EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-3887. August 21, 1950. ]
FELIPE R. HIPOLITO, Petitioner, v. THE CITY OF MANILA and ALEJO AQUINO, as City Engineer, Respondents.
Felipe R. Hipolito, in his own behalf.
City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant Fiscal Arsenio Nañawa, for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. NATIONAL URBAN PLANNING COMMISSION; PLAN; CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE BUILDINGS. — The City Engineer refused to permit Hipolito to build on his lot alleging that part of it was covered by the proposed widening f the street approved by the Urban Commission. Held: The plan could not affect the construction of private buildings not subsidized in whole or in part with public funds.
2. MANDAMUS REFUSAL OF CITY OF MANILA TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT WHEN NOT JUSTIFIED. — There being no allegation that petitioner had not complied with all the requisites of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, and it being unquestioned that defendant’s refusal would amount to denying unlawfully to petitioner the right to beneficial use of his property, the writ of mandamus should be granted.
3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; BUILDING PERMIT; CITY OF MANILA’S DENIAL TO ISSUE PERMIT AS AMOUNTING TO ILLEGAL EXPROPRIATION. — The City has not expropriated the strip of petitioner’s land affected by the proposal widening of the street, and inasmuch as there is no legislative authority to establish a building line, the denial of this permit would amount to the taking of private property for public use under the power of eminent domain without following the procedure prescribed for the exercise of such power.
2. MANDAMUS REFUSAL OF CITY OF MANILA TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMIT WHEN NOT JUSTIFIED. — There being no allegation that petitioner had not complied with all the requisites of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, and it being unquestioned that defendant’s refusal would amount to denying unlawfully to petitioner the right to beneficial use of his property, the writ of mandamus should be granted.
3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS; BUILDING PERMIT; CITY OF MANILA’S DENIAL TO ISSUE PERMIT AS AMOUNTING TO ILLEGAL EXPROPRIATION. — The City has not expropriated the strip of petitioner’s land affected by the proposal widening of the street, and inasmuch as there is no legislative authority to establish a building line, the denial of this permit would amount to the taking of private property for public use under the power of eminent domain without following the procedure prescribed for the exercise of such power.
D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
This is an action to compel the respondents to issue a building permit in favor of Felipe R. Hipolito.
The petitioner and his wife are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated at the corner of Invernes and Renaissance Streets, Santa Ana, Manila. On March 22, 1950, petitioner applied to the respondent Alejo Aquino, as City Engineer, for permission to erect a strong material residential building on his above-mentioned lot. For more than forty days, the respondent took no action. Wherefore, petitioner wrote him a letter manifesting his readiness to pay the fee and to comply with existing ordinances governing the issuance of building permits.
On May 29, 1950, the respondent engineer answered declining to issue the permit in view of the 2d indorsement of the National Urban Planning Commission, which reads partly as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
"According to the Adopted Plan for Sta. Ana, Invernes and Renaissance Streets will be widened to the respective widths of 22-m. and 10 m. Since it is the policy of the Commission to be fair with owners of abutting properties, the widening is generally taken equally on both sides of the street, thereby affecting the proposed building of Atty. Hipolito by 5.00 m. along Invernes St, and by 1.00 m. along Rennaissance St., as shown in the attached plan. In this connection, it may be stated that Invernes St. will be an inter-neighborhood street that will connect directly the District of Sta. Ana to Pandacan. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The respondent Engineer plainly implied that Hipolito’s building should have observed the new street line indicated by the Commission.
The petitioner, who is a lawyer, replied that the said Commission and its plans could not legally affect the construction of residential buildings, like his own, that are not subsidized in whole or in part with public funds, citing section 6 of Executive Order No. 98, s. 1946, which partly reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Sec. 6. Legal status of general plans. — Whenever the Commission shall have adopted a General Plan, amendment, extension or addition thereto of any urban area or any part thereof, then and thenceforth no street, park or other public way, ground place, or space; no public building or structure, including residential buildings subsidized in whole or part by public funds or assistance; . . . shall be constructed or authorized in such urban area until and unless the location and extent thereof conform to said general plan or have been submitted and approved by the Commission, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The respondent City Engineer saw differently, and refused to issue the permit, stating:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"This Office is of the opinion that constructions on streets affected by the adopted plans of the N. U. P. C. will have to conform thereto unless exempted by previous municipal legislation. Notwithstanding decisions of the court of first instance to the contrary, this office will continue with this policy until the Supreme Court rules otherwise." (Emphasis ours.) .
The defense to this petition is planted on the opinion that unless Hipolito’s building conforms to the new street line fixed by the National Urban Planning Commission, the building permit will not be issued.
It is not claimed that the City of Manila has expropriated, or desires to expropriate, that portion of petitioner’s lot between the existing street line and the new street line adopted by the National Urban Planning Commission. No law or ordinance is cited requiring private landowners in Manila to conform to the new street line marked by the National Urban Planning Commission, except the section above quoted. And the question relates only to its interpretation.
As we read it, that section in referring to structures to be constructed in any urban area for which the Commission has adopted a General Plan, applies only to "residential buildings subsidized in whole or in part by public funds or assistance." The residential building which petitioner intends to construct may not be so classified, because he asserts, without contradiction, that his proposed construction will be financed wholly by himself, not with public funds or assistance. Therefore, the excuse given by respondent is not valid.
Consequently, there being no allegation that petitioner had not complied with all the requisites of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, and it being unquestioned that defendants refusal would amount to denying unlawfully to petitioner the right to beneficial use of his property, the writ of mandamus should be granted. The City has not expropriated the strip of petitioner’s land affected by the proposed widening of Invernes Street, and inasmuch as there is no legislative authority to establish a building line, the denial of this permit would amount to the taking of private property for public use under the power of eminent domain without following the procedure prescribed for the exercise of such power. (See In re Opinion of the Justices, 128 A., 181; 12 Me. 501; Grove Hall Savings Bank v. Town of Dedham, 187 N. E., 182; 284 Mass., 92; Curtis v. City of Boston, 142 N. E., 95; 247 Mass., 417.) .
Wherefore, respondents are required to issue the building permit upon payment of the fees. No costs.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.
PABLO, M., disidente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
El recurrente pide a este Tribunal que ordene al ingeniero de la ciudad de Manila que expida licencia a su favor para construir un edificio de su propiedad en las calles de Invernes y Renaissance en el distrito de Sta. Ana, Manila. El ingeniero se neg6 a expedir la licencia porque el plano del edificio que desea construir no esta de acuerdo con el plan general adoptado por la National Urban Planning Commission. En dicho plan, la calle de Invernes debe tener 20 metros de ancho y 10 la calle de Renaissance, y todo edificio que se levantare a lo largo de dichas calles debe construirse a una distancia de 5 metros desde la linea antigua en la primera calle y de un metro en la segunda, para asi facilitar el futuro ensanche de las mismas. La calle de Invernes se convertira segun los planos en avenida que conectara Sta. Ana con Pandacan. Aun antes de la guerra, esta calle se habia declarado carretera nacional, y las casas construidas con posterioridad dejaron una faja de terreno de 5 metros desde los bordes de la calle actual. El ingeniero de la ciudad no quiere expedir la licencia correspondiente porque el plano del edificio no esta ajustado al plan general y no esta aprobado por la National Urban Planning Commission.
Se arguye que no hay ninguna ordenanza que fije la nueva linea de edificacion. No es necesario que exista, porque el plan se ha adoptado de acuerdo con la orden ejecutiva No. 98, la cual tiene fuerza de ley. Dicha orden se dicto que un organismo debidamente cualificado como la National Urban Planning Commission preparase un plan general para la ciudad de Manila, un plan que coordinara, ajustara y armonizara la construccion o reconstruccion de calles, plazas y edificios para el desenvolvimiento adecuado de la ciudad, teniendo en cuenta sus presentes condiciones y futuras necesidades, la salud publica, la seguridad, orden, conveniencia, trafico, conveniente distribucion de la poblacion, adecuada provision de luz, aire y ventilacion, las medidas contra incendios y todos los medios que pueden promover el bienestar general.
Consciente de la necesidad de reconstruir la ciudad de Manila levantandola de la desolacion y ruina en que la dejo la guerra, la legislatura aprobo el bill No. 598 de la Camara de Representantes; pero fue vetado por el presidente en primero de noviembre de 1945 porque, contrario a la constitucion, disponia que en la National Urban Planning Commission tomarian parte el presidente del comite de obras publicas del Senado y el presidente del comite de obras publicas de la Camara de Representantes. En 11 de marzo de 1946, viendo la necesidad urgente de la medida, el Presidente promulgo la orden ejecutiva No. 98, que es reproduccion, con ligeras enmiendas, del bill desaprobado y nombro a los miembros de la National Urban Planning Commission la cual preparo un plan general.
No se discute la fuerza legal de esta orden ni se discute la vigencia del plan adoptado; pero se arguye que no hay ninguna ordenanza que oblique a los que quieren construir edificios a ajustar sus planos al plan general de la ciudad. En eso esta el error. El plan general adoptado no solamente tiene fuerza de ordenanza sino tambien fuerza de ley. Concertandonos al caso presente, el plan exige que los edificios a lo largo de la calle de Invernes deben construirse a cinco metros mas atras de la linea actual de la calle y un metro mas atras en la calle de Rennaissance. El recurrente debe construir su edificio de acuerdo con el plan general, y porque el quiere ocupar la faja de terreno de 5 metros que esta al lado de la calle de Invernes, y la faja de terreno de un metro al lado de la calle de Rennaissance, el ingeniero de la ciudad no expidio la licencia correspondiente. Y hoy acude a este Tribunal en demanda de una orden perentoria para que el ingeniero expida la licencia correspondiente. Debe denegarse su solicitud.
Si la ciudad de Manila puede dictar una ordenanza en el mismo sentido,
The petitioner and his wife are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated at the corner of Invernes and Renaissance Streets, Santa Ana, Manila. On March 22, 1950, petitioner applied to the respondent Alejo Aquino, as City Engineer, for permission to erect a strong material residential building on his above-mentioned lot. For more than forty days, the respondent took no action. Wherefore, petitioner wrote him a letter manifesting his readiness to pay the fee and to comply with existing ordinances governing the issuance of building permits.
On May 29, 1950, the respondent engineer answered declining to issue the permit in view of the 2d indorsement of the National Urban Planning Commission, which reads partly as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
x x x
"According to the Adopted Plan for Sta. Ana, Invernes and Renaissance Streets will be widened to the respective widths of 22-m. and 10 m. Since it is the policy of the Commission to be fair with owners of abutting properties, the widening is generally taken equally on both sides of the street, thereby affecting the proposed building of Atty. Hipolito by 5.00 m. along Invernes St, and by 1.00 m. along Rennaissance St., as shown in the attached plan. In this connection, it may be stated that Invernes St. will be an inter-neighborhood street that will connect directly the District of Sta. Ana to Pandacan. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The respondent Engineer plainly implied that Hipolito’s building should have observed the new street line indicated by the Commission.
The petitioner, who is a lawyer, replied that the said Commission and its plans could not legally affect the construction of residential buildings, like his own, that are not subsidized in whole or in part with public funds, citing section 6 of Executive Order No. 98, s. 1946, which partly reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Sec. 6. Legal status of general plans. — Whenever the Commission shall have adopted a General Plan, amendment, extension or addition thereto of any urban area or any part thereof, then and thenceforth no street, park or other public way, ground place, or space; no public building or structure, including residential buildings subsidized in whole or part by public funds or assistance; . . . shall be constructed or authorized in such urban area until and unless the location and extent thereof conform to said general plan or have been submitted and approved by the Commission, . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
The respondent City Engineer saw differently, and refused to issue the permit, stating:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"This Office is of the opinion that constructions on streets affected by the adopted plans of the N. U. P. C. will have to conform thereto unless exempted by previous municipal legislation. Notwithstanding decisions of the court of first instance to the contrary, this office will continue with this policy until the Supreme Court rules otherwise." (Emphasis ours.) .
The defense to this petition is planted on the opinion that unless Hipolito’s building conforms to the new street line fixed by the National Urban Planning Commission, the building permit will not be issued.
It is not claimed that the City of Manila has expropriated, or desires to expropriate, that portion of petitioner’s lot between the existing street line and the new street line adopted by the National Urban Planning Commission. No law or ordinance is cited requiring private landowners in Manila to conform to the new street line marked by the National Urban Planning Commission, except the section above quoted. And the question relates only to its interpretation.
As we read it, that section in referring to structures to be constructed in any urban area for which the Commission has adopted a General Plan, applies only to "residential buildings subsidized in whole or in part by public funds or assistance." The residential building which petitioner intends to construct may not be so classified, because he asserts, without contradiction, that his proposed construction will be financed wholly by himself, not with public funds or assistance. Therefore, the excuse given by respondent is not valid.
Consequently, there being no allegation that petitioner had not complied with all the requisites of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, and it being unquestioned that defendants refusal would amount to denying unlawfully to petitioner the right to beneficial use of his property, the writ of mandamus should be granted. The City has not expropriated the strip of petitioner’s land affected by the proposed widening of Invernes Street, and inasmuch as there is no legislative authority to establish a building line, the denial of this permit would amount to the taking of private property for public use under the power of eminent domain without following the procedure prescribed for the exercise of such power. (See In re Opinion of the Justices, 128 A., 181; 12 Me. 501; Grove Hall Savings Bank v. Town of Dedham, 187 N. E., 182; 284 Mass., 92; Curtis v. City of Boston, 142 N. E., 95; 247 Mass., 417.) .
Wherefore, respondents are required to issue the building permit upon payment of the fees. No costs.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
PABLO, M., disidente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
El recurrente pide a este Tribunal que ordene al ingeniero de la ciudad de Manila que expida licencia a su favor para construir un edificio de su propiedad en las calles de Invernes y Renaissance en el distrito de Sta. Ana, Manila. El ingeniero se neg6 a expedir la licencia porque el plano del edificio que desea construir no esta de acuerdo con el plan general adoptado por la National Urban Planning Commission. En dicho plan, la calle de Invernes debe tener 20 metros de ancho y 10 la calle de Renaissance, y todo edificio que se levantare a lo largo de dichas calles debe construirse a una distancia de 5 metros desde la linea antigua en la primera calle y de un metro en la segunda, para asi facilitar el futuro ensanche de las mismas. La calle de Invernes se convertira segun los planos en avenida que conectara Sta. Ana con Pandacan. Aun antes de la guerra, esta calle se habia declarado carretera nacional, y las casas construidas con posterioridad dejaron una faja de terreno de 5 metros desde los bordes de la calle actual. El ingeniero de la ciudad no quiere expedir la licencia correspondiente porque el plano del edificio no esta ajustado al plan general y no esta aprobado por la National Urban Planning Commission.
Se arguye que no hay ninguna ordenanza que fije la nueva linea de edificacion. No es necesario que exista, porque el plan se ha adoptado de acuerdo con la orden ejecutiva No. 98, la cual tiene fuerza de ley. Dicha orden se dicto que un organismo debidamente cualificado como la National Urban Planning Commission preparase un plan general para la ciudad de Manila, un plan que coordinara, ajustara y armonizara la construccion o reconstruccion de calles, plazas y edificios para el desenvolvimiento adecuado de la ciudad, teniendo en cuenta sus presentes condiciones y futuras necesidades, la salud publica, la seguridad, orden, conveniencia, trafico, conveniente distribucion de la poblacion, adecuada provision de luz, aire y ventilacion, las medidas contra incendios y todos los medios que pueden promover el bienestar general.
Consciente de la necesidad de reconstruir la ciudad de Manila levantandola de la desolacion y ruina en que la dejo la guerra, la legislatura aprobo el bill No. 598 de la Camara de Representantes; pero fue vetado por el presidente en primero de noviembre de 1945 porque, contrario a la constitucion, disponia que en la National Urban Planning Commission tomarian parte el presidente del comite de obras publicas del Senado y el presidente del comite de obras publicas de la Camara de Representantes. En 11 de marzo de 1946, viendo la necesidad urgente de la medida, el Presidente promulgo la orden ejecutiva No. 98, que es reproduccion, con ligeras enmiendas, del bill desaprobado y nombro a los miembros de la National Urban Planning Commission la cual preparo un plan general.
No se discute la fuerza legal de esta orden ni se discute la vigencia del plan adoptado; pero se arguye que no hay ninguna ordenanza que oblique a los que quieren construir edificios a ajustar sus planos al plan general de la ciudad. En eso esta el error. El plan general adoptado no solamente tiene fuerza de ordenanza sino tambien fuerza de ley. Concertandonos al caso presente, el plan exige que los edificios a lo largo de la calle de Invernes deben construirse a cinco metros mas atras de la linea actual de la calle y un metro mas atras en la calle de Rennaissance. El recurrente debe construir su edificio de acuerdo con el plan general, y porque el quiere ocupar la faja de terreno de 5 metros que esta al lado de la calle de Invernes, y la faja de terreno de un metro al lado de la calle de Rennaissance, el ingeniero de la ciudad no expidio la licencia correspondiente. Y hoy acude a este Tribunal en demanda de una orden perentoria para que el ingeniero expida la licencia correspondiente. Debe denegarse su solicitud.
Si la ciudad de Manila puede dictar una ordenanza en el mismo sentido,
