City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta
City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta
City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta
24 June 1983 | GR Nr. L-34915 | GUTIERREZ, JR, CJ | Police Power does hereby request the City Engineer, Quezon City, to stop any
further selling and/or transaction of memorial park lots in Quezon
PETITIONERS: CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY and City where the owners thereof have failed to donate the required 6%
CITY COUNCIL OF QUEZON CITY space intended for paupers burial."|
3. Pursuant to this petition, the city engineer informed HImlayang
RESPONDENTS: HON. JUDGE VICENTE G ERICTA as Judge of Pilipino Inc. that Sec 9 of Ordinance Nr. 6118, S-64 would be
the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch XVIII; enforced.
Himlayang Pilipino Inc. 4. Himlayang Pilioino then filed a petition in the CFI of Rizal for a
declaratory relief, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary
SUMMARY: injunction seeking to annul Section 9 in question.
This is a petition for review which seeks the reversal of the decision of 5. The respondent, Hon. Ericta alleged that the same is contrary to the
the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VIII declaring Section 9 Constitution, The Quezon City Charter, the Local Autonomy Act and
Ordinance Nr. 6118, S-64, of the Quezon City Council null and void. the Revised Administrative Code.
The said promulgated ordinance which approved the regulation of 6. It was said that there was no issue of fact and the questions raised
establishment of private cemeteries in the said city, stating that 6% of the were purely legal, and both the petitioner and the respondent agreed
total area of the private memorial park shall be set aside for charity to the rendition of a judgement on the pleadings.
burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents of 7. Respondent court rendered the decision declaring Sec 9 null and
Quezon City. Himlayang Pilipino, a private memorial park, contended void.
that the taking or confiscation of property restricts the use of property 8. The City Government and City Council filed an instant petition after
such that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose and deprives the a motion for reconsideration was denied.
owner of all beneficial use of his property. It was also contended that the 9. The City government argued that the taking of the property is a valid
taking of the property is not a valid exercise of police power, since the and reasonable exercise of police power, and Quezon City is
properties taken in the exercise of power are destroyed and not for the authorized under its charter, in exercise of its police power stating:
benefit of the public. “to make such further ordinances and resolutions not repugnant to
law as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the
DOCTRINE: powers and duties conferred by this Act and such as it shall deem
Police Power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit (People v necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, promote
Esguerra), nor to confiscate. the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort and
convenience of the city and the inhabitants thereof, and for the
FACTS: protection of property therein”
1. Section 9 Ordinance Nr. 6118, S-64 provides: 10. Himlayang Pilipino contends that the taking or confiscation of
At least six (6) percent of the total area of the memorial park property is obvious because the questioned ordinance permanently
cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons restricts the use of the property such that it cannot be used for any
who are paupers and have been residents of Quezon City for at least reasonable purpose and deprives the owner of all beneficial use of
5 years prior to their death, to be determined by competent City his property.
Authorities. The area so designated shall immediately be developed 11. The respondent also stresses that the general welfare clause is not
and should be open for operation not later than six months from the available as a source of power for the taking of the property in this
date of approval of the application” case because it refers to "the power of promoting the public welfare
2. The aforequoted section of the Ordinance was not enforced by city by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property." The
authorities, but after 7 years after the enactment, the Quezon City respondent points out that if an owner is deprived of his property
council passed the following resolution: outright under the State's police power, the property is generally not
taken for public use but is urgently and summarily destroyed in order 3. The petitioners rely solely on the general welfare clause or on
to promote the general welfare. The respondent cites the case of a implied powers of the municipal corporation, not on any express
nuisance per se or the destruction of a house to prevent the spread of provision of law as statutory basis of their exercise of power.
a conflagration The clause has always received broad and liberal interpretation,
12. The lower court ruled that declared null and void stated: but we cannot stretch it to cover this particular taking.
An examination of the charter of Quezon City does not reveal any 4. The questioned ordinance was passed after Himlayang Pilipino,
provision that would justify the ordinance in question except the Inc. had incorporated, received necessary licenses and permits,
provision granting police power to the City. Section 9 cannot be and commenced operating. The sequestration of six percent of
justified under the power granted to Quezon City to tax, fix the the cemetery cannot even be considered as having been
license fee, and regulate such other business, trades, and occupation impliedly acknowledged by the private respondent when it
as may be established or practiced in the City (as prescribed in accepted the permits to commence operations.
subsections C Sec 12 RA 537)
Police power to regulate does not include power to prohibit. (as
provided in the case of People v Esguerra)
Power to regulate does not include the power to confiscate.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Section 9 of the ordinance in question a valid exercise of the
police power? – Yes
RULING:
The petition for review is hereby DISMISSED. The decision of the
respondent court is affirmed.
RATIO:
1. There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at
least six (6) percent of the total area of all private cemeteries for
charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of
health, morals, good order, safety, or the general welfare of the
people. The ordinance is actually taking without compensation
of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who
are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of building or
maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes
the burden to private cemeteries.
2. When the Local Government Code provides that a Sangguniang
Panlungsod may "provide for the burial of the... dead in such
place and in such manner as prescribed by law or ordinance" it
simply authorizes the city to provide its own city owned land or
to buy or expropriate private properties to construct public
cemeteries. Expropriation, however, requires payment of just
compensation.