POLICE POWER

ORTIGAS & CO. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs. FEATI BANK AND TRUST CO.
G.R. No. L-24670 14 December 1979
FACTS:
Ortigas and Co. is engaged in real estate business developing and selling lots to the
public. It sold to Augusto Padilla and Natividad Angeles Lots Nos. 5 and 6, Block 31 of
the Highway Hills Subdivision, Mandaluyong by sale on instalments. The vendees then
transferred their rights and interests over the aforesaid lots in favour of one Emma
Chavez. The agreements of sale on instalment and the deeds of sale contained the
restriction that “The parcel of land subject of this deed of sale shall be used by the
Buyer exclusively for residential purposes, and she shall not be entitled to take or
remove soil, stones or gravel from it or any other lots belonging to the Seller.”
Feati Bank and Trust Co. later bought said lots from Emma Chavez in the name of
Republic Flour Mills. Ortigas and Co. claims that the restrictions were imposed as part
of its general building scheme designed for the beautification and development of the
Highway Hills Subdivision which forms part of its big landed estate. Feati Bank, on the
other hand, maintains that the area along the western part of EDSA from Shaw
Boulevard to Pasig River has been declared a commercial and industrial zone, per
Resolution No. 27 s-1960 of the Municipal Council of Mandaluyong, Rizal. Later on,
Feati Bank commenced construction on the said lots for a building devoted to banking
purposes. It refused to comply with the demands of Ortigas & Co. to stop the said
construction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Resolution No. 27 s-1960 can nullify or supersede the contractual
obligations assumed by the defendant.
RULING:
Yes. 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 of the general welfare of the people.” This general welfare clause
shall be liberally interpreted in case of doubt, so as to give more power to local
governments in promoting the economic conditions, social welfare and material
progress of the people in the community. The only exceptions under Section 12 of the
Local Autonomy Act (R.A. 2264) are existing vested rights arising out of a contract
between a province, city or municipality on one hand and a third party on the other
hand. Said case is not present in this petition.
Resolution No. 27 s-1960 declaring the western part of EDSA as an industrial and
commercial zone was passed 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.

Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman, et.al.

G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004
FACTS:
Respondents are graduates of Fatima College of Medicine. They passed the Physician
Licensure Examination conducted by the Board of Medicine. Petitioner Professional
Regulation Commission (PRC) then released their names as successful takers of the
examination. Later on, the Board noticed that the successful examined form Fatima
College in the two most difficult subjects in the licensure exam were unusually and
exceptionally high. A few of them even got 100% and 99% in those subjects. Many of
the passers got mote than 95% and no one got 90%. A comparison among the schools
was made and a statistical analysis was produced, stating that “there must be some
unusual reason creating the clustering of scores in the two subjects. It must be cause
strong enough to eliminate the normal variations that one should expect from the
examinees in terms of talent, effort, energy, etc.” The National Bureau of Investigation
concluded that the examinees of Fatima College gained early access to the test
questions. Respondents then filed before the trial court an action for mandamus
compelling petitioners to administer their physician’s oath to which the said court
granted. On appeal the appellate court affirmed the said decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial court’s judgement that
the respondents are entitled to a writ of mandamus.
RULING:
No. In the present case, the aforementioned guidelines are provided for in R.A. No.
2382, as amended, which prescribes the requirements for admission to the practice of
medicine, the qualifications of candidates for the board examinations, the scope and
conduct of the examination, the grounds for denying the issuance of a physician license,
or revoking a license that has been issued. To be granted the privilege to practice
medicine the applicant must show that he possesses all the qualifications and none of
the disqualifications. Furthermore, it must appear that he has fully complies with all the
conditions and requirements imposed by the law and the licensing authority. Should
doubt taint or mar the compliance as being less than satisfactory, then the privilege will
not issue. For said privilege is distinguishable from a matter of right, which may be
demanded if, denied. Thus, without a definite showing that the aforesaid requirements
and conditions have been satisfactorily met, the courts may not grant the writ of
mandamus to secure said privilege without thwarting the legislative will. The petition is
hereby granted.

ICHONG v. HERNANDEZ
G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957
FACTS:
Petitioner, also in behalf of other alien residents’ corporations and partnerships, brought
this action to obtain a judicial declaration that RA 1180 is unconstitutional. Petitioner
contends, among others, that said act violates the equal protection of laws and that it
violates the treaty of the Philippines with China. Solicitor General contends that the act
was a valid exercise of the police power and that not a single treaty was infringed by
said act.
ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 1180 violates the equal protection of laws
RULING:
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class
privilege, as well as hostile discrimination on the oppression of inequality. The real
question at hand is whether or not the exclusion of the future aliens for the retail trade
unreasonable. The equal protection clause “is not infringed by a specified class if it
applies to all persons within such class and reasonable grounds exist for making a
distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not”. Aliens are
under no special constitutional protection which forbids a classification otherwise
justified simply because the limitation of the class falls along the lines of nationality. The
difference in status between citizens and aliens constitute a basis for reasonable
classification in the exercise of police power.

POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

Manosca vs CA
GR No. 106440, January 29 1996
FACTS:
Petitioners inherited a piece of land when the parcel was ascertained by the NHI to
have been the birth site of Felix Y Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed
Resolution No 1 declaring the land to be a national historical landmark Petitioners
moved to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis that the intended expropriation was
not for a public purpose and, incidentally, that the act would constitute an application of
public funds, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a
religious entity, contrary to the provision of Section 29 2 Article VI, of the 1987
Constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the expropriation of the land whereat Manalo was born is valid and
constitutional
RULING:
Yes. The taking to be valid must be for public use There was a time when it was felt that
a literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement Whatever project is
undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks Otherwise,
expropriation is not allowable It is not so any more As long as the purpose of the taking
is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play As just noted, the
constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what public use is
One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to
individuals The other is the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and
other private enterprise to the government It is accurate to state then that at present
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement
of public use

Filstream International vs Court of Appeals

GR 125218, January 23, 1998
FACTS:
Filstream filed ejectment suit before MTC against occupants on the grounds of
termination of contact and non-payment of rentals MTC decided in favor of Filstream
This was appealed in RTC and CA and both upheld existing decision During the
pendency of ejectment proceedings, City of Manila approved Ordinance 7813
authorizing Mayor Lim to initiate the acquisition by negotiation, expropriation, purchase,
or other legal means certain parcels of land that covers properties of Filstream City of
Manila filed complaint for eminent domain to expropriate Filstream properties. Filstream
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for eminent domain as well as a motion to quash
the writ of possession on the ground of no valid cause of action, the petition does not
satisfy the requirements of public use and maneuver to circumvent the ejectment suit,
violation of the constitutional guarantee against non-impairment, price offered was too
low violating just compensation RTC denied the petition and declared the property
condemned in favor of City of Manila
ISSUE:
Whether or not Filstream was deprived of due process on the ground of non-compliance
with priority in expropriation?
RULING:
There is no dispute as to the existence of a final and executory judgment in favor of
petitioner Filstream ordering the ejectment of private respondents from the properties.
The City of Manila has an undeniable right to exercise its power of eminent domain
within its jurisdiction specifically in pursuit of its urban land reform and housing program
Very clear from the provisions are the limitations with respect to the order of priority in
acquiring private lands and in resorting to expropriation proceedings as a means to
acquire the same Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of
socialized housing In the same vein, expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to
only when the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted Compliance with these
conditions must be deemed mandatory because these are the only safeguards in
securing the right of owners of private property to due process when their property is
expropriated for public use.

National Power Corporation & Pobre v. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No 106804 August 12, 2004
FACT:
Mr. Pobre developed a property as a resort subdivision which he named Tiwi Hot Spring
Resort Subdivision. The said property was certified by commission on volcanology,
which have thermal mineral and steam beneath the property. NPC filed its Expropriation
case against Pobre to acquire an 8,311.60 sq meter. NPC dumped waste materials
beyond the site agreed upon and damages Pobre’s property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not NPC will compensate Pobre’s damaged property.
RULING:
Plaintiff was ordered by the court to pay unto the defendant amounting The sum of
THREE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED
FIFTY (P3,448,450.00) PESOS which is the fair market value of the subdivision of
defendant with an area of sixty eight thousand nine hundred sixty nine (68,969) square
meters, plus legal rate of interest per annum from September 6, 1979 until the whole
amount is paid, and upon payment thereof by the plaintiff the defendant is hereby
ordered to execute the necessary Deed of Conveyance or Absolute Sale of the property
in favor of the plaintiff. Under Article III sec. 9 “Private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation.
POWER OF TAXATION

The City of Manila v Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc.

G.R. No. 181845, August 4, 2009
FACTS:
Prior to February 25,2000 respondent’s paying City of Manila local business tax only
under Sec 14 of Tax Order 7794 being exempted from the business tax under Sec 21
Of the same tax ordinance. On February 25 2000 Tax ordinance 7988 approved
amending Section 14 of Tax Ordinance No 7794 by increasing the tax rate applicable to
certain establishments operating within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Manila.
Sec 21 by deleting the proviso found therein which stated that all registered businesses
in the City of Manila that are already paying the aforementioned tax shall be exempted
from payment thereof. On February 22, 2001 approved Tax Ordinance 8011 amending
Tax Ordinance 7988. later declared by SC Null and void before the court could declare
Tax Ordinances 7988 and 8011 null and void the City of Manila assessed the
respondents on the basis of Sec 21 of Tax Ordinance 7794 with deficiency local
businesses taxes penalties P 18 583 932 for the second and third quarter of year 2000
ISSUE:
Whether or not the enforcement of the latter section of the tax ordinance constitutes
double Taxation
RULING:
Using the aforementioned test, the Court finds that there is indeed double Taxation if
respondent is subjected to the taxes under Sections 14 and 21 of Tax Ordinance No
7794 Since, these are being imposed:
1. On the same subject matter
2. For the same purpose
3. By the same taxing authority
4. Within the same jurisdiction
5. For the same taxing period
6. Of the same kind or character
MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VS CA
GR NO. 155650, JULY 20, 2006
FACTS:
Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) is the operator of the Ninoy International
Airport located at Paranaque City. The Officers of Paranaque City sent notices to MIAA
due to real estate tax delinquency. MIAA then settled some of the amount. When MIAA
failed to settle the entire amount, the officers of Paranaque city threatened to levy and
subject to auction the land and buildings of MIAA, which they did. MIAA sought for a
Temporary Restraining Order from the CA but failed to do so within the 60 days
reglementary period, so the petition was dismissed. MIAA then sought for the TRO with
the Supreme Court a day before the public auction, MIAA was granted with the TRO but
unfortunately the TRO was received by the Paranaque City officers 3 hours after the
public auction. MIAA claims that although the charter provides that the title of the land
and building are with MIAA still the ownership is with the Republic of the Philippines.
MIAA also contends that it is an instrumentality of the government and as such
exempted from real estate tax. That the land and buildings of MIAA are of public
dominion therefore cannot be subjected to levy and auction sale. On the other hand, the
officers of Paranaque City claim that MIAA is a government owned and controlled
corporation therefore not exempted to real estate tax.
ISSUES:
Whether or not MIAA is an instrumentality of the government and not a government
owned and controlled corporation and as such exempted from tax.
Whether or not the land and buildings of MIAA are part of the public dominion and thus
cannot be the subject of levy and auction sale.
RULING:
Under the Local government code, government owned and controlled corporations are
not exempted from real estate tax. MIAA is not a government owned and controlled
corporation, for to become one MIAA should either be a stock or non-stock corporation.
MIAA is not a stock corporation for its capital is not divided into shares. It is not a non-
stock corporation since it has no members. MIAA is an instrumentality of the
government vested with corporate powers and government functions. Under the civil
code, property may either be under public dominion or private ownership. Those under
public dominion are owned by the State and are utilized for public use, public service
and for the development of national wealth. The ports included in the public dominion
pertain either to seaports or airports. When properties under public dominion cease to
be for public use and service, they form part of the patrimonial property of the State.
The court held that the land and buildings of MIAA are part of the public dominion. Since
the airport is devoted for public use, for the domestic and international travel and
transportation. Even if MIAA charge fees, this is for support of its operation and for
regulation and does not change the character of the land and buildings of MIAA as part
of the public dominion. As part of the public dominion the land and buildings of MIAA
are outside the commerce of man.