SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. 47089 June 26, 1940

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PEDRO MALAZARTE, Defendant-Appellant.

Jose M. Pe�as for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Acting Assistant Attorney Adorable for appellee.

LAUREL, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

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:

ARTICULO 1.� Se prohibe terminantemente a cualquiera persona, asociacion o corporacion, dueno del terreno que colinda con las orillas de cualqiera 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.

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 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 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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Avance�a, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur.