Bel-Air v IAC calculated to alleviate traffic congestions along the public streets adjacent
GR No.71169 | December 22,1988 | Police Power| Sarmiento | Da Silva to Bel-Air Village.
Petitioner: Bel-Air Association
3. Accordingly, it was deemed necessary by the Municipality of Makati in the
Respondents: Intermediate Appellate Court
interest of the general public to open to traffic several village streets
including Jupiter and Orbit streets.
Recit-Ready: Ayala Corp. donated Jupiter and Orbit street to Bel-Air Village
4. Respondent’s claim: BAVA had agreed to the opening of Bel-Air Village
Association (BAVA). The Mayor of Makati conducted studies on the feasibility of
streets and that the opening was demanded by public necessity and in the
opening streets in Bel-Air Village to alleviate traffic. It was deemed necessary to
exercise of police power.
open the streets to the public. Bel-Air contested this saying that by virtue of its
ownership, it should not be deprived without due process of law and without just 5. Petitioner’s counter-argument: It has never agreed on the opening of Jupiter
compensation. The issue in this case is whether or not the Mayor’s exercise of police and Orbit streets. By virtue of its ownership of the streets, it should not be
power was valid. The Court held that yes the Mayor’s exercise of police was valid, deprived without due process of law and without just compensation.
even though it ultimately led to a loss of private property, and an alleged intrusion
into the privacy of BAVA residents. It was said here that police power is the “state ISSUE/S:
authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in
order to promote the general welfare.” The exercise of police power, however, may W/N the Mayor of Makati could have validly opened Jupiter and Orbit streets? – YES
not be done arbitrarily or unreasonably. But the burden of showing that it is (Preliminary issue)
unjustified lies on the aggrieved party. In the case at bar, BAVA has failed to show
that the opening up of Orbit and Jupiter streets was unjustified or that the Mayor W/N the Mayor’s was a valid exercise of Police Power
acted unreasonably. The fact that the opening has led to the loss of privacy of BAVA
residents is no argument against the Municipality’s effort to ease vehicular traffic in RATIO:
Makati. The duty of local executive is to take care of the needs of the greater
number, in many cases at the expense, of the minority. Public welfare when clashing Issue 1: BAVA cannot rightfully complain that the Mayor of Makati, in opening up
with the individual right to property should not be made to prevail through the state’s Jupiter and Orbit streets, had acted arbitrarily.
exercise of its police power.
Citing Sangalang v. IAC, the Court held that Jupiter street lies as the boundary
Doctrine: Public welfare when clashing with the individual right to property should between Bel-Air Village and Ayala Corporation’s commercial section. Being
not be made to prevail through the state’s exercise of its police power. considered as merely a boundary – and hence not part of Ayala’s real estate
development projects – it cannot be said to have been for the exclusive benefit of Bel-
Air Village residents.
FACTS:
The very Deed of Donation executed by Ayala Corp. covering Jupiter and Orbit Streets,
amongst others, effectively required both passageways open to the general public.
1. Ayala Corporation (original owner of the property subsequently subdivided
as Bel-Air Village) executed a Deed of Donation covering Jupiter and Orbit
The property will be used as a street for the use of the members of the DONEE
streets to Bel-Air Village Association (BAVA)
(BAVA), their families, personnel, guests, domestic help and under certain reasonable
conditions and restrictions, by the general public.
2. Respondents allege that upon instructions of the Mayor of Makati, studies
were made by the on the feasibility of opening streets in Bel-Air Village
As the Court asserted in Sangalang, the opening of Jupiter and Orbit streets was
warranted by the demands of the common good, in terms of traffic decongestion and
public convenience.
Issue 2: The act of the Mayor now challenged is in the concept of police power.
The demolition of the gates at Orbit and Jupiter streets does not amount to
deprivation of property without due process of law or expropriation without just
compensation – there is no taking of property involved.
Police power is the “state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with
personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare.”
Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act
accordingly to one’s will. It is subject to the far more overriding demands and
requirements of the greater number.
Public welfare when clashing with the individual right to property should not be made
to prevail through the state’s exercise of its police power.
The exercise of police power, however, may not be done arbitrarily or unreasonably.
But the burden of showing that it is unjustified lies on the aggrieved party.
In the case at bar, BAVA has failed to show that the opening up of Orbit and Jupiter
streets was unjustified or that the Mayor acted unreasonably.
The fact that the opening has led to the loss of privacy of BAVA residents is no
argument against the Municipality’s effort to ease vehicular traffic in Makati. The duty
of local executive is to take care of the needs of the greater number, in many cases at
the expense, of the minority.
