G.R. No.

177056, September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA 617

Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), petitioner, v. Ayala Land, Respondents
Chico-Nazatio, J.

Facts:
 This case pertains to a petition for review filed OSG wanted the reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision,
which had affirmed RTC o ruling that Mall Operators were not obligated to provide free parking spaces in
their malls for their customers or the public in general.

 The OSG, invoking the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), argued that
these malls are required to provide free parking spaces to support public welfare and lessen traffic
congestion.

 In response, the SM Prime, filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief against concerned government officials. This
led to the consolidation of cases before the RTC.

RTC Ruling:
The RTC found that the National Building Code and the IRR do not explicitly mandate that parking spaces must
be provided free of charge.

It concluded that compelling mall owners to offer free parking could be seen as an unlawful taking of property
without just compensation, and dismissed the OSG's claims.

Court of Appeals Ruling:

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that the issue raised by the OSG was a question of law
not reviewable by the appellate court and affirmed the RTC's decision.

Issue on Police Power:

Whether or not the mandate for malls to offer free parking spaces falls under the state's police power to regulate
for public welfare.

Supreme Court Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court denied the OSG's Petition for Review on Certiorari, affirming the Decision of the Court of
Appeals and the RTC's Joint Decision.

The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of police power in conjunction with the principles of eminent domain.

The Supreme Court ruled that the relevant provisions of the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR), do not mandate that mall operators provide parking spaces free of charge.

It only sets minimum requirements for parking spaces based on the specific use or floor area of the building

The Supreme Court pointed out that if the law or its IRR does not expressly regulate parking fees, then such
regulation cannot be presumed.

Furthermore, the precedents case cited by OSG, Republic v. Gonzales and City of Ozamis v. Lumapas, have
substantial differences from the present case. They involve local governments regulating parking in streets, while
this case deals with privately owned parking facilities.
While the OSG invoked police power to justify regulation, the Court ruled that a total prohibition on collecting
parking fees amounted to a taking of property without just compensation, exceeding the bounds of police
power.

Hence, the Supreme Court found no legal basis to compel shopping mall operators to provide free parking
spaces under the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.

The Petition for Review on Certiorari was denied, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.

NOTES:

Petition for Declaratory Relief is a legal remedy where an individual or entity seeks the court's interpretation or
clarification of a law

Petition for Review is a procedural remedy where a party wants to challenge the decision of a lower court