De Venecia o Garcia, panalo si Gloria

In a clash of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, that which enhances the common good always prevails. This is illustrated in this case of the homeowners association of the largest subdivision in the country that is straddling three cities in the National Capital Region (UBFHAI).

The case had its origin way back on November 11, 1987 when a Municipal Ordinance was enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Parañaque City (No. 97-08) reclassifying the two major thoroughfares in the village from residential to commercial areas.

On January 27, 1998, the subdivision residents through UBFHAI filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition for prohibition with an application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction questioning the constitutionality of said ordinance particularly its Section 11.5, 11.6, 15, 17 and 19.6. They alleged that the reclassification of certain portions of the subdivision is unconstitutional because it amounts to impairment of the contracts between the developer and the lot buyers. When they bought the property, they said that the developer promised them that it shall be used for residential purposes only. To back up their allegation, they cited the annotation on the lot buyers’ titles which provides that “the property shall be used for residential purposes only and for no other purpose”.

On June 28, 1999 however, the CA dismissed their petition. The CA held that the enactment of Municipal Ordinance 97-08 was a valid exercise of police power. According to the CA, the needs of the homeowners in the subdivision grew because of the rapid and tremendous increase in population thereby necessitating the opening of more commercial districts. The local government was therefore just responding to these changes in the community by enacting the ordinance in question. Was the CA correct?

Yes. The constitutional guarantee of non-impairment of contracts is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare. The contractual restrictions on the use of property could not prevail over the reasonable exercise of police power through zoning regulations. While the non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power, i.e., “the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people”. Invariably described as “the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers” and “in a sense, the greatest and most powerful attribute of government” the exercise of the police power may be judicially inquired into and corrected only if it is capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, there having been a denial of due process or a violation of any other applicable constitutional guarantee. Police power is elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions; it is not confined within the narrow circumscriptions of precedents resting on past conditions; it must follow the legal progress of a democratic way of life.

Our jurisdiction guarantees sanctity of contract and is said to be the law between the contracting parties, but while it is so, it cannot be raised as a deterrent to police power, designed precisely to promote health, safety, peace, and enhance the common good. In this case, the enactment of the ordinance is not arbitrary or unreasonable. Before it was passed, it has been the subject of barangay consultations and committee hearings. The increasing number of homeowners in the area necessitated the addition of commercial areas in the subdivision as found by the CA. Even UBFHAI acknowledged the need for additional commercial area although it proposed another commercial zone. Clearly, the reclassification of the two main thoroughfares in the subdivision as commercial areas was reasonable and justified under the circumstances (UBFHAI et.al. vs. City Mayor of Parañaque et. al, G.R. 141010, February 7, 2007).

*  *  *

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]