G.R. No. 135962 March 27, 2000 METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(MMDA), petitioner, vs.

BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOCIATION(BAVA), INC., respondent. PUNO, J.:

1

FACTS

Petitioner, MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila and Respondent, Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA) is a nonstock, non-profit corporation whose members are homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private subdivision in Makati City. Respondent BAVA is the registered owner of Neptune Street, a road inside Bel-Air Village;
2

 MMDA notified BAVA that Neptune Street shall be opened for vehicular traffic and that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision from the adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished;
3

 BAVA instituted against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 136, Makati City, Civil Case No. 96-001 for injunction. Subsequently, the court granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction but after due hearing, the same court denied the issuance of preliminary injunction;
4

 BAVA questioned the denial before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39549. The appellate court issued preliminary injunction and eventually issued permanent injunction setting aside the previous decision of RTC on the ground that MMDA has no authority to open Neptune Street nor to tear down the perimeter wall. CA further averred that such authority was lodged on the City Council of Makati through an ordinance; 5

 MMDA made a motion for reconsideration but was subsequently denied. It, therefore, elevated the case before the Supreme Court, hence, this case.

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner, MMDA has the police power to open Neptune Street, which is owned by the respondent, BAVA, to vehicular traffic?

AVERMENTS
In contention against CAs ruling, MMDA averred that that it has the authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic because it is an agent of the state endowed with police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila. One of these basic services is traffic management which involves the regulation of the use of thoroughfares to insure the safety, convenience and welfare of the general public; 8

 It is alleged that the police power of MMDA was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of Sangalang v. Intermediate Appellate Court;
From the premise that it has police power, MMDA posited that there is no need for the City of Makati to enact an ordinance opening Neptune street to the public;
9

SUPREME COURT RULING

The Petitioners Contention is Bereft with Merit

10

GROUNDS
Police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same (United States v. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245, 253-254
[1915]; Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580, 603 [1915]; People v. Pomar, 46 Phil. 440, 447 [1924]).
11

 police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature (Cruz, Constitutional

Law, p. 44 [1995]);

It cannot be exercised by any group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power (Id., see also 16 C.J.S.,
Constitutional Law, Sec. 177 [1956 ed.]);

12

 The National Legislature, however, may delegate this power to municipal corporations or local government units,
among others (Cruz,
supra, at 44; Binay v. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508, 513-514 [1991]);

Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body (Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, 234
SCRA 255, 272 [1994]);

13

 BUT MMDA is not a local government unit endowed with legislative and police powers;

14

 There is no syllable in R. A. No. 7924 (the law creating MMDA) that grants MMDA police power, let alone legislative power;
Unlike the legislative bodies of the local government units, there is no provision in R. A. No. 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its Council to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare" of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a "development authority."
15

Inapplicability of the Sangalang vs. IAC Case

16

 Part of the conditions in the deeds of sale of lots in Bel-Air is the restriction that said lots are for residential purposes. Other Bel-Air Village residents converted their lots for commercial purposes and Ayala Corp., Bel-Air Developer ushered in the full commercialization of the Jupiter Street, tearing down the wall that separated the residential and commercial sections of the village;
17

 Sangalang and other residents petitioned before IAC for the enforcement of the subject restriction but was denied;
They appealed to the Supreme Court but said Court upheld the decision of IAC based, among others, on Metro Manila Commissions (MMC) Ordinance No. 8101, classifying portion of Bel-Air Village as High Intensity Commercial Zone;
18

 MMC was the forerunner of MMDA but unlike MMDA, MMC was clothed with legislative and police powers by virtue of the law creating it PD No. 824;
Hence, Sangalang vs. IAC Case does not apply on the case at bar.
19

 In view of the foregoing, petition was granted, CA decision was affirmed, thus; no opening of street, no tearing of wall

20

May God Bless Us All !

Any question? I hope, none !

21