People v. Malazarte
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 7, 1935, the municipal council of Iriga, Camarines Sur, approved Ordinance No. 5, series of 1935. Article 1 of this ordinance prohibited any person, association, or corporation, who owns land bordering any road, path, river, or stream within the municipality, from fencing such land without first obtaining a permit from the Municipal President, specifying the site and name of the property. Procedural History: The appellant, Pedro Malazarte, was fined P10, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs, for violating the aforementioned ordinance. Upon appeal to the Court of First Instance, the defendant presented no evidence and moved for dismissal, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional as it unduly interfered with individual liberty and property. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether Ordinance No. 5, series of 1935 of the Municipality of Iriga, is unconstitutional for unduly interfering with individual liberty and property rights.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the ordinance is a legitimate exercise of the police power of the municipality. The Court reasoned that the permit requirement is specifically designed for private property that borders public properties affected with public interest, such as rivers and roads. Citing the long-standing principle from Commonwealth v. Alger, the Court emphasized that no property title is so absolute that it is exempt from regulation for the community's benefit. Every property owner holds their title under the implied liability that their use of the land must not be injurious to the rights of the community. The permit process is the administrative mechanism used to safeguard these community rights and ensure that fencing does not obstruct or damage public interests. Therefore, the ordinance does not violate the constitutional protections of liberty and property, as these rights are always subject to reasonable state regulation for the general welfare.
Main Doctrine
A municipal ordinance requiring a permit before fencing property bordering public areas is a legitimate exercise of police power to safeguard public rights, and does not unduly interfere with individual liberty and property.