Scribd
Upload
180 views2 pages

People Vs Fajardo

Ordinance No. 7 prohibited building that would impair the view of the plaza from the highway, which was considered a taking under the law. As such, property owners were entitled to just compensation. Fajardo and Babilonia were charged with violating this ordinance by building without a permit. The court found the ordinance to be invalid as it conferred arbitrary and unlimited power to the mayor without standards and was therefore unreasonable and oppressive. As the ordinance permanently restricted property use without compensation, it amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The appellants' conviction was reversed.

Uploaded by

Jessamine Orioque
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
180 views2 pages

People Vs Fajardo

Ordinance No. 7 prohibited building that would impair the view of the plaza from the highway, which was considered a taking under the law. As such, property owners were entitled to just compensation. Fajardo and Babilonia were charged with violating this ordinance by building without a permit. The court found the ordinance to be invalid as it conferred arbitrary and unlimited power to the mayor without standards and was therefore unreasonable and oppressive. As the ordinance permanently restricted property use without compensation, it amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The appellants' conviction was reversed.

Uploaded by

Jessamine Orioque
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/ 2

PEOPLE VS.

FAJARDO
A municipal ordinance prohibiting a building which would impair the
view of the plaza from the highway was likewise considered taking.
In these cases, it was held that the property owner was entitled to
payment of just compensation.

FACTS:

Fajardo and Babilonia (son-in law) are charged with violation of Ordinance 7
Series of 1950 of the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur which penalizes a
person who constructs a building without permit from the mayor.

After his incumbency, Fajardo applied for a permit to build a building


beside the gasoline station near the town plaza. His request was repeatedly
denied due to the reason that it “hinders the view of travelers from the
National Highway to the public plaza”.

Appellants proceeded with the construction of the building without a


permit, because they needed a place of residence very badly, their former
house having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been living
on leased property.

Appellants were charged and convicted by peace court of Baoo for violating
such ordinance.

ISSUE:

WON Ordinance No. 7 prohibiting a building which would impair the view
of the plaza from the highway was considered taking?

HELD:

Yes. The court held that a municipal ordinance prohibiting a


building which would impair the view of the plaza from the highway
was likewise considered taking. In these cases, it was held that the
property owner was entitled to payment of just compensation. They
must be given an opportunity to be heard.

The ordinance doesn’t state any standard that limits the grant of power to
the mayor. It is an arbitrary and unlimited conferment.

The subject ordinance fails to state any policy, or to set up any


standard to guide or limit the mayor’s action. The standards of the
ordinance are entirely lacking making it unreasonable and
oppressive, hence, not a valid ordinance. While property may be
regulated to the interest of the general welfare, and the state may
eliminate structures offensive to the sight, the state may not
permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and
practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic
appearance of the community.

Fajardo would be constrained to let the land be fallow and not be used for
urban purposes. To do this legally, there must be just compensation and
they must be given an opportunity to be heard.

An ordinance which permanently so restricts the use of property that


it can not be used for any reasonable purpose goes, it is plain,
beyond regulation and must be recognized as a taking of the
property.

Hence, the conviction of herein appellants is reversed, and said accused are
acquitted, with costs de oficio. 

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy