16 City Government of Quezon City Vs Ericta

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY and CITY COUNCIL OF QUEZON CITY v.
HON. JUDGE VICENTE G. ERICTA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Quezon City, Branch XVIII, and HIMLAYANG PILIPINO, INC.,
G.R. No. L-34915; 24 June 1983
Doctrine of the case:

Police power is usually exercised in the form of mere regulation or restriction in
the use of liberty or property for the promotion of the general welfare. It does not involve
the taking or confiscation of property with the exception of a few cases where there is a
necessity to confiscate private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of
protecting the peace and order and of promoting the general welfare as for instance, the
confiscation of an illegally possessed article, such as opium and firearms.
Facts:
The Quezon City Council passed Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 entitled
“ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND
OPERATION OF PRIVATE MEMORIAL TYPE CEMETERY OR BURIAL GROUND
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF QUEZON CITY AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
THE VIOLATION THEREOF" section 9 of said ordinance provided that at least 6% of
the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of
deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents of Quezon City for at least
5 years prior to their death.
For several years, the aforementioned section was not enforced by city
authorities but seven years after its enactment, the Quezon City Council passed a
resolution requesting the City Engineer of Quezon City to stop any further selling and/or
transaction of memorial parks in Quezon City where the owners have failed to donate
the required 6% space intended for paupers burial. The City Engineer then proceeded
to inform respondent Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. about the enforcement Section 9 of
Ordinance No. 6118, S-64.
As a response, Respondent filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal a
petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction
which seeks to annul Section 9 of the Ordinance in question further claiming that the
said section is unconstitutional and is likewise contrary to the Quezon City Charter, the
Local Autonomy Act, and the Revised Administrative Code.
Petitioners then argue that the ordinance in question was a valid exercise of their
police power as mandated by the Charter of Quezon City. Petitioners further alleged
that the taking of the land was for public use as it is intended for burial ground of
paupers.
Respondent then contended that the taking or confiscation of property is obvious
because the questioned ordinance permanently restricts the use of the property such
that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose and deprives the owner of all
beneficial use of his property. The respondent points out that if an owner is deprived of
his property outright under the State's police power, the property is generally not taken
for public use but is urgently and summarily destroyed in order to promote the general
welfare.
The Trial Court then rendered a decision in favor of Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. and
declared that Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 null and void. A motion for
reconsideration was subsequently filed by the petitioners but was denied. Hence this
petition with the Court.
Issue:
Is Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 , which provided for the ‘donation’ of at
least 6% of the total area of the memorial park cemetery for the burial of deceased
persons who are paupers and are residents of Quezon City for at least 5 years, a valid
exercise of police power as mandated by their city charter?
Ruling:
No. Upon examination of the Charter of Quezon City, it does not reveal any
provision that would justify the ordinance in question except the provision granting
police power to the city. the power to regulate does not include the power to confiscate.
The ordinance in question not only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a
memorial park cemetery, because under Section 13 of said ordinance, 'Violation of the
provision thereof is punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment and that upon conviction
thereof the permit to operate and maintain a private cemetery shall be revoked or
cancelled.' The confiscatory clause and the penal provision in effect deter one from
operating a memorial park cemetery.
It will be seen from the foregoing authorities that police power is usually
exercised in the form of mere regulation or restriction in the use of liberty or property for
the promotion of the general welfare. It does not involve the taking or confiscation of
property with the exception of a few cases where there is a necessity to confiscate
private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting the peace and order
and of promoting the general welfare as for instance, the confiscation of an illegally
possessed article, such as opium and firearms.
The Court further ruled that Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, Series of 1964 of
Quezon City is not a mere police regulation but an outright confiscation. It deprives a
person of his private property without due process of law, nay, even without
compensation. There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least six
(6) percent of the total area of an private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of
deceased paupers and the promotion of health, morals, good order, safety, or the
general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation
of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of the
municipal corporation. Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for this
purpose, the city passes the burden to private cemeteries.
The expropriation without compensation of a portion of private cemeteries is not
covered by Section 12(t) of Republic Act 537, the Revised Charter of Quezon City which
empowers the city council to prohibit the burial of the dead within the center of
population of the city and to provide for their burial in a proper place subject to the
provisions of general law regulating burial grounds and cemeteries. Expropriation,
however, requires payment of just compensation. The questioned ordinance is different
from laws and regulations requiring owners of subdivisions to set aside certain areas for
streets, parks, playgrounds, and other public facilities from the land they sell to buyers
of subdivision lots.
Petition dismissed, decision of the respondent court is affirmed.

16 City Government of Quezon City Vs Ericta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16 City Government of Quezon City Vs Ericta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

16 City Government of Quezon City Vs Ericta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY and CITY COUNCIL OF QUEZON CITY v.

Doctrine of the case:

You might also like