OSG v. Ayala Land Inc.

, Robinson’s Land Corporation, Shangri-la Plaza

Cororation, and SM Prime Holdings
G.R. No. 177056  September 18, 2009

Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking for the reversal of the decision of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC has adjudged
that respondents are not obliged to provide free parking space in their malls to their patrons and
the general public. The petitioners argued that the collection of parking fees by shopping malls
are actually contrary to the National Building Code. Moreover, the OSG argues that Section 803
of the National Building Code makes necessary the provision of free parking space to avoid
traffic congestion by ensuring easy access of legitimate shoppers to off-street parking spaces.

Issues:
1. Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the ruling of the RTC that respondents are
obliged to provide free parking spaces to their customers or the public?
2. Is the petition of the OSG for the provision of parking spaces be considered a valid
exercise of police power?

Held:
1. No. The Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the ruling of the RTC. The explicit
directive of Section 803 of the National Building Code states that as operators/lessors of
neighborhood shopping centers, should provide parking and loading spaces with the
minimum ratio of one slot per 100 square meters of shopping floor area. There is nothing
therein pertaining to the collection (or non-collection) of parking fees by respondents,
thus, the OSG cannot rely its arguments on Section 803 of the National Building Code.
2. No. The petition of the OSG to prohibit collection of parking fees is not a valid exercise
of the police power of the State. The Supreme Court finds that in totally prohibiting
respondents from collecting parking fees, state would be acting beyond the bounds of
police power. 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.