G.R. No. L-6583, February 16, 1912
RAMON FABIE, ET AL. vs. THE CITY OF MANILA

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellees, Ramon Fabie et al., are co-owners of a tract of land within the Hacienda de Santa Ana de Sapa in Manila. They applied for a building permit to construct a small nipa house to serve as a guard house on their property. The City of Manila, through its city engineer, denied the permit based on Ordinance No. 124 (amending Section 107 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila), which required that any building must “abut or face upon a public street or alley or on a private street or alley which has been officially approved.” The plaintiffs’ proposed building site did not meet this requirement. The plaintiffs challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional, alleging it deprived them of property rights without due process of law. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the ordinance null and void. The City of Manila appealed.

ISSUE

Whether Ordinance No. 124, specifically the proviso requiring buildings to abut or face upon a public or officially approved private street or alley, is a valid exercise of the police power of the City of Manila, or an unconstitutional deprivation of property without due process of law.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the lower court and upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance. The proviso is a valid exercise of the city’s police power.

The Court ruled that the ordinance is a reasonable exercise of police power aimed at protecting public health, safety, and welfare, specifically by preventing the crowding of buildings to ensure air space and access for fire protection and sanitation. The requirement serves a public interest distinct from private class interests. The means employedmandating street frontageare reasonably necessary to achieve the public purpose and are not unduly oppressive on individuals. Property rights are held under the implied liability that their use may be regulated to prevent injury to the community. The ordinance does not absolutely prohibit construction; it allows alternatives such as creating an officially approved private street or seeking public street extension. Thus, it constitutes a legitimate regulation under the police power and does not violate due process.