PEOPLE V.

FAJARDO

FACTS:

Fajardo and Babilonia (son-in law) are charged with violation of Ordinance 7 Series of 1950 of the
Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur which penalizes a person who constructs a building without permit
from the mayor.

After his incumbency, Fajardo applied for a permit to build a building beside the gasoline station near
the town plaza. His request was repeatedly denied due to the reason that it “hinders the view of
travelers from the National Highway to the public plaza”.

Appellants proceeded with the construction of the building without a permit, because they needed a
place of residence very badly, their former house having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they
had been living on leased property.

Appellants were charged and convicted by peace court of Baoo for violating such ordinance.

ISSUE:

WON Ordinance No. 7 is a valid exercise police power in its regulation of property.

HELD:

NO. The ordinance doesn’t state any standard that limits the grant of power to the mayor. It is an
arbitrary and unlimited conferment.

The subject ordinance fails to state any policy, or to set up any standard to guide or limit the mayor’s
action. The standards of the ordinance are entirely lacking making it unreasonable and oppressive,
hence, not a valid ordinance. While property may be regulated to the interest of the general welfare,
and the state may eliminate structures offensive to the sight, the state may not permanently divest
owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or
assure the aesthetic appearance of the community.

Fajardo would be constrained to let the land be fallow and not be used for urban purposes. To do this
legally, there must be just compensation and they must be given an opportunity to be heard.

An ordinance which permanently so restricts the use of property that it can not be used for any
reasonable purpose goes, it is plain, beyond regulation and must be recognized as a taking of the
property.

Hence, the conviction of herein appellants is reversed, and said accused are acquitted, with costs de
oficio.