Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Sangalang vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Ange Dino
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' claim that opening streets violated their contractual rights to an exclusive village. While contracts are constitutionally protected, this is not absolute and must be reconciled with legitimate exercises of police power to promote public welfare. The Metro Manila Commission ordinance opening the streets was a valid use of police power to benefit the general public, as it was not shown to be capricious, arbitrary, or unreasonable. Therefore, public welfare prevailed over the petitioners' individual right to property in this case.

    Copyright:

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

    Sangalang vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Ange Dino
    52 views1 page
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' claim that opening streets violated their contractual rights to an exclusive village. While contracts are constitutionally protected, this is not absolute and must be reconciled with legitimate exercises of police power to promote public welfare. The Metro Manila Commission ordinance opening the streets was a valid use of police power to benefit the general public, as it was not shown to be capricious, arbitrary, or unreasonable. Therefore, public welfare prevailed over the petitioners' individual right to property in this case.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' claim that opening streets violated their contractual rights to an exclusive village. While contracts are constitutionally protected, this is not absolute and must be reconciled with legitimate exercises of police power to promote public welfare. The Metro Manila Commission ordinance opening the streets was a valid use of police power to benefit the general public, as it was not shown to be capricious, arbitrary, or unreasonable. Therefore, public welfare prevailed over the petitioners' individual right to property in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views1 page

    Sangalang vs. IAC

    Uploaded by

    Ange Dino
    The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' claim that opening streets violated their contractual rights to an exclusive village. While contracts are constitutionally protected, this is not absolute and must be reconciled with legitimate exercises of police power to promote public welfare. The Metro Manila Commission ordinance opening the streets was a valid use of police power to benefit the general public, as it was not shown to be capricious, arbitrary, or unreasonable. Therefore, public welfare prevailed over the petitioners' individual right to property in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sangalang vs. IAC G.R. No.

    71169, December 22, 1988 168 SCRA 634 (1988)

    Facts:  August 12, 1977, the municipal officials of Makati, destroyed and removed the gates
    constructed/located at the corner of Reposo Street and Jupiter Street as well as the gates/fences
    located/constructed 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: 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?

    Held: 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, i.e., “the
    power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or
    safety and general welfare of the people.’ Invariably described as “the most essential, insistent,
    and illimitable of powers” and “in a sense, the greatest and most powerful attribute of
    government,” the exercise of the power may be judicially inquired into and corrected only if it is
    capricious, whimsical, unjust, or unreasonable, there having been a denial of due process or a
    violation of any other applicable constitutional guarantee. Police power is elastic and must be
    responsive to various social conditions; it is not confined within narrow circumscriptions of
    precedents resting on past conditions; it must follow the legal progress of a democratic way of
    life. 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 the general welfare. The Ordinance has not been
    shown to be capricious or arbitrary or unreasonable to warrant the reversal of the judgments so
    appealed. In that connection, we find no reversible error to have been committed by the Court of
    Appeals.

    Petition denied

    You might also like