Fabie vs. City of Manila

A municipal ordinance that restricts building permits to structures abutting public or officially approved private streets is a valid exercise of police power, provided it is reasonably necessary for public health and safety and not unduly oppressive on individuals.

The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 124, amending its building code to require that any new building "shall abut or face upon a public street or alley or on a private street or alley which has been officially approved." The ordinance was justified as a measure to improve sanitation, prevent overcrowding, and ensure access for emergency services.

• Filed in the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Manila.
• The lower court declared the ordinance unconstitutional.
• The City of Manila appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

• The plaintiffs (appellees) were co-owners of a large tract of land within Manila.
• They applied for a permit to build a small nipa guard house on the property.
• The City Engineer denied the permit because the proposed building site did not abut a public or approved private street, per Ordinance No. 124.
• The plaintiffs sued, claiming the ordinance violated their property rights under the due process clause.

• The ordinance is a valid exercise of the city's police power.
• Its purposes are to secure public health (by preventing overcrowding and ensuring air space) and public safety (by ensuring access for fire engines, ambulances, and inspectors).
• The regulation is not unduly oppressive because property owners can still build by laying out a private street or having the city extend a public street.

• The ordinance is an unconstitutional invasion of private property rights without due process of law.
• It arbitrarily interferes with the use of their property.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the ordinance constitutes a valid exercise of police power.
  • Whether the ordinance amounts to a taking of property without due process.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The SC ruled the ordinance constitutional.
• The ordinance serves the public interest generally (health and safety), not a particular class.
• The means (requiring frontage on a street) are reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of preventing fire hazards and disease spread by ensuring access and air space.
• The restriction is not unduly oppressive, as it does not prohibit building outright but regulates its location in a way that may even enhance property value.

• Police Power — The inherent power of the state to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare. The SC applied the two-part test from Lawton v. Steele:
  1. The interests of the public generally require such interference.
  2. The means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
  3. Salus populi suprema est lex — "The welfare of the people is the highest law." Cited to underscore that public necessity can justify reasonable restrictions on property rights.

• "The welfare of the people is the highest law" (salus populi suprema est lex).
• "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."

• U.S. v. Toribio — Followed for its discussion and application of the police power doctrine.
• Lawton v. Steele — Applied its two-part test to determine the reasonableness of the police power exercise.
• Commonwealth v. Alger — Cited for the principle that property rights are subject to reasonable limitations to prevent injury to the community.

• Due Process Clause (of the applicable Philippine organic law/ U.S. Constitution at the time) — The basis for the plaintiffs' challenge; the SC found no violation.
• Ordinance No. 124 of Manila — The specific regulation whose constitutionality was upheld.