1. METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs.

BEL-AIR VILLAGE
ASSOCIATION, INC., respondent.

Facts:

1. MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila.
Respondent BAVA isa association composed of homeowners of a private subdivision in Makati.

2. The controversy started when respondent received from petitioner MMDA a notice requesting to
open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic. Respondent is the owner of the Neptune Street.

3. Respondent then instituted a civil case for injuction and prayed for a TRO in RTC. However it was
denied. The CA then reversed the decision of RTC arguing that MMDA has no authority to order the
opening of Neptune Street. It held that the authority is lodged in the City Council of Makati by
ordinance.

Issue: WON MMDA has the authority to mandate the opening of the Neptune Street

Ruling:

1. No, the MMDA has no authority.

2. MMDA claims that is has authority because it is an agent of the state endowed with Police Power in
the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila, hence there is no need for the City of Makati to enact an
ordinance opening Neptune Street.

3. Police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature and delegated to the President and local
government units. LGU, in turn, exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies.
(Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Panlunsod, Bayan)

4. In the case at bar, MMDA is not a political unit of government. There is no grant of authority to enact
ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants.

5. Since the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the
opening of Neptune Street, it is illegal for MMDA to issue a notice requiring respondent to open the said
street.

SECTION 21. Closure and Opening of Roads.

(a) A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or open
any local road, alley, park, or square falling within its jurisdiction: Provided, however, That in case of
permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved by at least two-thirds (2/3) of all the members of
the Sanggunian, and when necessary, an adequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to
closure is provided.