PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JUAN FAJARDO, et al

G.R. No. L-12172

August 29, 1958
FACTS:
During the incumbency of Juan Fajardo as mayor of Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur, the
municipal council passed an ordinance providing that: (1) Before constructing or repairing a building,
persons must obtain a written permit from the Municipal Mayor; (2) If the construction destroys the view
of the Public Plaza or occupies any public property, it shall be removed at the expense of the owner.
Four years later, Fajardo was no longer the mayor, he and his son-in-law filed a written request
with the then mayor for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gasoline station. The lot on
which the building would stand was along the national highway and separated from the public plaza itself
by a creek.
Fajardo's request was denied because the proposed building would destroy the view or beauty of
the public plaza. However, Fajardo and his son-in-law proceeded with the construction anyway because
they needed a place of residence very badly (their previous house was destroyed by a typhoon and they
had been living on leased property).
Fajardo and his son-in-law were charged and convicted for violation of the abovementioned
ordinance. They were ordered to pay a fine and demolish the building.

ISSUE: Whether or not Fajardo, et al. may be convicted of the ordinance in question

HELD: NO.
The ordinance is void for these reasons:
First, the mayor has, under it, absolute discretion to issue or deny a permit; there are no standards
provided to guide or limit the mayor's action. There was not even a statement of policy. This makes
possible arbitrary use of power to grant or deny permits. An undefined and unlimited delegation of power
to allow or prevent an activity, per se lawful, is invalid.
Second, the ordinance operates to permanently deprive Fajardo of the right to use their property
in any manner at all. Hence, it oversteps the bounds of police power and amounts to a taking of property
without just compensation. While property may be regulated in the interest of general welfare, the State
may not, under the guise of police power, permanently divest owners of beneficial use of their property
and practically confiscate the same, just to preserve the community's aesthetics. To do this validly, the
municipality must give Fajardo just compensation and opportunity to be heard.

Prepared by: Marie-Chelle G. Panganiban