Political Law: 1987 Philippine Constitution
Topic: Inherent Powers of the State
Sangalang v Intermediate Appellate Court and Ayala
Corporation
G.R. No. 71169, Dec 22, 1988
Ponente: Justice Sarmiento
Facts:
 Jose and Lutgarda Sanggalang, and other
petitioners are residents of Jupiter St,
Makati, Metro Manila.
 They initially filed a case to enforce by
specific performance restrictive easement
upon property, Bel-Air Village in Makati,
pursuant to stipulations embodied in the
deeds of sale covering the subdivision, and
for damages.
 The lots acquired by the appellees are sold
by MDC subject to certain conditions and
easements contained in Deed of Restrictions
which formed part of each deed of sale.
 The commercial block, between Buendia
Ave and Jupiter St, was still undeveloped
when MDC sold the lots to the appellees.
Although not part of the original plan, MDC
built a wall along the commercial block.
 In 1975, Makati Municipal Council enacted
an ordinance providing for the zonification of
Makati. BAV was classified as Class A
residential zone.
 Prior to the enactment of the ordinance, a
gate was installed by BAVA at strategic
locations across Jupiter Street which were
manned and operated by its own security
guards who employed to maintain,
supervise, and enforce traffic regulations in
the roads and streets of the village.
 In 1977, Office of the City Mayor directed
BAVA, in the interest of public welfare and
for the purpose of easing traffic congestion,
the streets in Bel-Air should be open for
public use. All streets were voluntarily
opened except Jupiter Street.
 The Municipal Engineer of Makati wrote a
letter to BAVA to advise the latter to open for
vehicular and pedestrian traffic the entire
portion of Jupiter St from Makati Ave to
Reposo St. The municipal officials of Makati
concerned allegedly opened, destroyed and
removed the gates constructed/located at
the corner of Reposo Street and Jupiter
Street as well as the gates/fences
located/constructed at Jupiter Street and
Makati Avenue forcibly, and then opened the
entire length of Jupiter Street to public traffic.
 The petitioners brought the present action for
damages against the respondent, Ayala
Corporation predicated on both breach of
contract and on tort or quasi-delict.
 The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of
the petitioners and awarded damages.
Respondent was also ordered to restore the
wall in its original position at its own
expense.
 On appeal, CA reversed the decision on the
ground that the decision appealed from as
not supported by the facts and the law on the
matter SET ASIDE and another one entered
dismissing the case for lack of cause of
action.
Hence, this Petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the exercise of police power
is valid
Ruling/s:
 YES
 While non-impairment of contracts is
constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not
absolute, since it must 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.
 Undoubtedly, MMC Ordinance represents a
legitimate exercise of police power. The
petitioners have not shown why we should
hold otherwise other than for the supposed
"non-impairment" guaranty of the
Constitution, which, as we have declared, is
secondary to the more compelling interests
of general welfare. The Ordinance has not
been shown to be capricious or arbitrary or
unreasonable to warrant the reversal of the
judgments so appealed. In that connection,
we find no reversible error to have been
committed by the Court of Appeals.
Therefore, the Court, speaking thru Justice
Sarmiento, ruled to deny the petition with no
pronouncement as to costs.