CASE DIGEST: SOLICITOR GENERAL v. AYALA ET AL.

G.R. NO. 177056 September 18, 2009. THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Petitioner, v. AYALA LAND INCORPORATED, ROBINSON'S LAND CORPORATION, SHANGRI-LA PLAZA CORPORATION and SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., Respondents.

FACTS:

Respondents Ayala Land, Robinsons, and Shangri-la maintain and operate shopping malls in various locations in Metro Manila. Respondent SM Prime constructs, operates, and leases out commercial buildings and other structures. The shopping malls operated or leased out by respondents have parking facilities for all kinds of motor vehicles, either by way of parking spaces inside the mall buildings or in separate buildings and/or adjacent lots that are solely devoted for use as parking spaces. Respondents Ayala Land, Robinsons, and SM Prime spent for the construction of their own parking facilities. Respondent Shangri-la is renting its parking facilities, consisting of land and building specifically used as parking spaces, which were constructed for the lessor's account. 

In 1999, the Senate Committees on Trade and Commerce and on Justice and Human Rights conducted an investigation regarding the legality of parking fees of shopping malls. It was held that said fees are illegal because it is contrary to National Building Code and Consumer Act.

ISSUE:

Whether Respondents are obligated to provide free parking spaces in their malls for the use of their patrons or the public in general.

RULING:

No, Respondents are not obligated to provide free parking spaces and it is not contrary to the National Building Code and Consumer Act’s policy.

The Building Code, which is the enabling law, and the Implementing Rules and Regulations do not impose that parking spaces shall be provided by the mall owners free of charge. Absent such directive, Respondents are under no obligation to provide them for free.

To compel Respondents to provide parking spaces for free can be considered an unlawful taking of property right without just compensation.