CITY GOVERNEMENT OF Q.C V ERICTA DID IT COMPLY WITH THE LAWFUL MEANS TEST ?

122 SCRA 759

*Petitioners seeks for the reversal of the CFI decision declaring HELD:
Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118 null and void.
The supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts.
 Section 9 of Ordinance 6118 directs all memorial park Section 9 of Ordinance 6118 is hereby declared unconstitutional.
cemetery to donate at least 6% of the their total area for
the charity burial of deceased persons who are pauper There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside
and living in Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their of at least six (6) percent of the total area of all private
death. cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and
 Subsequently, QC government issued a resolution to stop the promotion of health, morals, good order, safety, or the
any further selling and/or transaction of memorial park lots general welfare of the people.
in QC where the owners thereof have failed to donate the
required 6% space under Section 9 of 6118. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of
 Respondent Himalayang Pilipino reacted to the said a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are
resolution by filing a case which seeks to annul Section 9 of charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of building or
the said ordinance. maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes
Petitioner's Argument: the burden to private cemeteries.
Taking of respondents property is a valid exercise of
police power since the land is taken for public use as
it is intended for burial ground of paupers.
Respondent's Contention:
The taking or confiscation of property is not within the
meaning of regulation under the police power. Police power
shall regulate and restrain the use of liberty and property.
And for properties taken, they must be destroyed in order to
promote general welfare.

ISSUE:
IS THE ORDINANCE A VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE
POWER?