City of Manila vs Chinese Community of Manila , GR 14355 (1D), 31 October 1919 The general power to exercise the right

cise the right of eminent domain must not be confused with

the right to exercise it in a particular case. The power of the legislature to confer, upon
FACTS: Petitioner (City of Manila) filed a petition praying that certain lands be municipal corporations and other entities within the State, general authority to

expropriated for the purpose of constructing a public improvement namely, the exercise the right of eminent domain cannot be questioned by the courts, but that

extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila and claiming that such expropriation was general authority of municipalities or entities must not be confused with the right to

necessary. exercise it in particular instances. The moment the municipal corporation or entity

Herein defendants, on the other hand, alleged (a) that no necessity existed for said attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must comply with the conditions

expropriation and (b) that the land in question was a cemetery, which had been used accompanying the authority. The necessity for conferring the authority upon a

as such for many years, and was covered with sepulchres and monuments, and that municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the

the same should not be converted into a street for public purposes. power of the legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is

exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed by the general
The lower court ruled that there was no necessity for the expropriation of the authority, is a question which the courts have the right to inquire into.

particular strip of land in question. The conflict in the authorities upon the question whether the necessity for the exercise

Petitioner therefore assails the decision of the lower court claiming that it (petitioner) of the right of eminent domain is purely legislative and not judicial, arises generally in

has the authority to expropriate any land it may desire; that the only function of the the wisdom and propriety of the legislature in authorizing the exercise of the right of

court in such proceedings is to ascertain the value of the land in question; that neither eminent domain instead of in the question of the right to exercise it in a particular

the court nor the owners of the land can inquire into the advisable purpose of the case. (Creston Waterworks Co. vs. McGrath, 89 Iowa, 502.)

expropriation or ask any questions concerning the necessities therefor; that the courts By the weight of authorities, the courts have the power of restricting the exercise of

are mere appraisers of the land involved in expropriation proceedings, and, when the eminent domain to the actual reasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes

value of the land is fixed by the method adopted by the law, to render a judgment in designated by the law. (Fairchild vs. City of St. Paul. 48 Minn., 540.)

favor of the defendant for its value.

The courts have the power of restricting the exercise of eminent domain to the actual
reasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by the law. The
ISSUE: W/N the courts may inquire into and hear proof upon the necessity of the moment the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority
conferred, it must comply with the conditions accompanying the authority.
expropriation? The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise the
right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of the legislature. But whether
HELD: Yes. The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a particular case
necessity, and that necessity must be of a public character. The ascertainment of the under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a question that the courts
have the right to inquire to.
necessity must precede or accompany, and not follow, the taking of the

land. (Morrison vs. Indianapolis, etc. Ry. Co., 166 Ind., 511; Stearns vs. Barre, 73 Vt.,

281; Wheeling, etc. R. R. Co. vs. Toledo, Ry. etc. Co., 72 Ohio St., 368.)
 BAVA, the wall was rebuilt inside the boundary of the commercial block. Ayala
Sangalang vs IAC GR 71169 22 December 1988
finally decided to subdivide and sell the lots in the commercial block between
Buendia and Jupiter. BAVA requested confirmation of use of the commercial lots.
Facts:
Bel-Air Village is located north of Buendia Avenue extension across a stretch of
On 30 June 1972, Ayala likewise informed BAVA that in a few months it shall
subdivided and sell the commercial lots bordering the north side of Buendia
commercial block from Reposo Street in the west up to Zodiac Street in the east.
Avenue Extension from Reposo St. up to Zodiac St. Deed restrictions (building
When Bel-Air Village was planned, this block between Reposo and Zodiac
having set back of 19 meters, and matters RE entrances and exits) are imposed
Streets adjoining Buendia Avenue in front of the village was designated as a
in such commercial lots to harmonize and blend with the development and
commercial block. Bel-Air Village was owned and developed into a residential
welfare of Bel-Air Village. Ayala further applied for special membership in BAVA
subdivision in the 1950s by Makati Development Corporation (MDC), which in
of the commercial lot owners, the application submitted to BAVAs board of
1968 was merged with Ayala Corporation.
governors for decision.
Spouses Sangalang reside at 110 Jupiter St. between Makati Ave. and Reposo
St.; Spouses Gaston reside at 64 Jupiter St. between Makati Ave. and Zodiac St.;
On 25 September 1972, height limitations for buildings were increased from 12.5
meters to 15 meters and Jupiter street is widened by 3.5 meters. The widening of
Spouses Briones reside at 66 Jupiter St.; while Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.
the street reduced the association dues to be remitted to BAVA, inasmuch that it
(BAVA) is the homeowners association in Bel-Air Village which takes care of the
now applies to 76,726 sq.m. rather than 81,590 sq.m. Due rates have increased
sanitation, security, traffic regulations and general welfare of the village.
from P0.5/sq.m in 1972 to P3/sq.m in 1980.
The lots which were acquired by the Sangalangs, the Gastons, the Brioneses in
On 4 April 1975, Makati enacted Ordinance 81, providing for the zonification of
1960, 1957 and 1958, respectively, all sold by MDC subject to certain conditions
Makati, which classified Bel-Air Village as a Class A Residential Zone, with its
and easements contained in Deed Restrictions which formed a part of each deed
boundary in the south extending to the center line of Jupiter Street (Chapter 3,
of sale (i.e. being automatic members of Bel-Air Association who must abide by
Article 1, Section 3.03, paragraph F). The Buendia Avenue extension area was
the rules and regulations laid down by the Association [as per sanitation, security
classified as Administrative Office Zone with its boundary in the North-North East
and general welfare of the community]; that lots cannot be subdivided and only
Extending also up to the center line of Jupiter Street (Chapter 3, Article 1, Section
used for residential purposes; that single family house be constructed in single
3.05, paragraph C). The Residential Zone and the Administrative Office Zone
lot; no commercial or advertising signs placed or erected on the lot; no farm
have a common boundary along the center line of Jupiter Street. The zoning was
animals allowed, pets allowed; easement of 2 meters within lot; lot not used for
later followed under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the National
immoral or illegal trade or activity; grass always trimmed; Restrictions in force for
Capital Region adopted by the Metro Manila Commission as Ordinance 81-01 on
50 years starting 15 January 1957).
14 March 1981, with modification that Bel-Air Village is simply bounded in the
MDC constructed a fence on the commercial block along Jupiter Street in 1966,
South-Southeast by Jupiter Street, and the block-deep strip along the northwest
although it was not part of the original plan. The fence was partially destroyed in
side of Buendia Avenue Extension from Reposo to EDSA as High Intensity
1970 due to a typhoon. The fence was subsequently rebuilt by the Ayala. Jupiter
Street was widened in 1972, and the fence had to be destroyed. Upon request of
 Commercial Zone. Under the zoning classification, Jupiter Street is a common occurred during the trial of the case. Claiming to be similarly situated, spouses
boundary of Bel-Air Village and the commercial zone. Gaston, Briones, and BAVA intervened in the case. The CFI Pasig rendered a
On 17 January 1977, the Office of the Mayor of Makati directed BAVA, in the decision in favor of the Sangalangs awarding them P500,000 as actual and
interest of public welfare and purpose of easing traffic congestion, the opening of consequential damages, P2M as moral damages, P500,000 as exemplary
the Amapola (Estrella-Mercedes; Palma gate-Villena), Mercedes (EDSA- damages, P100,000 as attorneys fees, and the cost of suit. The intervenors
Imelda/Amapola junction), Zodiac (Mercedes-Buendia), Jupiter (Zodiac-Reposo, Gaston and Briones were awarded P400,000 as consequential damages,
connecting Metropolitan avenue to Pasong Tamo and V. Cruz extension), P500,000 as moral damages, P500,000 as exemplary damages, P50,000 as
Neptune (Makati ave.-Reposo), Orbit (F.Zobel/ Candelaria intersection Jupiter attorneys fees, and the cost of suit; each. Intervenor BAVA was awarded the
Paseo de Roxas; Mercedes-Buendia) streets of Bel-Air Village for public use. On same except for moral damages. The damages awarded bear legal interest from
10 February, BAVA replied, expressing concern of the residents about the the filing of the complaint. Ayala was also ordered to restore/reconstruct the
opening of the streets to general public and requesting the indefinite perimeter wall at the original position in 1966 at its own expense within 6 months
postponement of the plan to open Jupiter St. to public vehicles. BAVA, however, from finality of judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside
voluntarily opened the other streets. the decision for not being supported by facts and law on the matter; and entered
On 12 August 1977, the municipal officials of Makati allegedly opened, destroyed another, dismissing the case for lack of cause of action; without pronouncement
and removed the gates constructed at the corner of Reposo St. and Jupiter St. as as to costs. Sangalang appealed.
well as gates/fences constructed at Jupiter Street and Makati Avenue forcibly; [GR 74376] The Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA) filed and action to enforce
thereby opening Jupiter street to public traffic. Increased traffic was observed the restrictions stipulated in the deeds of sale executed by the Ayala Corporation.
along Jupiter Street after its opening to public use. Purchasers of the commercial BAVA originally brought the complaint in the RTC Makati, principally for specific
lots started constructing their respective buildings and demolished the fence or performance, BAVA alleging that Rosario de Jesus Tenorio allowed Cecilia
wall within the boundary of their lots. Many owners constructed their own fences Gonzalvez to occupy and convert the house at 60 Jupiter Street into a restaurant,
and walls and employed their own security guards. without its knowledge and consent, and in violation of the deed restrictions which
On 27 January 1978, Ayala donated the entire Jupiter Street from Metropolitan provide that the lot and building thereon must be used only for residential
Avenue to Zodiac Street to BAVA. With the opening of the entire Jupiter street to purposes upon which the prayed-for main relief was for Tenorio and Gonzalves
public traffic, the residential lots located in the northern side of Jupiter Street to permanently refrain from using the premises as commercial and to comply with
ceased to be used for purely residential purposes, and became commercial in the terms of the Deed Restrictions. The trial court dismissed the complaint on a
character. procedural ground, i.e., pendency of an identical action, Civil Case 32346 (BAVA
On 29 October 1979, spouses Sangalang filed an action for damages against v. Tenorio). The Court of Appeals affirmed, and held, in addition, that Jupiter
Ayala predicated on both breach of contract and on tort or quasi-delict. A Street is classified as High density commercial (C-3) zone as per
supplemental complaint was later filed by the Sangalangs to augment the reliefs Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 81-01 for NCR following its own ruling in AC-
prayed for in the original complaint because of alleged supervening events which GR 66649 (BAVA v. Hy-Land Realty & Development Corp.). BAVA appealed.
[GR 76394] Spouses Eduardo Romualdez and Buena Tioseco are the owners of a granted the relief sought for by BAVA with the a additional imposition of exemplary
house and lot located at 108 Jupiter St (TCT 332394, Registry of Deeds Rizal).At the damages of P50,000.00 and attorneys fees of P10,000.00. The trial court gave
time they acquired the subject house and lot, several restrictions were already emphasis to the restrictive clauses contained in Filleys deed of sale from BAVA,
annotated on the reverse side of their title. The restriction(s) remain in force for 50 which made the conversion of the building into a commercial one a violation. Appeal
years from 15 January 1957, unless sooner cancelled in its entirety by 2/3 vote of the was made claiming that the restrictions in the deed of sale are outmoded. BAVA on
members in good standing of the Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA). However, the the other hand relied on a rigid interpretation of the contractual stipulations agreed
Association may from time to time, add new ones, amend or abolish particular upon with Filley, in effect arguing that the restrictions are valid ad infinitum. The Court
restrictions or parts thereof by majority rule. During the early part of 1979, BAVA of Appeals overturned the lower court, observing that J. Romero & Associates had
noted that certain renovations and constructions were being made by the spouses on been given authority to open a commercial office by the Human Settlements
the premises. The latter failed to inform BAVA of the activity, even upon request, that Regulatory Commission.
prompted BAVA to send its chief security officer to visit the premises on 23 March
1979 and found out that the spouses were putting up a bake and coffee shop. The [GR 82281] Violeta Moncal, owner of a parcel of land with a residential house
spouses were reminded that they were violating the deed restriction, but the latter constructed thereon situated at 104 Jupiter Street, leased her property to Majal
proceeded with the construction of the bake shop. On 30 April 1979, BAVA wrote the Development Corporation, without the consent of the Bel-Air Village Association
spouses to desist from using the premises for commercial purposes, with threat of (BAVA). She purchased the lot from Makati Development Corporation. The lot in
suit. Despite the warning, the spouses proceeded with the construction of their bake question is restricted to be used for residential purposes only as part of the deed
shop. The trial court adjudged in favor of BAVA. On appeal, the Court of Appeals restrictions annotated on its title. It is on the same side of the street where there are
reversed the decision on the strength of its holding in AC-GR 66649. BAVA elevated restaurants, clinics, placement or employment agencies and other commercial or
the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari. The Court business establishments. These establishments, however, were sued by BAVA in the
initially denied the petition for lack of merit, for which BAVA sought a reconsideration. proper court. The trial court dismissed the BAVAs complaint, a dismissal affirmed on
Pending resolution, the case was referred to the Second Division and thereafter, to appeal. The appellate court declared that the opening of Jupiter Street to human and
the Court En Banc en consulta. Per Resolution, dated 29 April 1988, the case was vehicular traffic, and the commercialization of the Municipality of Makati in general,
consolidated with GR 74376 and 82281. were circumstances that had made compliance by Moncal with the aforesaid deed
restrictions extremely difficult and unreasonable, a development that had excused
[GR 78182] Dolores Filley leased her building and lot situated at 205 Reposo Street to compliance altogether under Article 1267 of the Civil Code. BAVA appealed.
the advertising firm J. Romero and Associates, in alleged violation of deed restrictions
which stipulated that Filleys lot could only be used for residential purposes. The Bel- Short Facts:
Air Village Association (BAVA) sought judgment from the lower court ordering the GR 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281 are efforts to enforce the deed restrictions
Filley and J.Romero to permanently refrain from using the premises in question as against specific residents of Jupiter Street and, with respect to GR 78182, Reposo
commercial and to comply with the terms of the deed restrictions. The trial court Street. The residents have allegedly converted their residences into commercial
establishments (a restaurant in GR 74376, a bakery and coffee shop in GR 76394, an exercise of the power may be judicially inquired into and corrected only if it is
advertising firm in GR 78182; and a construction company, apparently, in GR 82281) capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, there having been a denial of due
in violation of the said restrictions. Their mother case, GR 71169 is, on the other process or a violation of any other applicable constitutional guarantee. Police power is
hand, a petition to hold the vendor itself, Ayala Corporation (formerly Makati elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions; it is not confined within
Development Corporation), liable for tearing down the perimeter wall along Jupiter narrow circumscriptions of precedents resting on past conditions; it must follow the
Street that had theretofore closed its commercial section from the residences of Bel- legal progress of a democratic way of life. Public welfare, when clashing with the
Air Village and ushering in, as a consequence, the full commercialization of Jupiter individual right to property, should be made to prevail through the states exercise of
Street, in violation of the very restrictions it had authored. The Court of Appeals its police power. Herein, the MMC Ordinance represents a legitimate exercise of
dismissed all 5 appeals on the basis primarily of its ruling in AC-GR 66649, Bel-Air police power, as the ordinance is neither capricious or arbitrary or unreasonable; but
Village, Inc. v. Hy-Land Realty Development Corporation, et al., in which the that it is based on compelling interests of general welfare. The restrictive easements
appellate court explicitly rejected claims under the same deed restrictions as a result are similar to any other contract, and should not deter the valid exercise of police
of Ordinance 81 enacted by the Government of the Municipality of Makati, as well as power. The MMC has reclassified Jupiter Street into a high density commercial zone,
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 8101 promulgated by the Metropolitan Manila pursuant to Ordinance 81-01. Sangalang, BAVA, et. al., thus have no cause of action
Commission, which two ordinances allegedly allowed the use of Jupiter Street both on the strength alone of said deed restrictions.
for residential and commercial purposes. It was likewise held that these twin
measures were valid as a legitimate exercise of police power.

Issue: WON Makati Resolution No. 81 and MMC Ordinance 81-01 are
unconstitutional as violative of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution.
Decision: No. Both are constitutional. All contracts are subject to the overriding
demands, needs, and interests of the greater number as the State may determine in
the legitimate exercise of police power. The Court guarantees sanctity of contract and
is said to be the law between the contracting parties, but while it is so, it cannot
contravene law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Above all, it
cannot be raised as a deterrent to police power, designed precisely to promote health,
safety, peace, and enhance the common good, at the expense of contractual rights,
whenever necessary. Police power is 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
G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000 **Metro Manila is declared as a special development and administrative region in
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, petitioner 1995. And the administration of metro-wide basic services is under the MMDA.Which
vs Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., respondent includes, transport and traffice management. It should be noted that MMDA are
POnente: Puno limited to the acts: formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation,
management, monitoring, setting of policies and installation of a system and
Facts: administration. MMDA was not granted with legislative power.

MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Ruling:
Manila. Bel-Air is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose members are (1) The basis for the proposed opening of Neptune Street is contained in the notice of
homeowners of Bel-Air Villagee in Makati City. Bel-Air is the registered owner of the December 22, 1995 sent by petitioner to respondent BAVA, through its president. The
Neptune Street, a road inside Bel-Air Village. notice does not cite any ordinance or law, either by the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Makati City or by the MMDA, as the legal basis for the proposed opening of Neptune
December 30, 1995 Bel-Air received a notice from MMDA requesting Bel-Air to open St.
Neptune St. to public vehicular traffic. On the same day, MMDA apprised that the
perimeter wall separating the subdivision from the adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would (2) The MMDA is not the same entity as the MMC in Sangalang. Although the MMC is
be demolished. the forerunner of the present MMDA, an examination of Presidential Decree (P. D.)
No. 824, the charter of the MMC, shows that the latter possessed greater powers
January 2, 1996, MMDA instituted a case for injunction against Bel-Air; and prayed for which were not bestowed on the present MMDA.
a TRO and preliminary injunction enjoining Neptune St. and prohibiting the demolition
of the perimeter wall. Court issued a TRO the next day. (3) Under the 1987 Constitution, the local government units became primarily
responsible for the governance of their respective political subdivisions. The MMA's
After due hearing, RTC denied the issuance of a preliminary injunction. MMDA jurisdiction was limited to addressing common problems involving basic services that
question the denial and appealed to the CA. CA conducted an ocular inspection of transcended local boundaries. It did not have legislative power.
Neptune St. then issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the MMDA proposed
action.

On January 27, 1997, appellate court rendered a decision finding MMDA no authority
to order the opening of Neptune St. It held that the authority is in the City Council of
Makati by ordinance.

The motion for reconsideration is denied hence this recourse.

Issues: (1) MMDA has the authority to mandate the opening of Neptune St. to public
traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers? (2) Is passage of an ordinance a
condition precedent before the MMDA may order the opening of subdividion roads to
public traffic? (3) Is Bel-Air estopped from denying the authority of MMDA? (4)Was
Bel-Air denied of due process despite the several meetings held between MMDA and
Bel-Air? (5) Has Bel-Air come to court with unclean hands?
MMDA: it has the authority to open Neptune St. because it is an agent of the
Government endowed with police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro
Manila. From the premise of police powers, it follow then that it need not for an
ordinance to be enacted first.

**Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. Police power is lodged primarily

in the National Legislature, which the latter can delegate to the President and
administrative boards, LGU or other lawmaking bodies.

**LGU is a political subdivision for local affairs. Which has a legislative body
empowered to enact ordinances, approved resolutions and appropriate funds for the
general welfare of the province/city/municipality.