576 SCRA 416 , January 20, 2009 said ordinance is more or less subjected only to

a limited group of people. The SC reiterates that

WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM individual rights may be adversely affected only
CORPORATION and STA. MESA TOURIST & to the extent that may fairly be required by the
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, legitimate demands of public interest or public
vs. welfare.
CITY OF MANILA, represented by DE The SC ruled that the said ordinance is
CASTRO, MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, null and void as it indeed infringes upon
Respondent. individual liberty. It also violates the due process
clause which serves as a guaranty for protection
Tinga, J.: against arbitrary regulation or seizure.
FACTS: On 3 Dec 1992, then Mayor Lim signed
into law Ord 7774 entitled “An Ordinance
prohibiting short time admission in hotels,
motels, lodging houses, pension houses and
similar establishments in the City of Manila”.
White Light Corp is an operator of mini
hotels and motels who sought to have the
Ordinance be nullified as the said Ordinance
infringes on the private rights of their patrons.
The RTC ruled in favor of WLC. It ruled that the
Ordinance strikes at the personal liberty of the
individual guaranteed by the Constitution.
The City maintains that the ordinance is valid as
it is a valid exercise of police power.
Under the LGC, the City is empowered
to regulate the establishment, operation and
maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses,
hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging
houses and other similar establishments,
including tourist guides and transports. The CA
ruled in favor of the City.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ordinance No. 7774 is

valid.

HELD: No. The Ordinance No. 7774 is not valid.

As guaranteed under Section 1, Article
III of the Constitution. Due process evades a
precise definition. The purpose of the guaranty
is to prevent arbitrary governmental
encroachment against the life, liberty and
property of individuals. The due process
guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary
regulation or seizure. Even corporations and
partnerships are protected by the guaranty
insofar as their property is concerned.
The said ordinance invades private
rights. Note that not all who goes into motels
and hotels for wash up rate are really there for
obscene purposes only. Some are tourists who
needed rest or to “wash up” or to freshen up.
Hence, the infidelity sought to be avoided by the
GR No. 177056 – Sept 18, 2009
OSG v. Ayala Land Inc.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
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.
Eminent domain enables the State to forcibly
acquire private lands intended for public use
upon payment of just compensation to the
owner.
Although in the present case, title to
and/or possession of the parking facilities
remain/s with respondents, the prohibition
against their collection of parking fees from the
public, for the use of said facilities, is already
tantamount to a taking or confiscation of their
properties. The State is not only requiring that
respondents devote a portion of the latter’s
properties for use as parking spaces, but is also
mandating that they give the public access to
said parking spaces for free. Such is already an
excessive intrusion into the property rights of
respondents. Not only are they being deprived
of the right to use a portion of their properties
as they wish, they are further prohibited from
profiting from its use or even just recovering
therefrom the expenses for the maintenance
and operation of the required parking facilities.

ISSUE: Whether the petition of OSG for WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for
prohibiting the collection of parking fees is a Review on Certiorari was DENIED.
valid exercise of the police power of State.

HELD: No. The petition of OSG to prohibit

collection of parking fees is not a valid exercise
of the police power of State.

Police power is the power of promoting

the public welfare by restraining and regulating
the use of liberty and property. It is usually
exerted in order to merely regulate the use and
enjoyment of the property of the owner. The
power to regulate, however, does not include
the power to prohibit. A fortiori, the power to
regulate does not include the power to
confiscate. Police power 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 peace
and order and of promoting the general welfare;
for instance, the confiscation of an illegally
possessed article, such as opium and firearms.

When there is a taking or confiscation of

private property for public use, the State is no
longer exercising police power, but another of
its inherent powers, namely, eminent domain.