People vs. Juan Fajardo

PEOPLE VS.
JUAN FAJARDO
Facts:
On 15 August 1950, during the incumbency of Juan F. Fajardo as mayor of the municipality of Baao,
Camarines Sur, the municipal council passed Ordinance 7, series of 1950,providing that “any person or
persons who will construct or repair a building should, before constructing or repairing, obtain a written
permit from the Municipal Mayor,” that “a fee of not less than P2.00 should be charged for each
building permit and P1.00 for each repair permit issued,” and that any violation of the provisions of the
ordinance shall make the violator liable to pay a fine of not less than P25 nor more than P50 or
imprisonment of not less than 12 days nor more than 24 days or both, at the discretion of the court; and
that if said building destroys theview of the Public Plaza or occupies any public property, it shall be
removed at the expense of the owner of the building or house. 4 years later, after the term of Fajardo as
mayor had expired,he and his son-in-law, Pedro Babilonia, filed a written request with the incumbent
municipalmayor for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gasoline station on a parcel of
landregistered in Fajardo’s name, located along the national highway and separated from the
publicplaza by a creek. On 16 January 1954, the request was denied, for the reason among others
thatthe proposed building would destroy the view or beauty of the public plaza. On 18 January
1954,Fajardo and Babilonia reiterated their request for a building permit, but again the request
wasturned down by the mayor. Whereupon, Fajardo and Babilonia proceeded with the construction of
the building without a permit, because they needed a place of residence very badly, their formerhouse
having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been living on leased property.On 26
February 1954, Fajardo and Babilonia were charged before and convicted by the justice of the peace
court of Baao, Camarines Sur, for violation of Ordinance 7. Fajardo and Babiloniaappealed to the Court
of First Instance (CDI), which affirmed the conviction, and sentenced bothto pay a fine of P35 each and
the costs, as well as to demolish the building in question because itdestroys the view of the public plaza
of Baao. From this decision, Fajardo and Babilonia appealedto the Court of Appeals, but the latter
forwarded the records to the Supreme Court because theappeal attacks the constitutionality of the
ordinance in question.
Issue:
Whether the refusal of the Mayor of Baao to issue a building permit on the ground that theproposed
building would destroy the view of the public plaza is an undue deprivation of the useof the property in
question, and thus a taking without due compensation.
Held:
The refusal of the Mayor of Baao to issue a building permit to Fajardo and Babilonia waspredicated on
the ground that the proposed building would “destroy the view of the public plaza”by preventing its
being seen from the public highway. Even thus interpreted, the ordinance isunreasonable and
oppressive, in that it operates — to permanently deprive the latter of the rightto use their own
property; hence, it oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to ataking of the property
without just compensation. But while property may be regulated in theinterest of the general welfare
such as to regard the beautification of neighborhoods asconducive to the comfort and happiness of
residents), and in its pursuit, the State may prohibitstructures offensive to the sight, the State may not,
under the guise of police power, permanentlydivest owners of the beneficial use of their property and
practically confiscate them solely topreserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community. As
the case now stands, everystructure that may be erected on Fajardo’s land, regardless of its own beauty,
stands condemnedunder the ordinance in question, because it would interfere with the view of the
public plaza fromthe highway. Fajardo would, in effect, be constrained to let their land remain idle and
unused forthe obvious purpose for which it is best suited, being urban in character. To legally achieve
thatresult, the municipality must give Fajardo just compensation and an opportunity to be heard.

People vs. Juan Fajardo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Juan Fajardo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Juan Fajardo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE VS.

You might also like