Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    People Vs Fajardo

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    Ordinance No. 7 prohibited building that would impair the view of the plaza from the highway, which was considered a taking under the law. As such, property owners were entitled to just compensation. Fajardo and Babilonia were charged with violating this ordinance by building without a permit. The court found the ordinance to be invalid as it conferred arbitrary and unlimited power to the mayor without standards and was therefore unreasonable and oppressive. As the ordinance permanently restricted property use without compensation, it amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The appellants' conviction was reversed.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Fajardo

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    36 views2 pages
    Ordinance No. 7 prohibited building that would impair the view of the plaza from the highway, which was considered a taking under the law. As such, property owners were entitled to just compensation. Fajardo and Babilonia were charged with violating this ordinance by building without a permit. The court found the ordinance to be invalid as it conferred arbitrary and unlimited power to the mayor without standards and was therefore unreasonable and oppressive. As the ordinance permanently restricted property use without compensation, it amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The appellants' conviction was reversed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    People vs Fajardo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ordinance No. 7 prohibited building that would impair the view of the plaza from the highway, which was considered a taking under the law. As such, property owners were entitled to just compensation. Fajardo and Babilonia were charged with violating this ordinance by building without a permit. The court found the ordinance to be invalid as it conferred arbitrary and unlimited power to the mayor without standards and was therefore unreasonable and oppressive. As the ordinance permanently restricted property use without compensation, it amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The appellants' conviction was reversed.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Fajardo

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    Ordinance No. 7 prohibited building that would impair the view of the plaza from the highway, which was considered a taking under the law. As such, property owners were entitled to just compensation. Fajardo and Babilonia were charged with violating this ordinance by building without a permit. The court found the ordinance to be invalid as it conferred arbitrary and unlimited power to the mayor without standards and was therefore unreasonable and oppressive. As the ordinance permanently restricted property use without compensation, it amounted to an unconstitutional taking. The appellants' conviction was reversed.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE VS.

    FAJARDO
    A municipal ordinance prohibiting a building which would impair the
    view of the plaza from the highway was likewise considered taking.
    In these cases, it was held that the property owner was entitled to
    payment of just compensation.

    FACTS:

    Fajardo and Babilonia (son-in law) are charged with violation of Ordinance 7
    Series of 1950 of the Municipality of Baao, Camarines Sur which penalizes a
    person who constructs a building without permit from the mayor.

    After his incumbency, Fajardo applied for a permit to build a building


    beside the gasoline station near the town plaza. His request was repeatedly
    denied due to the reason that it “hinders the view of travelers from the
    National Highway to the public plaza”.

    Appellants proceeded with the construction of the building without a


    permit, because they needed a place of residence very badly, their former
    house having been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been living
    on leased property.

    Appellants were charged and convicted by peace court of Baoo for violating
    such ordinance.

    ISSUE:

    WON Ordinance No. 7 prohibiting a building which would impair the view
    of the plaza from the highway was considered taking?

    HELD:

    Yes. The court held that a municipal ordinance prohibiting a


    building which would impair the view of the plaza from the highway
    was likewise considered taking. In these cases, it was held that the
    property owner was entitled to payment of just compensation. They
    must be given an opportunity to be heard.

    The ordinance doesn’t state any standard that limits the grant of power to
    the mayor. It is an arbitrary and unlimited conferment.

    The subject ordinance fails to state any policy, or to set up any


    standard to guide or limit the mayor’s action. The standards of the
    ordinance are entirely lacking making it unreasonable and
    oppressive, hence, not a valid ordinance. While property may be
    regulated to the interest of the general welfare, and the state may
    eliminate structures offensive to the sight, the state may not
    permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and
    practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic
    appearance of the community.

    Fajardo would be constrained to let the land be fallow and not be used for
    urban purposes. To do this legally, there must be just compensation and
    they must be given an opportunity to be heard.

    An ordinance which permanently so restricts the use of property that


    it can not be used for any reasonable purpose goes, it is plain,
    beyond regulation and must be recognized as a taking of the
    property.

    Hence, the conviction of herein appellants is reversed, and said accused are
    acquitted, with costs de oficio. 

    You might also like