SANGALANG V.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT *This case is about how Jupiter street was opened up to the public by a city ordinance contrary to the wishes of the Bel Air village residents who wanted to keep it closed for their private use. FACTS: 1. Bel-Air Village is located north of Buendia Avenue e tension !now "en. #il J. $uyat Ave.% across a stretch of co&&ercial block fro& 'eposo "treet in the west up to (odiac "treet in the east. $laintiffs are all either residents of Bel Air village or the Bel Air Village Association !BAVA%. )n the 1*+,-s Bel Air Village property was sold by .akati /evelop&ent 0orporation which was later &erged with Ayala 0orporation. The lots were sub1ect to certain restrictions na&ely2 1%All lot owners would auto&atically be a &e&ber of BAVA and 3% The lots &ay only be used for do&estic purposes4 which would last for a period of +, years. At the ti&e the area was open to all kinds of people and even ani&als. The residents decided to build a wall along the co&&ercial side of 1upiter street. 5ventually Ayala 0orporation decided to sell the lots on the co&&ercial side of 1upiter street to the public. )n 1*634 Bava and Ayala agreed that the lot owners would be &e&bers of BAVA and would be sub1ect to the sa&e deed of restriction of other residents in the subdivision. 7n April 84 1*6+4 the &unicipal council of .akati enacted its ordinance no 914 providing for the :onification of &akati. ;ner this ordinance4 Bel air village was classified as a class A residential :one with its boundary in the south 5<T5=/)=# T7 T>5 05=T5' ?)=5 7@ J;$)T5' "T'55T. The other side of the street in between buendia and until the center line of Jupiter street was &ade an Ad&inistrative 7ffice (one. Jan 1*664 The office of the .ayor wrote to BAVA that in order to ease traffic congestion Jupiter street would be opened up to the public. BAVA reAuested for the indefinite postpone&ent of the plan because of the concern of the residents. @inally on August 1*66 the officials of .akati re&oved the gates in order to open the entire length of Jupiter street to the public. Because of this there was a huge increase of traffic along Jupiter street. The co&&ercial establish&ents on the southern side of 1upiter street broke down the wall as it was no longer necessary and set up shop. 5ven the residential lots on the northern side of Jupiter street so&e chose to use as co&&ercial due to the increase in traffic in the area. 7n .arch 1*914 the -co&prehensive :oning ordinance- was passed by the ..0 as ordinance 91-,1. This ordinance &ade Bel Air village B7;=/ BB J;$)T5' "T'55T and no longer the center line. "ignificantly the other side of Jupiter street was classified as >igh )ntensity 0o&&ercial :one. "everal residents as well as BAVA filed suit clai&ing 1% Ayala corp for breach of contract in allowing the wall to be broken down ushering in a full co&&erciali:ation of Jupiter street and 3%against so&e residents that had used their lots as co&&ercial in violation of the restrictions..

LOWER COURTS2 plaintiffs won4 then lost on appeal4 the 0A upholding the ordinances as valid under police power and that they reclassified the area to allow co&&ercial lots.

ISSUE: 1) WON Ayala corp wa l!a"l# $or "r#ac% o$ co&'rac' $or '%# wall a&( '%# l!)!'#( * # o$ +*p!'#r 'r##', =7. Although Jupiter street was donated to BAVA in 1*69 there was no intention to li&it its use to bel air village residents4 in fact the deed included the general public. Also as regards the wall there was no proof that there was any such agree&ent between the residents and Ayala corp that a wall be &aintained. -) WON '%# lo' ow&#r ar# l!a"l#, no. Cwe likewise e culpate the private respondents not only because of the fact that 1upiter street is not covered by the deed of restrictions but chiefly because the =ational #overn&ent itself through the ..0 had reclassified Jupiter street into a high density co&&ercial :one pursuant to its ordinance 91,1.D C)t is not that we are saying that restrictive ease&ents4 especially the ease&ents herein Auestion4 are invalid or ineffective. As far as the bel air subdivision itself is concerned4 certainly4 they are valid and enforceable. But they are like all contracts sub1ect to the overriding de&ands needs and interests of the greater nu&ber as the state &ay deter&ine in the legiti&ate e ercise of police power. 7ur 1urisdiction guarantees sanctity of the contract and is aid to be the law between the contracting parties4 but while it is so4 it cannot contravene law4 &orals4 good custo&s4 public order4 or public policy. Above all it cannot be raised as a deterrent to police power designed precisely to pro&ote health safety4 peace4 and enhance the co&&on good4 at the e pense of contractual rights4 whenever necessary... The non i&pair&ent clause is secondary to the &ore co&pelling interests of the general welfare.D