Practice question
An owner invokes an earlier restrictive covenant against a land use permitted by a later local zoning measure. The facts establish delegated zoning authority, a legitimate public-welfare purpose, reasonable means and compliance with other constitutional guarantees. The owner insists that the earlier covenant makes any conflicting zoning measure invalid without further inquiry. Under Ortigas, what is the best response?
- The covenant is not an absolute bar to the stipulated legitimate exercise of police power
- Every zoning measure automatically defeats every covenant regardless of validity
- A recorded covenant permanently abolishes local regulatory authority
- The validity of the zoning measure is irrelevant in every case
- The owner's preference alone controls the constitutional analysis
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 10, non-impairment of contractual obligations: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
- Ortigas & Co., Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L-24670, December 14, 1979, main decision, non-impairment and legitimate police power: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/dec1979/gr_l-24670_1979.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.