Sangalang vs.

IAC
G.R. No. 71169. Dec. 22, 1988

FACTS: This is a consolidated petitions (6 petitions) all raising the issue on whether Jupiter Street
is for the exclusive use only of Bel-Air Village residents and whether the Mayor of Makati could
have validly opened Jupiter and Orbit Streets to vehicular traffic.

Facts of the case revealed that the proceedings were commenced at the first instance by Spouses
Sangalang, both residents of Jupiter Street, Makati, Metro Manila to enforce by specific
performance restrictive easement upon property, specifically the Bel- Air Village subdivision in
Makati, Metro Manila, pursuant to stipulations embodied in the deeds of sale covering the
subdivision, and for damages.

Later, the were joined by Gaston, and Mr. and Mrs Briones, all residents of Jupiter Street. In
addition, the Bel-AirVillage Association, Inc. (BAVA), incorporated homeowners ' association filed
to be allowed as plaintiff in-intervention.

Sometime in 1975, the Municipality of Makati enacted an Ordinance for the purpose of zonification,
followed by a comprehensive zoning ordinance by the National Capital Region which was later
adopted by the Municipality. This ordinance converted a large portion of Bel-Air as highly
Commercialized Zone.

Accordingly, it was deemed necessary by the Municipality of Makati in the interest of the general
public to open to traffic several village streets including Jupiter and Orbit streets.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION: BAVA had agreed to the opening of Bel-Air Village streets and that
the opening was demanded by public necessity and in the exercise of police power.

PETITIONER’S COUNTER-ARGUMENT: It has never agreed on the opening of Jupiter and Orbit
streets. By virtue of its ownership of the streets, it should not be deprived without due process of law
and without just compensation.

ISSUES: Whether the Mayor of Makati could have validly opened Jupiter and Orbit streets? – YES

RULING: YES. The Court ruled that BAVA cannot rightfully complain that the Mayor of Makati, in
opening up Jupiter and Orbit streets, had acted arbitrarily.

Citing Sangalang v. IAC, the Court held that Jupiter street lies as the boundary between Bel-Air Village
and Ayala Corporation’s commercial section. Being considered as merely a boundary – and hence not
part of Ayala’s real estate development projects – it cannot be said to have been for the exclusive
benefit of Bel-Air Village residents.

The very Deed of Donation executed by Ayala Corp. covering Jupiter and Orbit Streets, provided
among things that, effectively required both passageways open to the general public.“…the property
will be used as a street for the use of the members of the BAVA, their families, personnel, guests,
domestic help and under certain reasonable conditions and restrictions, by the general public…”

Following this, the opening of Jupiter and Orbit streets was warranted by the demands of the
common good, in terms of traffic decongestion and public convenience.
Certainly, the measure taken up the Mayor of Makati is in the nature of police power. Therefore, the
demolition of the gates at Orbit and Jupiter streets does not amount to deprivation of property
without due process of law or expropriation without just compensation – there is no taking of
property involved.

Settled in our jurisprudence the concept of police power which refers to the authority of the State to
enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general
welfare.”

However, the Court stressed that, it does not follow at all times that the when the public welfare
clashed w/ the individual right to property, the former will always prevail through the state’s
exercise of its police power. The exercise of such power should not be done arbitrarily or
unreasonably. And, this burden of showing that it is unjustified lies on the aggrieved party.

In the case at bar, BAVA has failed to show that the opening up of Orbit and Jupiter streets was
unjustified or that the Mayor acted unreasonably. The fact that the opening has led to the loss of
privacy of BAVA residents is no argument against the Municipality’s effort to ease vehicular traffic in
Makati. The duty of local executive is to take care of the needs of the greater number, in many cases
at the expense, of the minority.