Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    Digest 2 ORTIGAS AND CO.,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS FEATI AND TRUST CO.

    Uploaded by

    Angelica Garces
    This case involves a dispute over land use restrictions between Ortigas & Co. and Feati Bank. Ortigas had sold lots in its subdivision with deed restrictions limiting the lots to residential use only. However, Feati Bank purchased two of the lots and began construction of a commercial building. Ortigas argued Feati must comply with the restrictions. Feati claimed the lots were zoned for commercial use by the local government. The Supreme Court ruled the local government resolution zoning the area for commercial and industrial use was a valid exercise of police power that prevailed over the private contract restrictions between Ortigas and the original buyers. The local autonomy act and implied powers doctrine give municipalities broad authority to enact zoning rules promoting general welfare

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Digest 2 ORTIGAS AND CO.,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS FEATI AND TRUST CO.

    Uploaded by

    Angelica Garces
    115 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over land use restrictions between Ortigas & Co. and Feati Bank. Ortigas had sold lots in its subdivision with deed restrictions limiting the lots to residential use only. However, Feati Bank purchased two of the lots and began construction of a commercial building. Ortigas argued Feati must comply with the restrictions. Feati claimed the lots were zoned for commercial use by the local government. The Supreme Court ruled the local government resolution zoning the area for commercial and industrial use was a valid exercise of police power that prevailed over the private contract restrictions between Ortigas and the original buyers. The local autonomy act and implied powers doctrine give municipalities broad authority to enact zoning rules promoting general welfare

    Original Description:

    RESOLUTION NO.7 AS VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER

    Original Title

    Digest 2 ORTIGAS AND CO.,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS FEATI AND TRUST CO.,

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over land use restrictions between Ortigas & Co. and Feati Bank. Ortigas had sold lots in its subdivision with deed restrictions limiting the lots to residential use only. However, Feati Bank purchased two of the lots and began construction of a commercial building. Ortigas argued Feati must comply with the restrictions. Feati claimed the lots were zoned for commercial use by the local government. The Supreme Court ruled the local government resolution zoning the area for commercial and industrial use was a valid exercise of police power that prevailed over the private contract restrictions between Ortigas and the original buyers. The local autonomy act and implied powers doctrine give municipalities broad authority to enact zoning rules promoting general welfare

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    115 views2 pages

    Digest 2 ORTIGAS AND CO.,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS FEATI AND TRUST CO.

    Uploaded by

    Angelica Garces
    This case involves a dispute over land use restrictions between Ortigas & Co. and Feati Bank. Ortigas had sold lots in its subdivision with deed restrictions limiting the lots to residential use only. However, Feati Bank purchased two of the lots and began construction of a commercial building. Ortigas argued Feati must comply with the restrictions. Feati claimed the lots were zoned for commercial use by the local government. The Supreme Court ruled the local government resolution zoning the area for commercial and industrial use was a valid exercise of police power that prevailed over the private contract restrictions between Ortigas and the original buyers. The local autonomy act and implied powers doctrine give municipalities broad authority to enact zoning rules promoting general welfare

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 2

    RESOLUTION NO.

    7 AS VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER

    ORTIGAS AND CO.,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS FEATI AND TRUST CO.,

    GR NO.L24670

    December 14,1979

    FACTS: SANTOS,J.:Ortigas and Co Limited Partnership engaged real estate business developing
    and selling lots to the public particularly Highway Hills Subdivision in Edsa. On March 4, 1952,
    Ortigas sold Lot. 5 and 6, Block 31 of the Highway Hills Subdivision in Mandaluyong to Augusto
    Padilla y Angeles and Natividad Angeles. But on July 19, 1962 Augusto and Natividad
    transferred their rights in favour of Emma Chavez, upon completion of the payment a deed was
    executed transfer contained the following restrictions and stipulations. One is the use of lots
    should be exclusive for residential purpose only and all building improvements except fences
    should use strong materials , have modern sanitary installations and own septic tank and shall
    be not more than 2 meters from the boundary lines. This was annotated in the transfer
    certificate of titles NO. 19509 and 101511. On July 23, 1962 , Feati Bank bought and acquire lot
    5 from Emma Chavez while lot 6 from Republic Flour Mills. May 5, 1963, Feati Bank began
    construction of a building on both lots for banking purposes. Ortigas send a written demands
    that they should comply with the annotated restrictions, but Feati continued the construction
    and refused arguing that it was following the zoning regulation stated in Municipal Resolution
    27 declaring the area along the West part of Edsa to be a commercial and Industrial zone. Civil
    case was No.7706 was made and decided in favor of Feati.

    ISSUE: Can Resolution No. 27 a valid exercise of police power declaring lot 5 and 6 to be a part
    of the industrial and commercial zone considering contract stipulation in the certificate of
    titles?

    HELD: Yes it is a valid exercise of police power,Resolution No.27 prevails over contract
    stipulation. Under RA 2264 (Local Autonomy Act) Sec. 3 ,empowers municipalities for adapt
    zoning and subdivision ordinance or regulations for the municipality.

    Sec. 12 of RA 2264 states that implied power of the municipality should be “liberally construed
    on its favor” meaning to give power to the local government in promoting economic
    conditions,social welfare, and material progress in the community.

    Any fair and reasonable doubt on the existence of the power should be interpreted in favor on
    the local government and gives more power to LGUs to promote general welfare ,economic
    conditions,social welfare and the material progress of locality.
    The non repairement of contract is not absolute since it must be reconciles with the legitimate
    iexercise of the police power because when general welfare and private property rights
    clash,the former shall prevail through the police power of the state.

    You might also like