G.R. No. L-36409 October 26, 1973
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LORETA GOZO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Loreta Gozo, purchased a house and lot situated inside the United States Naval Reservation within the territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo City. She demolished the existing house and constructed a new one in its place without securing a building permit from the City Mayor, as required by Municipal Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1964. Gozo relied on the advice of an assistant in the City Mayor’s office and her neighbors, who informed her that such a permit was unnecessary for construction within the naval base area. Her carpenters were subsequently apprehended, leading to her prosecution.
The City Court of Olongapo found Gozo guilty and sentenced her to one month’s imprisonment. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Zambales also convicted her but modified the penalty to a fine of P200 and an order to demolish the erected house. Gozo then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, noting the constitutional questions she raised regarding the ordinance’s validity and applicability, certified the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 14, requiring a building permit, is valid; and (2) Whether such ordinance is applicable to constructions within the U.S. Naval Reservation in Olongapo City.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The ordinance is a valid exercise of police power under the general welfare clause, a long-standing doctrine since Switzer v. Municipality of Cebu. This power encompasses public health, safety, morals, and the community’s well-being. The requirement of a building permit is a legitimate regulatory measure to ensure orderly urban development and safety standards.
Gozo’s argument that the ordinance violates due process, based on People v. Fajardo, is misplaced. In Fajardo, the permit was arbitrarily denied because the building would “destroy the view of the Public Plaza,” a standard deemed too vague and subjective, thus oppressive. Here, the ordinance imposes a straightforward, objective requirement to obtain a permit before construction, with no allegation of arbitrary denial. The condition is a reasonable regulation, not an oppressive deprivation.
Regarding applicability, the Court firmly rejected Gozo’s claim that the Philippine government lacks administrative jurisdiction within the leased naval base. Citing People v. Acierto, the Court reiterated that areas leased to a foreign power remain part of Philippine territory, where the Republic retains full sovereignty and jurisdiction, except those expressly relinquished by the lease terms. The exercise of police power through building regulations is a fundamental aspect of this retained sovereignty. The lease does not exempt inhabitants from local laws.
Therefore, the ordinance is both valid and applicable. The Court modified the judgment by giving Gozo thirty days from the finality of the decision to obtain the required permit. Only upon her failure to do so would the order for demolition be enforced. Costs were imposed on the accused.