June 1940 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1940 > June 1940 Decisions >
G.R. No. 47089 June 26, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MALAZARTE
070 Phil 236:
070 Phil 236:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 47089. June 26, 1940.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO MALAZARTE, Defendant-Appellant.
Jose M. Peñas for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Acting Assistant Attorney Adorable for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE; POLICE POWER. — The permit is required where the private property to be fenced borders on public properties or properties affected with public interest, and the requirement is a legitimate exercise of the police power of the municipality. Chief Justice Shaw, one hundred years ago, observed that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it may be regulated that it shall not be injurious to the rights of the community. (Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush., 53.) The permit in the present case is required by the ordinance to safeguard these rights.
D E C I S I O N
LAUREL, J.:
On September 7, 1935, the municipal council of Iriga, Camarines Sur, approved Ordinance No. 5, series of 1935, article 1 of which provides as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
ARTICULO 1. � Se prohibe terminantemente a cualquiera persona, asociacion o corporacion, dueno del terreno que colinda con las orillas de cualquier camino, vereda, rio y riachuelo dentro de la jurisdiccion del municipio de Iriga, Camarines Sur, acorralar dicho parte del terreno sin pedir permiso en forma al Presidente Municipal, especificando en ella el sitio y el nombre donde radica."cralaw virtua1aw library
The herein appellant, Pedro Malazarte, was fined P10, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs, for violation of the aforesaid ordinance. On appeal to the Court of First Instance of the province, defendant presented no evidence and moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the ordinance unduly interfered with individual liberty and property and therefore unconstitutional. This contention is without merit. The permit is required where the private property to be fenced borders on public properties or properties affected with public interest, and the requirement is a legitimate exercise of the police power of the municipality. Chief Justice Shaw, one hundred years ago, observed that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it may be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to the rights of the community. (Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53.) The permit in the present case is required by the ordinance to safeguard these rights. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.
Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.
ARTICULO 1. � Se prohibe terminantemente a cualquiera persona, asociacion o corporacion, dueno del terreno que colinda con las orillas de cualquier camino, vereda, rio y riachuelo dentro de la jurisdiccion del municipio de Iriga, Camarines Sur, acorralar dicho parte del terreno sin pedir permiso en forma al Presidente Municipal, especificando en ella el sitio y el nombre donde radica."cralaw virtua1aw library
The herein appellant, Pedro Malazarte, was fined P10, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs, for violation of the aforesaid ordinance. On appeal to the Court of First Instance of the province, defendant presented no evidence and moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the ordinance unduly interfered with individual liberty and property and therefore unconstitutional. This contention is without merit. The permit is required where the private property to be fenced borders on public properties or properties affected with public interest, and the requirement is a legitimate exercise of the police power of the municipality. Chief Justice Shaw, one hundred years ago, observed that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it may be so regulated that it shall not be injurious to the rights of the community. (Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53.) The permit in the present case is required by the ordinance to safeguard these rights. The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.
Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.