Anda di halaman 1dari 2

JOSE D. SANGALANG and LUTGARDA D. SANGALANG et.

al ,
petitioners,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, and AYALA
CORPORATION, respondents.

Nature of the Action

This case comprised of five consolidated petition for the review of the
decision of the Court of Appeals in, denying specific performance and
damages.
Material Facts

In the valid exercise of police power, the subject and the means should be
lawful.

In this case, the petitioners contended that the destruction of the gates and
fences located at the corner of Reposo Street and Jupiter Street as well as
the gates/fences located/constructed at Jupiter Street and Makati Avenue
and opening the said streets for public use was an impairment of contracts
because after the destruction of those structures, Ayala Corporation
donated those streets to Bel-Air Village Association, Inc.

The Municipal officers of Makati destroyed the said structures on the


ground that, since the streets, by virtue of Municipal Ordinance No, 81,
were within the area of a high intensity commercial zone, it was
necessary for them to destroy the said structures to open the street for
public use and lessen traffic congestion.

Issue

So, is a deed of donation between Ayala Corporation and Bel-Air Village


Association Inc., having a nature of a contract, a lawful subject of police
power?

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, these petitions are DENIED No


pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi

Yes, the deed of donation between the two parties is a lawful subject of
police power. The Supreme Court held that while non-impairment of
contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not absolute for it has to
reconcile with the legitimate exercise of police power. Thus, the
destruction of the gates and fences protecting the streets from public use
was of necessity for the demands of the common good, which was traffic
decongestion and public convenience.