Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Sangalang vs. Intermediate Appelate Court 176 SCRA 719 Ponente: Justice Sarmiento FACTS: 1.

On October 24, 1979- petitioner instituted a petition for prohibition and damages with preliminary injunction with the respondent court docketed as Civil Case No. 34948 ISSUE: WON the opening of Orbit Street to traffic by the mayor was warranted by the demands of the common good and a valid exercise of police power RULING: As asserted in Sangalang, the opening of Jupiter Street was warranted by the demands of the common good, in terms of traffic decongestion and public convenience. SC also uphold the opening of Orbit Street for the same rationale. The act of the mayor now challenged is that of police power which is the states authority to enact legislation that may interfere with the personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. It consists of the (1) imposition of restraint upon liberty and property (2) in order to foster the common good. ISSUE: WON the opening of Orbit Street is an act of power of eminent domain requiring just compensation RULING: The opening of Orbit Street is under police power which is unlike eminent domain, it is exercised without just compensation. Art. 436 of the Civil Code states that when a ny property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such condemnationor seizure is unjustifiable. The aggrieved party has not shown that there is unjustifiable reasons for the exercise of the police power. The fact that it has lead to the loss of privacy of BAVA residents is no argument against the municipalitys effort to ease vehicular traffic in Makati. ISSUE: WON the abatement of the nuisance can be legally abated by summary means. RULING: The gate in question being a nuisance, which could be legally abated by summary means. The fact that it was accomplished summarily does not lend to it a show of arrogance because summary method is allowed by law. The mayor was able to notify the BAVA that Orbit and Jupiter streets would be opened up. ISSUE: WON the mayor has authority to practice police power RULING: Ordinance No. 17 as amended by Resolution No 139 which requires a Mayors permit before any construction of any kind shall be built, erected or constructed in any place in the municipality is a valid justification for the questioned act of the mayor. THe

fact that some time had elapsed before the Mayor acted, can not render the ordinance unenforceable or void.