VI. General WelfareFabie v. City of Manila, 21 Phil 486US v Pompeya, 31 Phil 245US v Salaveria, 39 Phil 102City of Manila v. Oallugna, GR 15350, 30 Sep 1960People v Gabriel, 43 Phil 641Pelino v. Ichon, 69 Phil 81Ermita-Malate Hotel Operators v Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 182Rivera v Campbell, 34 Phil 348Dela Cruz v. Paras, 123 SCRA 569Balacuit v CFI 163 SCRA 182Magtajas v Pryce Property Corp. 234 SCRA 255Binay v. Domingo, G.R. No. 92389, Sept 11, 1991.Chua Huat vs. CA, 199 SCRA 1 (1991)Tatel vs Mun. of Virac 207 SCRA 157 (1992)Bayan vs. Ermita, 488 SCRA 227 (April 25, 2006)VII. Nuisancea. Estate of Gregoria Francisco vs. CA, 199 SCRA 595b. Technology Developers, Inc Vs. CA, 201 SCRA (1991)c. Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. CA, 251 SCRA 421 (1995)VIII. Power to Generate and Apply Resourcesa. Medina v City of Baguio, 91 Phil 864b. Basco v. Phil Amusement and Gaming Corp, GR No. 91649 (May 14,c. 1991).d. Phil Petroleum Corp vs. Mun. of Pililia, Rizal, 198 SCRA 82 (1991)e. Floro Cement Corp vs. Gorospe 200 SCRA 480f. Tuzon and Mapagu vs. CA, GR 90107 (Aug 21, 1992)Franchisesg. PLDT vs. City of Davao (Aug. 2001)h. City Government of Q.C. vs. Bayantel (March 2006)i. FELS Enregy vs. Prov. Of Batangas (Feb. 2007)j. Digitel vs. Prov. Of Pangasinan (Feb 2007)Real Property Taxation and Special Education Fund Taxk. Sec of Finance vs. Ilarde & Cipriano Cabaluna GR 121782 (May 9, 2005)l. Benguet Crop vs. Central Board of Assessment Appeals 210 SCRA 579 ( 1992)m. National Development Co. vs. Cebu City 215 SCRAn. Prov. of Tarlac vs. Judge ALcantara GRA No. 65230 (Dec 23, 1992)Share of LGU in National Taxeso. Pimentel vs. Aguirre, 366 SCRA 201 (2000)IX. Eminent Domaina. Beluso vs. Panay G.R. No. 127820 July 20, 1998 b. Binan vs. Garcia G.R. No. 69260 December 22, 1989c. JIL vs. City of Pasig G.R. No. 152230. August 9, 2005d. Masikip vs. City of Pasig G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006e. Mecauayan vs. IAC G.R. No. 72126 January 29, 1988f. Moday vs. CA G.R. No. 107916 February 20, 1997g. Paranaque vs VM Realty G.R. No. 127820 July 20, 1998h. Sindalan vs. CA G.R. No. 150640 March 22, 2007i. Yusay vs. Mandaluyong City G.R. No. 156684 April 6, 2011Notes:The police power is a governmental function, an inherent attribute of sovereignty, which wasborn with civilized government. It is founded largely on the maxims, "ic utere tuo et ahenum non laedas and "alus populi est suprema lex Its fundamental purpose is securing the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people.!olice power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations "#alacuit v. $%I of &gusan del Norte, '() $*& '+,-. #efore a municipal corporation may exercise such power, there must be a valid delegation of such power by the legislature which is the repository of the inherent powers of the tate. & valid delegation of police power may arise from express delegation, or be inferred from the mere fact of the creation of the municipal corporation. and as a general rule, municipal corporations may exercise police powers within the fair intent and purpose of their creation which are reasonably proper to give e/ect to the powers expressly granted, and statutes conferring powers on public corporations have been construed as empowering them to do the things essential to the en0oyment of life and desirable for the safety of the people. The so1called inferred police powers of such corporations are as much delegated powers as are those conferred in express terms, the inference of their delegation growing out of the fact of the creation of the municipal corporation and the additional fact that the corporation can only fully accomplish the ob0ectsof its creation by exercising such powers. "$rawfordsville vs. #raden, ,+ N.2. +34-. %urthermore, municipal corporations, as governmental agencies, must have such measures of the power as are necessary to enable them to perform their governmental functions. The power is a continuing one, founded on public necessity. Thus, not only does the tate e/ectuate its purposes through the exercise of the police power but the municipality does also. "5.. v. alaveria, )4 !hil. '6,-.7unicipal governments exercise this power under the general welfare clause: pursuant thereto they are clothed with authority to "enact such ordinances and issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities conferred upon it by law,and such as shall be necessary and proper to provide for the health, safety, comfort and convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public morals, promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and insure the protection of property therein." &nd under ection 8 of #! ))8, "every local government unit shall exercisethe powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefore, as well as powers necessary and proper for governance such as to promote health and safety, enhance prosperity, improve morals, and maintain peace and order in the local government unit, and preserve the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants therein."!olice power is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. It is the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers. In a sense it is the greatest and most powerful attribute of the government. It is elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions. "angalang, et al. vs. I&$, '8( $*& 8'4-. 9n it depends the security of social order, the life and health of the citizen, the comfort of an existence in a thic:ly populated community, the en0oyment of private and social life, and the bene;cial use of property, and it has been said to be the very foundation on which our social system rests. "'( $.