21.a OSG Vs Ayala Land Et - Al

CA DENIED the appeal AFFIRMED the same in
21.a. THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR toto.

GENERAL vs AYALA LAND
INCORPORATED, ROBINSONS LAND ISSUE:
CORPORATION, SHANGRI-LA PLAZA THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY
CORPORATION and SM PRIME HOLDINGS, ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE RULING OF THE
INC (to be referred to as Ayala Land et al) LOWER COURT THAT RESPONDENTS ARE
NOT OBLIGED TO PROVIDE FREE PARKING
FACTS: Respondents Ayala Land et al. SPACES TO THEIR CUSTOMERS OR THE
maintain and operate shopping malls in various PUBLIC.
locations in Metro Manila. Respondent SM DOCTRINE: Police power is the power of
Prime constructs, operates, and leases out promoting the public welfare by restraining and
commercial buildings and other structures. regulating the use of liberty and property. It is
The shopping malls operated or leased out by usually exerted in order to merely regulate the
respondents have parking facilities for all use and enjoyment of the property of the owner.
kinds of motor vehicles, either by way of The power to regulate, however, does not
parking spaces inside the mall buildings or include the... power to prohibit.
in separate buildings and/or adjacent lots Police power does not involve the taking or
that are solely devoted for use as parking confiscation of property, with the exception of a
spaces. few cases where there is a necessity to
In 1999, the Senate Committees on Trade and confiscate private property in order to...
Commerce and on Justice and Human Rights destroy it for the purpose of protecting
conducted a joint investigation to inquire into peace and order and of promoting the
the legality of the prevalent practice of general welfare; for instance, the confiscation
shopping malls of charging parking fees of an illegally possessed article, such as opium
among others. and firearms.
The Committees found that the collection of RULING: The Court finds no merit in the present
parking fees by shopping malls is contrary to Petition.
the National Building Code and is therefor The term "parking fees" cannot even be found at
[sic] illegal. While it is true that the Code merely all in the entire National Building Code and its
requires malls to provide parking spaces, IRR.
without... specifying whether it is free or not,
both Committees believe that the reasonable Without using the term outright, the OSG is
and logical interpretation of the Code is that the actually invoking police power to justify the
parking spaces are for free. regulation by the State, through the DPWH
Secretary and local building officials, of privately
Respondent SM Prime thereafter received owned parking facilities, including the collection
information that, pursuant to Senate Committee by the owners/operators of such facilities... of
Report No. 225, the DPWH Secretary and the parking fees from the public for the use thereof.
local building officials of Manila, Quezon City,
and Las Piñas intended to institute, through the When there is a taking or confiscation of
OSG, an action to enjoin respondent SM private property for public use, the State is
Prime and... similar establishments from no longer exercising police power, but
collecting parking fees, and to impose upon another of its inherent powers, namely,
said establishments penal sanctions under eminent domain. Eminent domain enables
Presidential Decree No. 1096, otherwise known the State to forcibly acquire private lands
as the National Building Code of the Philippines intended for public use upon... payment of
(National Building Code and its (IRR). just compensation to the owner.
The RTC finally decreed in the declaratory relief Although in the present case, title to and/or
case filed by Ayala et. Al that Ayala Land et al possession of the parking facilities remain/s with
are not obligated to provide parking spaces respondents, the prohibition against their
in their malls for the use of their patrons or collection of parking fees from the public, for the
public in general, free of charge.
use of said facilities, is already tantamount to a
taking or confiscation of their... properties.
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.
In conclusion, the total prohibition against
the collection by respondents of parking fees
from persons who use the mall parking
facilities has no basis in the National
Building Code or its IRR. The State also
cannot impose the same prohibition by generally
invoking police... power, since said prohibition
amounts to a taking of respondents' property
without payment of just compensation.

21.a OSG Vs Ayala Land Et - Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

21.a OSG Vs Ayala Land Et - Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

21.a OSG Vs Ayala Land Et - Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CA DENIED the appeal AFFIRMED the same in

21.a. THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR toto.

You might also like