Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 749 views

    Digest - Gancayco v. Quezon City

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Bernard Areño Marzan
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Quezon City ordinance requiring property owners to construct arcades along a certain road. The ordinance was a valid exercise of the city government's police power granted by law to promote public health, safety, and welfare. While property rights are protected, they must yield to valid exercises of police power enacted for the general welfare. The court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that the ordinance was constitutional but that the MMDA lacked authority to demolish parts of Justice Gancayco's building.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest - Gancayco v. Quezon City

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Bernard Areño Marzan
    749 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Quezon City ordinance requiring property owners to construct arcades along a certain road. The ordinance was a valid exercise of the city government's police power granted by law to promote public health, safety, and welfare. While property rights are protected, they must yield to valid exercises of police power enacted for the general welfare. The court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that the ordinance was constitutional but that the MMDA lacked authority to demolish parts of Justice Gancayco's building.

    Original Description:

    G.R. No. 177807 | October 11, 2011

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Quezon City ordinance requiring property owners to construct arcades along a certain road. The ordinance was a valid exercise of the city government's police power granted by law to promote public health, safety, and welfare. While property rights are protected, they must yield to valid exercises of police power enacted for the general welfare. The court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that the ordinance was constitutional but that the MMDA lacked authority to demolish parts of Justice Gancayco's building.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    749 views2 pages

    Digest - Gancayco v. Quezon City

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Bernard Areño Marzan
    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Quezon City ordinance requiring property owners to construct arcades along a certain road. The ordinance was a valid exercise of the city government's police power granted by law to promote public health, safety, and welfare. While property rights are protected, they must yield to valid exercises of police power enacted for the general welfare. The court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that the ordinance was constitutional but that the MMDA lacked authority to demolish parts of Justice Gancayco's building.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    University of San Agustin College of Law

    MARZAN 1-E

    Case Name Gancayco v. Quezon City


    Topic Police Power of the State
    Case No. |
    G.R. No. 177807 | October 11, 2011
    Date
    Ponente Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno
    The MMDA in 2003 had demolished part of retired Justice Gancayco’s building in Quezon
    Case City, citing an MMC Resolution in line with a Quezon City Ordinance. Justice Gancayco
    Summary challenged the constitutionality of the said Ordinance, which the Court upheld, stating that
    it is a valid exercise of the City Government’s police power expressly granted by law.
    Property rights must bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though
    Doctrine sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare. (from Carlos Sudperdrug v.
    DSWD, mentioned by ponente in this Decision)

    RELEVANT FACTS

     In the 1950s, retired Justice Emilio A. Gancayco bought a parcel of land located at 746 Epifanio delos
    Santos Avenue (EDSA), Quezon City with an area of 375 square meters.
     On 27 March 1956, the Quezon City Council issued Ordinance No. 2904, entitled “An Ordinance
    Requiring the Construction of Arcades, for Commercial Buildings to be Constructed in Zones
    Designated as Business Zones in the Zoning Plan of Quezon City, and Providing Penalties in
    Violation Thereof”, requiring property owners along EDSA, from north of Santolan to after Liberty
    Avenue, and from before Central Boulevard to the Botocan transmission line, to construct an arcade
    with a 4.5 meters wide and five meters high.
     The Ordinance requires that the arcade is to be created by constructing the wall of the ground floor
    facing the sidewalk a few meters away from the property line; it prohibits the building owner to
    construct his wall up to the edge of the property line, giving way to a space under the first floor, which
    in turn is relinquishment of the space as an arcade for the use of pedestrians.
     The Ordinance was amended several times:

    Ordinance Number Date Particular Amendment Formatted: Font: Bold


    Ordinance No. 60-4477 08 August 1960 Exempting the properties located on the boundary between Quezon
    Formatted: Font: Bold
    City and the Municipality of San Juan
    No date given Extending the exemption to commercial buildings from Balete Street to Formatted: Font: Bold
    Ordinance No. 60-4513
    Seattle Street
    Ordinance No. 6603 01 March 1966 Reduced the with of arcades for buildings along V. Luna Street to three
    meters.

     Justice Gancayco’s property fell under the exemptions provided by the amendments, and some time
    in 1965 sought for exemption, which was granted by the Quezon City Council through Resolution No.
    7161 series of 1966, subject to the condition that upon notice by the City Engineer, the owner shall,
    within reasonable time, demolish the enclosure of said arcade at his own expense when public
    interest so demands.
     In July 25, 20021, the Metro Manila Council (MMC), issued Resolution No. 02-28, authorizing the
    Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and local government units to “clear the sidewalks,
    streets, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks and other public places in Metro Manila of all illegal structures
    and obstructions.”

    1
    Metro Manila Council Resolution No. 02-28, 25 July 2002. http://www.mmda.gov.ph/index.php/13-legal-matters/mmc-
    resolutions/96-mmda-resolution-no-02-28 (last visited November 17, 2019).
    University of San Agustin College of Law
    MARZAN 1-E

     The MMDA began their clearing operations in March 2003, and on 28 April 2003 notified Justice
    Gancayco alleging that a portion of his building violated the National Building Code of the Philippines2,
    in relation to Ordinance No. 2904, giving him fifteen (15) days to clear that portion.
     Justice Gancacyco did not comply with the notice, and after the 15 days lapsed the MMDA proceeded
    to demolish the “wing walls” of the ground floor structure.
     The RTC ruled in favor of Judge Gancayco’s petition, rendering Ordinance No. 2904 unconstitutional,
    stating that the property was being taken without just compensation, thereby being confiscatory and
    oppressive.
     The Court of Appeals, however, upheld the Constitutionality of the Ordinance, stating that the said
    ordinance is a valid exercise of police power, but at the same time ruled that the MMDA did not have
    the power to demolish the Justice Gancayco’s property as the MMC Resolution was limited to
    “sidewalks, streets, avenues, alleys, bridges, parks and other public places in Metro Manila”.

    RATIO DECIDENDI

    Issue Ratio
    Constitutionality of  Congress expressly granted the City Government police power through the
    Ordinance No. 2904 Revised Charter of Quezon City3.
     The primary objectives of the city council of Quezon City when it issued the
    questioned ordinance ordering the construction of arcades were the health and
    safety of the city and its inhabitants; the promotion of their prosperity; and the
    improvement of their morals, peace, good order, comfort, and the
    convenience.
     The National Building Code, which was passed after the Ordinance, supports
    the purpose for the enactment of the Ordinance, particularly in Section 1004,
    which requires arcades to be constructed wherever existing or zoning
    ordinance requires it.

    RULING

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

    NOTES
     At the time of the passage of the Ordinance, there was no National Building Code, hence regulation
    on building construction was left to the discretion of the local governments.
     An arcade is defined as any portion of a building above the first floor projecting over the sidewalk
    beyond the first storey wall used as protection for pedestrians against rain or sun 4.
     In another issue in this case, Justice Gancayco had been estopped from challenging the
    constitutionality of the Ordinance because he had enjoyed the benefits of the exemption of his
    property.
     In this Decision, the Court found that the wing wall of Justice Gancayco is not a nuisance, contrary
    to the MMDA’s allegation, and added that only courts have the power to determine whether a thing
    is a nuisance.

    2
    Pres. Decree No. 1096. (1977)
    3
    Rep. Act No. 537 (1950)
    4
    Annex “A”, Pres. Decree No. 1096. (1977)

    You might also like