Velasco vs. Villegas [G.R. No.

L-24153 (120 SCRA), February 14, 1983] Facts: Petitioners herein are members of the Sta. Cruz Barbershop Association. T his is an appeal from the lower court's(LC) order dismissing their suit for decl atory relief. They are challenging the constitutionality of Ord. No. 4964. They contend that it amounts to deprivation of properties and their means of liveliho od without due process of law. The assailed ordinance is worded thus: "It shall be prohibited for any operator of any barber shop to conduct the business of massaging customers or other perso ns in any adjacent room or rooms of said barber shop, or in any room or rooms wi thin the same building where the barber shop is located as long as the operator of the barber shop and the room where massaging is conducted is the same person. " Respondent in its reply, said that the Ordinance No. 4964 is constitutional and such is just an exercise of the state's inherent power (police power). Issue: Whether or not the assailed Ordinance violated the petitioner's right to property and their means of livelihood. Held: Ordinance is Constitutional. Petition is dismissed, LC decision affirmed. Enactment of such (Ordinance) is a valid exercise of Police Power. The objectives of the Ordinance are: (1) To impose payment of license fees for engaging in the business of massage cl inics, and; (2) To forestall possible immorality which might grow from the construction of a separate room for massaging customers. This Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the general w elfare clause. And for that reason, the petitioners rights were not violated and they are not deprived of the due process of law. Magtajas vs Pryce Properties, Inc. [234 SCRA 255] (Municipal Corporation Tests of a Valid Ordinance) Facts: The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) is a corporation created directly by P.D. 1869 to help centralize and regulate all games of chan ce, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. In Basco v. Philippine Amusements and Gaming Corporation, this Cou rt sustained the constitutionality of the decree and even cited the benefits of the entity to the national economy as the third highest revenue-earner in the go vernment. PAGCOR decided to expand its operations to Cagayan de Oro City by leasing a port ion of a building belonging to Pryce Properties Corporation Inc. for its casino. On December 7, 1992, Sangguniang Panlungsod of CDO enacted ordinance 3353, prohi biting the issuance of business permit and cancelling existing business permit t o any establishment for the using and allowing to be used its premises or portio n thereof for the operation of a casino. On January 4, 1993, it enacted Ordinance 3375-93, prohibiting the operation of c asino and providing penalty for violation therefore. Pryce assailed the ordinances before the CA, where it was joined by PAGCOR as in tervenor.

The Court found the ordinances invalid and issued the writ prayed for to prohibi t their enforcement. CDO City and its mayor filed a petition for review under Ru les of Court with the Supreme Court. Issue: WON the Sangguniang Panlungsod can prohibit the establishment of casino o perated by PAGCOR through an ordinance or resolution. Held: No. Gambling is not illegal per se. While it is generally considered inimi cal to the interests of the people, there is nothing in the Constitution categor ically proscribing or penalizing gambling or, for that matter, even mentioning i t at all. In the exercise of its own discretion, the Congress may prohibit gambl ing altogether or allow it without limitation or it may prohibit some forms of g ambling and allow others for whatever reasons it may consider sufficient. Under Sec. 458 of the Local Government Code, local government units are authoriz ed to prevent or suppress, among others, gambling and other prohibited games of c hance. Ordinances should not contravene a statue as municipal governments are only agen ts of the national government. Local councils exercise only delegated powers con ferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot b e superior to the principal or exercise powers higher than those of the latter. The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions ha s held that to be valid, an ordinance must conform to the following substantive requirements: 1) It must not contravene the constitution or any statute. 2) It must not be unfair or oppressive. 3) It must not be partial or discriminatory. 4) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade. 5) It must be general and consistent with public policy. 6) It must not be unreasonable. Presley vs Bel-Air Village Association (G.R. No. 86774, August 21, 1991) Constitutional Law II, Non-impairment Clause FACTS: A complaint was filed by BAVA against the Almendrases for violation of th e Deed Restrictions of Bel-Air Subdivision that the subject house and lot shall be used only for residential and not for commercial purposes. However, the Court ruled in the Sangalang case that the Jupiter Street where the house and lot of the Almendrases which was leased to Presley who is the owner a nd operator of the Hot Pan de Sal Store are located is open to the general publi c and is not covered by the restrictive easements based on the deed restrictions but chiefly because the National Government itself, through the Metro Manila Co mmission (MMC), had reclassified Jupiter Street into a 'high density commercial (C-3) zone. ISSUE: WON Ordinance No. 81-01 violates the Non-impairment clause. RULING: No. The Court upheld its ruling in Ortigas and Co. vs Feati Bank which s tates that the provisions of the Deed of Restrictions are in the nature of contr actual obligations freely entered into by the parties. Undoubtedly, they are val id and can be enforced against the petitioner. However, these contractual stipul ations on the use of the land even if said conditions are annotated on the torre

ns title can be impaired if necessary to reconcile with the legitimate exercise of police power.