Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    28 Fernando Vs ST Scholastica

    Uploaded by

    VanityHugh
    This case involves a dispute between Marikina City and St. Scholastica's College over a city ordinance requiring a five-meter setback for walls and fences. St. Scholastica's had erected a tall concrete perimeter fence enclosing its property. The city claimed the fence violated the ordinance and ordered it demolished. St. Scholastica's sued, and lower courts sided with the school. The Supreme Court ruled the ordinance was not a valid exercise of police power, as the setback requirement amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation. The ordinance also failed the test of being reasonably necessary to achieve its stated goals of preventing unlawful acts and "un-neighborliness."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    28 Fernando Vs ST Scholastica

    Uploaded by

    VanityHugh
    59 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between Marikina City and St. Scholastica's College over a city ordinance requiring a five-meter setback for walls and fences. St. Scholastica's had erected a tall concrete perimeter fence enclosing its property. The city claimed the fence violated the ordinance and ordered it demolished. St. Scholastica's sued, and lower courts sided with the school. The Supreme Court ruled the ordinance was not a valid exercise of police power, as the setback requirement amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation. The ordinance also failed the test of being reasonably necessary to achieve its stated goals of preventing unlawful acts and "un-neighborliness."

    Original Title

    28-Fernando-vs-St-Scholastica

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between Marikina City and St. Scholastica's College over a city ordinance requiring a five-meter setback for walls and fences. St. Scholastica's had erected a tall concrete perimeter fence enclosing its property. The city claimed the fence violated the ordinance and ordered it demolished. St. Scholastica's sued, and lower courts sided with the school. The Supreme Court ruled the ordinance was not a valid exercise of police power, as the setback requirement amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation. The ordinance also failed the test of being reasonably necessary to achieve its stated goals of preventing unlawful acts and "un-neighborliness."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    28 Fernando Vs ST Scholastica

    Uploaded by

    VanityHugh
    This case involves a dispute between Marikina City and St. Scholastica's College over a city ordinance requiring a five-meter setback for walls and fences. St. Scholastica's had erected a tall concrete perimeter fence enclosing its property. The city claimed the fence violated the ordinance and ordered it demolished. St. Scholastica's sued, and lower courts sided with the school. The Supreme Court ruled the ordinance was not a valid exercise of police power, as the setback requirement amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation. The ordinance also failed the test of being reasonably necessary to achieve its stated goals of preventing unlawful acts and "un-neighborliness."

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Fernando vs. St.

    Scholastica | 28

    EN BANC

    HON. MA. LOURDES C. FERNANDO, in her capacity as City Mayor of Marikina


    City, JOSEPHINE C. EVANGELIST A, in her capacity as Chief, Permit Division,
    Office of the City Engineer, and ALFONSO ESPIRITU, in his capacity as City
    Engineer of Marikina City, petitioners,
    vs. ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE and ST. SCHOLASTICA'S ACADEMY-
    MARIKINA, INC., respondents.

    (G.R. No. 161107, March 12, 2013)

    MENDOZA, J.:

    FACTS:

    Respondent SSC’s property is enclosed by a tall concrete perimeter fence.


    Marikina City enacted an ordinance which provides that walls and fences shall not be built
    within a five-meter allowance between the front monument line and the building line of an
    establishment.

    The City Government of Marikina sent a letter to the respondents ordering them to
    demolish, replace, and move back the fence. As a response, the respondents filed a
    petition for prohibition with an application for a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary
    restraining order before the Regional Trial Court of Marikina. The RTC granted the petition
    and the CA affirmed.

    ISSUE:

    1. Whether Marikina Ordinance No. 192, imposing a five-meter setback is a valid


    exercise of police power?

    RULING:

    No, Marikina Ordinance No. 192 is not a valid exercise of police power.

    Two tests have been used by the Court – the rational relationship test and the strict
    scrutiny test.
    Under the rational relationship test, an ordinance must pass the following
    requisites:
    Fernando vs. St. Scholastica | 28

    1. The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular


    class, require its exercise; and
    2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
    purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

    The real intent of the setback requirement was to make the parking space free for
    use by the public and not for the exclusive use of the respondents. This would tantamount
    to a taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Anent the
    objectives of prevention of concealment of unlawful acts and “un-neighborliness” due to
    the walls and fences, the parking area is not reasonably necessary for the
    accomplishment of these goals. The Court, thus, finds Section 5 of the Ordinance to be
    unreasonable and oppressive. Hence, the exercise of police power is not valid.

    You might also like