CITY GOVERNMENT V ERICTA G.R. No. L-34915

FACTS: The Quezon City government enacted an ordinance “ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF PRIVATE MEMORIAL TYPE CEMETERY OR BURIAL GROUND WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF QUEZON CITY AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF”, whereby it requires that at least six (6) percent of the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have been residents of Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their death, to be determined by competent City Authorities. Quezon City justified the enacted ordinance by invoking police power. ISSUE: Whether or not the ordinance is valid. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled the law as an invalid exercise of police power. There is no reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least six (6) percent of the total area of all private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of health, morals, good order, safety, or the general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the burden to private cemeteries.

MMDA VS BEL-AIR (G.R. No. 135962. March 27, 2000)

FACTS: On December 30, 1995, respondent received from petitioner, through its Chairman, a notice dated December 22, 1995 requesting respondent to open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996.On the same day, respondent was apprised that the perimeter wall separating the subdivision from the adjacent Kalayaan Avenue would be demolished. On January 2, 1996, respondent filed a petition aainst MMDA before the Regional Trial Court OF MAKATI with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining the opening of Neptune Street and prohibiting the demolition of the perimeter wall. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order the following day. Neptune Street is owned by respondent BAVA and it is a private road inside Bel-Air Village, a private residential subdivision in Makati City. It runs parallel to Kalayaan Avenue, a national road open to the general public. Petitioner MMDA claims that it has the authority to open Neptune Street to public traffic because it is an agent of the state endowed with police power in the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila One of their claim is that one of these basic services is traffic management which involves the regulation of the use of thoroughfares to insure the safety, convenience and welfare of the general public. ISSUE: Whether or not MMDA can exercise Police Power. HELD: No,The MMDA is not a political unit of government. It was created to put some order in the metropolitan transportation system but unfortunately the powers granted by its charter are limited. The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of the MMDAs functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. There is no syllable in R. A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power. Unlike the legislative bodies of the local government units, there is no provision in R. A. No. 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its Council to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare" of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a "development authority."It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and coordinating with the various national government agencies, peoples organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector for the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast metropolitan area. The MMC under P. D. No. 824 is not the same entity as the MMDA under R. A. No. 7924. Unlike the MMC, the MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. It is the local government units, acting through their respective legislative councils, that possess legislative power and police power. In the case at bar, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune Street,hence, its proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal and the respondent Court of Appeals did not err in so ruling. Its good intentions cannot justify the opening for public use of a private street in a private subdivision without any legal warrant. The promotion of the general welfare is not antithetical to the preservation of the rule of law.

AMIGABLE vs CUENCA G.R. No. L-26400

FACTS: Petitioner Victoria Amigable is a registered owner of a lot, of which a portion of it was used by the government without prior approriation or negotiated sale. Amigable's counsel wrote to the President of the Philippines, requesting payment for the portion of the lot that which had been expropriated by the government. Later on, Amigable filed a case against the Republic of the Philippines and Commissioner of Public Highways Nicolas Cuenca. She sought for the recovery of her ownership and possesion of the land, compensatory and moral damages, attorneys fees and the cost of the suit. The defendents claim that the action was premature, barred by prescription, and the government did not give its consent to be sued. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant may properly sue the government. HELD: The court held that where the government takes away property from a private land owner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. As registered owner, she could bring an action to recover possession of the portion of land in question at anytime because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. The only relief available is for the government to make due compensation which it could and should have done years ago. To determine just compensation of the land, the basis should be the price or value at the time of the taking.