[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
175 views1 page

Case Digests On The Syllabus

The respondents operate shopping malls with parking facilities and charge fees for parking. Government agencies argued this practice violated building codes and sued to stop the fees. The respondents claimed this was an unlawful taking of private property. The court ruled that neither the building code nor police powers allow confiscating private property without compensation. As the law does not expressly require free parking, the respondents are not obligated to provide it and may continue charging parking fees.

Uploaded by

Cleofe Sobiaco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
175 views1 page

Case Digests On The Syllabus

The respondents operate shopping malls with parking facilities and charge fees for parking. Government agencies argued this practice violated building codes and sued to stop the fees. The respondents claimed this was an unlawful taking of private property. The court ruled that neither the building code nor police powers allow confiscating private property without compensation. As the law does not expressly require free parking, the respondents are not obligated to provide it and may continue charging parking fees.

Uploaded by

Cleofe Sobiaco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CASE DIGESTS- OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

OCG V. AYALA

FACTS:

Respondents operate or lease out shopping malls that have parking facilities. The people that use
said facilities are required to pay parking fees by the respondents. Senate committees conducted an
investigation to determine the legality of said practice which the same found to be against the
National Building Code. Respondents then received an information from various government
agencies enjoining them from collecting parking fees and later a civil case against them.
Respondents argued that the same constitutes undue taking of private property. OSG argues that
the same is implemented in view of public welfare more specifically to ease traffic congestion. The
RTC ruled in favor of the respondents. Hence petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondents are obligated to provide for free parking to its consumers and the
public.

RULING:

No. Respondents are not obligated to provide for free parking to the people.

Article 1158 of the Civil Code provides that “Obligations derived from law are not
presumed. Only those expressly determined in this Code or in special laws are demandable, and
shall be regulated by the precepts of the law which establishes them; and as to what has not been
foreseen, by the provisions of this Book”.

The court does not agree to the petitioner’s reliance on the National Building Code as the same does
not expressly provide that respondents are required to provide free parking to the public. Moreover,
the court holds that the code regulates buildings and not traffic congestion. Police power is a power
to regulate but not to confiscate. The OSG’s contention is a deprivation of private property and falls
under eminent domain which requires just compensation. Thus, the RTC decision is affirmed and
petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

You might also like