PEOPLE v FAJARDO

G.R. No. L-12172

August 29, 1958

FACTS
During the incumbency of defendant-appellant Juan F. Fajardo as mayor of the municipality of
Baao, Camarines Sur, the municipal council passed an ordinance. Its Section 1 provided as
follows “Any person or persons who will construct or repair a building should, before
construction or repairing, obtain a written permit from the Municipal Mayor”. Four years later,
after his term, he and his son-in-law filed a written request with the incumbent municipal mayor
for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gasoline station, on their land, located along
the national highway and separated from the public plaza by a creek. The request was ultimately
denied even after reiterating their request. Regardless, they still proceeded with the construction
as they were badly in need due to their former house having been destroyed by a typhoon. They
were charged and convicted for violation of the ordinance and affirmed by the Court of First
Instance upon appeal claiming that the building destroys the view of the public plaza of Baao, in
that “it hinders the view of travelers from the National Highway to the said plaza. The accused
appealed to the CA which was forwarded to the CA.

ISSUE
WON the ordinance as an exercise of police power by means of eminent domain is valid.

RULING
NO, the ordinance is unconstitutional. The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that it
operates to permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property; hence, it
oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a taking of appellants property without just
compensation. While property may be regulated in the interest of the general welfare, and in its
pursuit, the State may prohibit structures offensive to the sight, the 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. 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. 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. To legally achieve that result, the municipality must give appellants just compensation
and an opportunity to be heard. An ordinance which permanently so restricts the use of property
that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose goes, it is plain, beyond regulation and must be
recognized as a taking of property.