1 OSG Petitioner Vs Ayala Land Et Al
1 OSG Petitioner Vs Ayala Land Et Al
1 OSG Petitioner Vs Ayala Land Et Al
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
618
619
620
621
622
623
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,1
under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, filed by
petitioner Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), seeking the
reversal and setting aside of the Decision2 dated 25
January 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
76298, which affirmed in toto the Joint Decision3 dated 29
May 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City,
Branch 138, in Civil Cases No. 00-1208 and No. 00-1210;
and (2) the Resolution4 dated 14 March 2007 of the
appellate court in the same case which denied the Motion
for Reconsideration of the OSG. The RTC adjudged that
respondents Ayala Land, Incorporated (Ayala Land),
Robinsons Land Corporation (Robinsons), Shangri-la Plaza
Corporation (Shangri-la), and SM Prime Holdings, Inc. (SM
Prime) could not be obliged to provide free parking spaces
in their malls to their patrons and the general public.
Respondents Ayala Land, Robinsons, and Shangri-la
maintain and operate shopping malls in various locations
in Metro Manila. Respondent SM Prime constructs,
operates, and leases out commercial buildings and other
structures, among which, are SM City, Manila; SM
Centerpoint, Sta. Mesa, Manila; SM City, North Avenue,
Quezon City; and SM Southmall, Las Piñas.
The shopping malls operated or leased out by
respondents have parking facilities for all kinds of motor
vehicles, either by way of parking spaces inside the mall
buildings or in separate buildings and/or adjacent lots that
are solely devoted for use as parking spaces. Respondents
Ayala Land, Robinsons,
_______________
624
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land, Incorporated
_______________
626
_______________
627
_______________
628
_______________
629
“The requisites for an action for declaratory relief are: (a) there
is a justiciable controversy; (b) the controversy is between persons
whose interests are adverse; (c) the party seeking the relief has a
legal interest in the controversy; and (d) the issue involved is ripe
for judicial determination.
SM, the petitioner in Civil Case No. 001-1208 [sic] is a mall
operator who stands to be affected directly by the position taken
by the government officials sued namely the Secretary of Public
Highways and the Building Officials of the local government units
where it
_______________
630
_______________
15 Rollo, p. 252.
631
_______________
632
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE RULE
XIX OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AS HAVING BEEN
ENACTED ULTRA VIRES, HENCE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND VOID.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE THE
IMPLEMENTING RULES INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT HAVING
BEEN PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DISMISS THE
OSG’S PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND
INJUNCTION FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE THAT
THE OSG HAS NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE AND/OR THAT
IT IS NOT A REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST IN THE INSTANT
CASE.21
_______________
21 Id., at p. 462.
633
_______________
22 Citing Section 35, Chapter XII, Title III, Book IV of Executive Order
No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, which
provide:
SECTION 35. Powers and Functions.—The Office of the
Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the
Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and
agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter
requiring the services of a lawyer. When authorized by the
President or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent
government-owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the
Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government
and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of a
lawyer. It shall have the following specific powers and functions:
x x x x
(3) Appear in any court in any action involving the validity of
any treaty, law, executive order or proclamation, rule or regulation
when in his judgment his intervention is necessary or when
requested by the Court.
x x x x
(11) Act and represent the Republic and/or the people before
any court, tribunal, body or commission in any matter, action or
proceeding which, in his opinion, affects the welfare of the people as
the ends of justice may require; x x x.
634
_______________
23 Rollo, p. 57.
635
The OSG now comes before this Court, via the instant
Petition for Review, with a single assignment of error:
_______________
24 Id., at p. 33.
25 A Revised IRR took effect on 30 April 2005. Rule XIX of the old IRR
was reproduced in Table VII.4 (Minimum Required Off-Street (Off-
RROW)-cum-On-Site Parking Slot, Parking Area and Loading/Unloading
Space Requirements by Allowed Use or Occupancy) of the Revised IRR.
636
_______________
26 Soria v. Desierto, 490 Phil. 749, 754; 450 SCRA 339, 344 (2005).
638
_______________
639
From the RTC all the way to this Court, the OSG
repeatedly referred to Republic v. Gonzales28 and City of
Ozamis v. Lumapas29 to support its position that the State
has the power to regulate parking spaces to promote the
health, safety, and welfare of the public; and it is by virtue
of said power that respondents may be required to provide
free parking facilities. The OSG, though, failed to consider
the substantial differences in the factual and legal
backgrounds of these two cases from those of the Petition
at bar.
In Republic, the Municipality of Malabon sought to eject
the occupants of two parcels of land of the public domain to
give way to a road-widening project. It was in this context
that the Court pronounced:
_______________
640
_______________
641
_______________
31 Republic v. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, 143 Phil. 158, 163; 32
SCRA 211, 215 (1970).
642
_______________
32 Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil. 956, 969; 329
SCRA 314, 327 (2000).
643
_______________
644
from the public for the use of the mall parking facilities,
the State would be acting beyond the bounds of police
power.
Police power is the power of promoting the public
welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and
property. It is usually exerted in order to merely regulate
the use and enjoyment of the property of the owner. The
power to regulate, however, does not include the power to
prohibit. A fortiori, the power to regulate does not include
the power to confiscate. Police power does not involve the
taking or confiscation of property, with the exception of a
few cases where there is a necessity to confiscate private
property in order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting
peace and order and of promoting the general welfare; for
instance, the confiscation of an illegally possessed article,
such as opium and firearms.34
When there is a taking or confiscation of private
property for public use, the State is no longer exercising
police power, but another of its inherent powers, namely,
eminent domain. Eminent domain enables the State to
forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon
payment of just compensation to the owner.35
Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain
results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and
possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent
reason appears why the said power may not be availed of
only to impose a burden upon the owner of condemned
property, without loss of title and possession.36 It is a
settled rule that neither acquisition of title nor total
destruction of value is essential to taking. It is usually in
cases where title remains with the private owner that
inquiry should be made to determine whether the im-
_______________
34 See City Government of Quezon City v. Judge Ericta, 207 Phil. 648,
654; 122 SCRA 759, 764 (1983).
35 Acuña v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 79310, 14 July 1989, 175 SCRA 343, 370.
36 Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company, 136 Phil. 20, 29; 26 SCRA 620, 628 (1969).
645
_______________
37 See J. Romero’s Dissenting Opinion in Telecommunications and
Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections, 352
Phil. 153, 191; 289 SCRA 337, 367 (1998). See also People v. Fajardo, 104
Phil. 443, 447-448 (1958).
38 Supra note 34 at 656-657.
646
_______________
39 Ty v. Trampe, G.R. No. 117577, 1 December 1995, 250 SCRA 500,
520.
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.