JOSE D. SANGALANG and LUTGARDA D.

SANGALANG,
Petitioners, FELIX C. GASTON and DOLORES R. GASTON,
FULL CASE JOSE V. BRIONES and ALICIA R. BRIONES, and BEL-AIR
TITLE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC., intervenors-petitioners, v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and AYALA
CORPORATION, Respondents.
G.R. NO. G.R. No. 71169
DATE August 25, 1989
PONENTE Sarmiento, J.
The opening of Orbit St. to traffic by the mayor was warranted by the
DOCTRINE
demands of the common good and is a valid exercise of police power.

FACTS:
On August 12, 1977, the municipal officials of Makati, destroyed and removed the gates
located at the corner of Reposo Street and Jupiter Street as well as the gates/fences located
at Jupiter Street and Makati Avenue forcibly, and then opened the entire length of Jupiter
Street to public traffic. Subsequently, Petitioners brought the present action for damages
against the defendant-appellant Ayala Corporation predicated on both breach of contract
and on tort or quasi-delict A supplemental complaint was later filed by said Petitioners
seeking to augment the reliefs prayed for in the original complaint because of alleged
supervening events which occurred during the trial of the case. That the exclusivity of the
said village was adversely affected and diminished due to the opening of the said streets to
the public. That the exclusivity of the said village was guaranteed in the restrictions of TCT.

ISSUE/S:
Whether the Right to Non-Impairment of Contracts of the complainants was violated by the
Respondents in a resolution promoting the welfare of the general public.

RULING:
No, while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not absolute,
since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power. The court do not
see why public welfare when clashing with the individual right to property should not be
made to prevail through the state’s exercise of its police power.
Undoubtedly, the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) Ordinance represents a legitimate
exercise of police power. The petitioners have not shown why we should hold otherwise
other than for the supposed “non-impairment” guaranty of the Constitution, which, as we
have declared, is secondary to the more compelling interests of general welfare. The
Ordinance has not been shown to be capricious or arbitrary or unreasonable to warrant the
reversal of the judgments so appealed.