GR L 31249; (August, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31249 August 19, 1986
SALVADOR VILLACORTA as City Engineer of Dagupan City, and JUAN S. CAGUIOA as Register of Deeds of Dagupan City, petitioners, vs. GREGORIO BERNARDO and HON. MACARIO OFILADA as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, respondents.
FACTS
The Municipal Board of Dagupan City enacted Ordinance No. 22, which regulated subdivision plans. The ordinance required that all such plans be submitted to the City Engineer for review to ensure no encroachment on public lands and compliance with zoning rules before being sent to national agencies like the Bureau of Lands or Land Registration Commission. It imposed a service fee of P0.30 per square meter and mandated that the Register of Deeds could not register any subdivision plan without prior written certification from the City Engineer. Violations were punishable by fine or imprisonment.
Gregorio Bernardo challenged the ordinance before the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The lower court declared Ordinance No. 22 null and void, ruling that it conflicted with the national law, Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act). The court found that the ordinance imposed additional conditions not required by the national statute, such as the preliminary submission to the City Engineer, the service fee, and the required certification for registration. The petitioners, the City Engineer and the Register of Deeds of Dagupan City, elevated the decision to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether Ordinance No. 22 of Dagupan City is valid, or whether it constitutes an invalid exercise of police power by contravening a general law enacted by the national legislature.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and declared Ordinance No. 22 null and void. The Court held that while the ordinance pursued a laudable purpose—preventing surreptitious registration of public lands—it contravened the explicit provisions of Act No. 496. The national law did not require the preliminary submission to a city engineer, the imposition of a service fee, or a city engineer’s certification as prerequisites for the approval or registration of subdivision plans. By adding these requirements, the local ordinance amended and violated the general law.
The Court emphasized that local governments exercise police power only by delegation from the national legislature under the general welfare clause. This delegated authority does not permit local ordinances to contradict or add obligations to those established by Congress. To rule otherwise would open the floodgates to local laws amending national statutes under the guise of implementation, leading to a patchwork of conflicting regulations. The decision also included a broader admonition on the need for moderation in exercising police power to avoid unreasonable intrusions into private affairs and to protect individual rights within a democratic society. The ordinance was therefore ultra vires and invalid.