Thus, ordinances could
be passed imposing additional requirements for the issuance of
marriage licenses, to prevent bigamy; the registration of vehicles,
to minimize carnapping; 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. The list is
endless, but the means, even if the end be valid, would be ultra
vires.
Same; Same; Same; Ordinance No. 22 of the Dagupan City
Municipal Board is null and void for Imposing additional
conditions upon subdivision owners before approval and
verification of the proposed subdivision plans by the Bureau of
Lands and/or the Land Registration Commission.—In declaring
the said ordinance null and void, the court a quo declared: “From
the above-recited requirements, there is no showing that would
justify the enactment of the questioned ordinance. Section 1 of
said ordinance clearly conflicts with Section 44 of Act 496,
because the latter law does not require subdivision plans to be
submitted to the City Engineer before the same is submitted for
approval to and verification by the General Land Registration
Office or by the Director of Lands as provided for in Section 58 of
said Act. Section 2 of the same ordinance also contravenes the
provisions of Section 44 of Act 496, the latter being silent on a
service fee of P0.03 per square meter of every lot subject of such

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165e340f74a0e538ba4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
9/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 143

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; and

________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

481

VOL. 143, AUGUST 19, 1986 481

Villacorta vs. Bernardo

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. 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 legislating in contravention of the national law
by adding to its requirements.

PETITION for certiorari to review the decision of the Court

of First Instance of Pangasinan.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Victor T. Llamas, Jr. for respondents.

CRUZ, J .:

This is a petition for certiorari against a decision of the

Court of First Instance of Pangasinan annulling an
ordinance adopted by the municipal board of Dagupan City.
The ordinance reads in full as follows:

“ORDINANCE 22

“AN ORDINANCE REGULATING SUBDIVISION PLANS OVER

PARCELS OF LAND IN THE CITY OF DAGUPAN.
“Be it ordained by the Municipal Board of Dagupan City in
session assembled:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165e340f74a0e538ba4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
9/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 143

“Section 1. Every proposed subdivision plan over any lot in the

City of Dagupan, shall, before the same is submitted for approval
and/or verification by the Bureau of Lands and/or the Land
Registration Commission, be previously submitted to the City
Engineer of the City who shall see to it that no encroachment is
made on any portion of the public domain, that the zoning
ordinance and all other pertinent rules and regulations are
observed.
“Section 2. As service fee thereof, an amount equivalent to
P0.30 per square meter of every lot resulting or will result from
such subdivision shall be charged by the City Engineer’s Office.
“Section 3. It shall be unlawful for the Register of Deeds of
Dagupan City to allow the registration of a subdivision plan
unless there is prior written certification issued by the City
Engineer that

482

482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Villacorta vs. Bernardo

such plan has already been submitted to his office and that the
same is in order.
“Section 4. Any violation of this ordinance shall be punished by
a fine not exceeding two hundred (P200.00) pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both in the
discretion of the judge.
“Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon
approval”

In declaring the said ordinance null and void, the court a

quo declared:

“From the above-recited requirements, there is no showing that

would justify the enactment of the questioned ordinance. Section
1 of said ordinance clearly conflicts with Section 44 of Act 496,
because the latter law does not require subdivision plans to be
submitted to the City Engineer before the same is submitted for
approval to and verification by the General Land Registration
Office or by the Director of Lands as provided for in Section 58 of
said Act. Section 2 of the same ordinance also contravenes the
provisions of Section 44 of Act 496, the latter being silent on a
service fee of P0.O3 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; and the last section of said ordinance imposes a
penalty for its violation, which Section 44 of Act 496 does not
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165e340f74a0e538ba4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
9/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 143

impose. In other words, Ordinance 22 of the City of Dagupan

imposes upon a subdivision owner additional conditions.
X      X      X      X
“The Court takes note of the laudable purpose of the ordinance
in bringing to a halt the surreptitious registration of lands
belonging to the government. But as already intimidated above,
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.”

We affirm. 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. Thus,
ordinances could be passed imposing additional
requirements for the issuance of marriage licenses, to
prevent bigamy; the registration of

483

VOL. 143, AUGUST 19, 1986 483

Villacorta vs. Bernardo

vehicles, to minimize carnapping; 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. The list is endless, but the
means, even if the end be valid, would be ultra vires.
So many excesses are attempted in the name of the
police power that it is time, we feel, for a brief admonition.
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.
In this prolix age, practically everything a person does
and owns affects the public interest directly or at least
vicariously, unavoidably drawing him within the embrace
of the police power. Increasingly, he is hemmed in by all
manner of statutory, administrative and municipal
requirements and restrictions that he may find officious
and even oppressive.
It is necessary to stress that unless the creeping
interference of the government in essentially private
matters is moderated, it is likely to destroy that prized and
peculiar virtue of the free society: individualism.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165e340f74a0e538ba4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
9/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 143

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

484

484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Hermosada

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.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court annulling
the challenged ordinance is AFFIRMED, without any
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera and

Paras, JJ., concur.

Decision affirmed.

Notes.—An ordinance intended solely to favor a person

or group of persons is null and void for being partial
(Sarmiento vs. Belderol 2 SCRA 477.)
Where the requirement, that an ordinance enacted by a
Municipal Council under the general welfare clause would
be to provide for the health and safety, promote the
prosperity, improve the morals, good order, comfort and
convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants
thereof, and for the protection of property therein, has not
been satisfied in the adoption of the ordinance, its validity

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165e340f74a0e538ba4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
9/17/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 143

cannot be sustained and upheld. (Pampanga Bus Company,

Inc. vs. Municipality of Tarlac, 3 SCRA 816.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165e340f74a0e538ba4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6