Consti2 Eminent Domain

FERMIN MANAPAT, G.R. No.110478 Petitioner, and Housing Corporation (PHHC), negotiated for the acquisition of the property from RCAM/PRC. But because of the high asking price of RCAM and - versus – the budgetary constraints of the Government, the latters effort to purchase COURT OF APPEALS and NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Respondents. and/or to expropriate the property was discontinued. RCAM then decided to effect, on its own, the subdivision of the property and the sale of the individual subdivided lots to the public.[6] Petitioners Manapat and Lim and respondents Loberanes, Quimque, Vega, Santos, Oracion and Mercado in DECISION these consolidated cases were among those who purchased individual NACHURA, J.: subdivided lots of Grace Park directly from RCAM and/or PRC.[7] For the resolution of the Court are three consolidated petitions for review A significant turn of events however happened in 1977 when the late on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. G.R. No. 110478 assails the President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1072,[8] May 27, 1993 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV Nos. appropriating P1.2M out of the Presidents Special Operations Funds to cover 10200-10212. G.R. No. 116176 questions the June 28, 1994 Decision[3] of the additional amount needed for the expropriation of Grace Park. The the appellate court in CA-G.R. CV No. 27159. G.R. Nos. 116491-503 assails National Housing Authority (NHA), PHHCs successor, then filed several the March 2, 1994 and the July 25, 1994 Resolutions[4] of the CA also in CA- expropriation proceedings over the already subdivided lots for the purpose G.R. CV Nos. 10200-10212. of developing Grace Park under the Zonal Improvement Program (ZIP) and subdividing it into small lots for distribution and resale at a low cost to the The three-decade saga of the parties herein has for its subject parcels of land residents of the area.[9] The following cases were filed by the NHA with the forming part of what was originally known as the Grace Park Subdivision in Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City: C-6225, C-6226, C-6227, C-6228, Caloocan City and formerly owned by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of C-6229, C-6230, C-6231, C-6232, C-6233, C-6234, C-6235, C-6236, C-6237, C- Manila (RCAM) and/or the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). 6238, C-6255 and C-6435.[10] The Facts After due proceedings, the trial court rendered separate decisions Sometime in the 1960s, RCAM allowed a number of individuals to occupy dismissing the expropriation cases, with the exceptions of Cases Nos. C-6233 the Grace Park property on condition that they would vacate the premises and C-6236 in which it ordered the condemnation of the involved lots.[11] should the former push through with the plan to construct a school in the On motion for reconsideration by the NHA in Cases Nos. C-6227, C-6228, C- area. The plan, however, did not materialize, thus, the occupants offered to 6230, C-6234, C-6235, C-6238 and C-6255, the trial court later amended its purchase the portions they occupied. Later, as they could not afford RCAMs decision, set aside its dismissal of the said cases, ordered the condemnation proposed price, the occupants, organizing themselves as exclusive members of the involved lots and fixed the amount of just compensation at P180.00 of the Eulogio Rodriguez, Jr. Tenants Association, Inc., petitioned the per square meter. In Cases Nos. C-6225, C-6229, C-6231, C-6232, C-6237 and Government for the acquisition of the said property, its subdivision into C-6435, the RTC however denied NHAs motion for reconsideration.[12] home lots, and the resale of the subdivided lots to them at a low price.[5] NHA eventually appealed to the CA the decisions in Cases Nos. C-6225, C- Acting on the associations petition, the Government, in 1963, through the 6229, C-6231, C-6232, C-6237 and C-6435 on the issue of the necessity of Land Tenure Administration (LTA), later succeeded by the Peoples Homesite the taking, and the amended ruling in Cases Nos. C-6227, C-6228, C-6230, C- 1 CONSTI II | ATTY. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN 6234, C-6235, C-6238 and C-6255 on the issue of just compensation.[13] The Rosemarie and Dolores Guanzon, two of the owners of the lots in C-6225, CA consolidated the appeals and docketed them as CA-G.R. CV No. 10200- filed before this Court a petition for review on certiorari of the aforesaid 10212. NHA likewise filed with the CA an appeal from the decision in C-6226, decision of the appellate court [Their petition was docketed as G.R. Nos. which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 27159. 110462-74]. On September 5, 1994, we dismissed their petition for failure to sufficiently show that the CA had committed any reversible error in the On May 27, 1993, the appellate court rendered its Decision[14] in CA-G.R. challenged decision.[16] An Entry of Judgment was issued on February 2, CV No. 10200-10212 disposing of the appealed cases as follows: 1995.[17] WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: Likewise, Julia Diez and Remedios Macato, the owners of the lots in C-6227, 1) Reversing and setting aside the decisions of dismissal in Cases Nos. C- assailed before us the afore-quoted CA decision through a petition under 6225, C-6229, C-6231, C-6232, C-6237 and C-6435; and in lieu thereof an Rule 45. On July 28, 1993, however, in G.R. No. 110770, we denied their order of condemnation is entered declaring that plaintiff-appellant NHA has Motion for Extension of Time to file a petition for review on certiorari for a lawful right to take the lots involved for the public use described in the their failure to submit an affidavit of service of the motion as required by complaints; Circular No. 19-91.[18] After denying their motion for reconsideration,[19] 2) Affirming the decisions in Case Nos. C-6227, C-6228, C-6234, C-6235, C- we issued an Entry of Judgment on August 27, 1993.[20] 238 and C-6255 insofar as said decision granted the expropriation; declaring Petitioner Manapat, the defendant-landowner in C-6229, also elevated the that plaintiff-appellant NHA has a lawful right to take the lots involved for case before us via a petition for review on certiorari docketed as G.R. No. the public use stated in the complaint; but annulling and setting aside the 110478.[21] We initially dismissed this petition for having been filed out of just compensation fixed by the trial court at P180.00 per square meter in the time,[22] but we reinstated it on motion for reconsideration.[23] said cases In the meantime, the other defendants-landowners in the expropriation 3) Ordering the remand of all the appealed cases, except for Case No. C- casesRCAM/PRC in C-6225, Maximo Loberanes and Eladio Quimque in C- 6230, to the trial court for determination of the just compensation to which 6231, Alejandro Oracion, Gonzalo Mercado, Cesario Vega and Juanito Santos defendants are entitled in accordance with Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of in C-6435, and Remedios Macato in C-6227moved for the reconsideration of Court; the said May 27, 1993 Decision of the CA.[24] In the March 2, 1994 4) Finding the compromise agreement in Case No. C-6230, entitled, NHA v. Resolution,[25] the appellate court resolved the motions in this wise: Aurora Dy dela Costa, et al. in accordance with law, and not contrary to WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration of morals or public policy, and rendering judgment in accordance therewith; movants Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila and Philippine Realty 5) Ordering Remedios Macato to be joined as defendant with Julia C. Diaz in Corporation (in Special Civil Action No. 6225) and movant-intervenor Case No. C-6227. Remedios Macato (in Special Civil Action No. 6227) are DENIED. No pronouncement as to costs. The motions for reconsideration of movants Gonzalo Mercado, Cesario Vega and Juanito Santos (in Special Civil Action No. 6435) and movants Maximo SO ORDERED.[15] Loberanes and Eladio Quimque (in Special Civil Action No. 6231) are 2 CONSTI II | ATTY. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration of movant Alejandro Oracion (in In a separate development, the CA, on June 28, 1994, rendered its Special Civil Action No. 6435) is partially granted to the extent of Three Decision[30] in CA-G.R. CV No. 27159, reversing the RTCs ruling in C-6226. Hundred (300) square meters of Lot 22, Block 157. The decision of this Court The fallo of the decision reads: promulgated May 27, 1993 is accordingly MODIFIED. Lot No. 26, Block No. WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appealed decision 157 owned by Cesario Vega and Juanito Santos, and Lot No. 4, Block No. 157 dated October 29, 1986 is hereby REVERSED for want of merit. Let the owned by Maximo Loberanes and Eladio Quimque are declared exempt record of this case be remanded to the court of origin for further from expropriation and the corresponding complaints for expropriation (sic) proceedings. DISMISSED insofar as said lots are concerned. Lot No. 22, Block No. 157 owned by movant Alejandro Oracion is declared exempt from expropriation IT IS SO ORDERED.[31] to the extent of Three Hundred (300) square meters. Only the remaining Ninety (90) square meters shall be the subject of expropriation, the portion Discontented with the appellate courts ruling, petitioner Domingo Lim, one to be determined by the lower court in the manner most beneficial to the of the owners of the lots subject of C-6226, elevated the case to us via a owner and consistent with the objective of PD 1072. petition for review on certiorari docketed as G.R. No. 116176.[32] SO ORDERED.[26] Aggrieved by the said March 2, 1994 CA Resolution specifically with regard The Issues to the exemption from expropriation of the lots of Loberanes, Quimque, Thus, for resolution by this Court are the following consolidated cases: (1) Mercado, Vega and Santos, and the partial exemption of the lot of Oracion, G.R. No. 110478 of Manapat; (2) G.R. Nos. 116491-503 of the NHA; and (3) NHA moved for the reconsideration of the same. In the subsequent July 25, G.R. No. 116176 of Lim. 1994 Resolution,[27] the appellate court denied NHAs motion, together In G.R. No. 110487, petitioner Manapat argues in the main that, as he is also with the belated motion of Vivencio S. de Guzman, the defendant- a member of the tenant association, the beneficiary of the expropriation, it landowner in C-6255. The dispositive portion of the July 25, 1994 Resolution would be incongruous to take the land away from him only to give it back to reads:WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration of defendant-appellant him as an intended beneficiary. Accordingly, the CA, in its May 27, 1993 Vivencio S. de Guzman of the decision promulgated May 27, 1993 and of Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 10200-10212, should not have allowed the plaintiff-appellant National Housing Authority of the resolution expropriation of his lot. To further support his stance, Manapat raises the promulgated March 2, 1994 are DENIED. following grounds: SO ORDERED.[28] I With the denial of its motion for reconsideration, NHA filed with this Court THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ISSUANCE MADE IN a Consolidated Petition for Review[29] under Rule 45, as aforesaid, assailing THE EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER, SPECIFYING THE LOTS TO BE the March 2, 1994 and the July 25, 1994 Resolutions of the appellate court. EXPROPRIATED AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE INTENDED, NHAs petition was docketed as G.R. Nos. 116491-503 against respondents REMOVES FROM THE JUDICIARY THE DETERMINATION OF THE NECESSITY Loberanes and Quimque (in C-6231), Vega, Santos, Oracion and Mercado (in OF THE TAKING, THERE BEING NO SHOWING OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION.[33] C-6435). 3 CONSTI II | ATTY. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN Section 10 of RA 7279 will affect FOR DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION. therefore.[44] exempting from expropriation the 300-sq m lots of respondents Loberanes. Section 10 of Republic Act (R. 1994 Resolution and modified the May 27.[43] argues as follows: THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT THE EVENTUAL 1 BENEFICIARIES OF ITS BENEVOLENT EXPROPRIATION ARE SQUATTERS.R. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN .R.[41] THE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THAT FERMIN II MANAPAT IS NOT ONLY A BONA FIDE OCCUPANT IN THE GRACE PARK The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ignoring the impractical SUBDIVISION FOR PURPOSES OF P. NHA summarized its 2 arguments as follows: There really was no genuine necessity for the expropriation of the lots in I question to satisfy the purpose thereof as alleged in the complaint therefor.[34] vested rights of petitioner-appellant NHA arising from its exercise of the III power of eminent domain.D.[38] II Republic Act 7279 is a substantive and penal law with a penalty clause which SUPERVENING EVENT RENDERS IMPROPER THE DISPOSITION BY THE COURT cannot apply retroactively especially to pending actions. Republic Act 7279 passed in 1992 should operate prospectively and. thus beneficiaries.[40] SUPPOSED PUBLIC USE AND FOR REMAND OF HIS CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT The retroactive application of Article VI. 10200-10212 to the extent that it applied once more into still smaller lots for distribution to its supposed or intended retroactively Article VI. Republic Act No. 1072 BUT LIKEWISE HAS A TRANSFER consequences resulting from a selective expropriation of lots.[39] OF APPEALS FOR AN ORDER OF CONDEMNATION DECLARING THAT NHA HAS A LAWFUL RIGHT TO TAKE THE LOT OF FERMIN MANAPAT FOR B. 7279. 7279 to the subject expropriation cases 3 instituted back in 1977 by petitioner-appellant NHA.[42] CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 116176. Santos. Nos.R. in its petition in G. should not be given retroactive effect. 7279 and PD 1072 are not in pari materia.) No.[45] The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in applying retroactively Article VI. petitioner Lim. Oracion and Mercado. Vega. as it would herein.[37] 4 CONSTI II | ATTY. Quimque.[36] Respondent NHA may not. A. legally re-group several NHA. No. 116491-503. a non-member of the tenant association who bought from RCAM/PRC four lots of the subdivided Grace Park IV Subdivision. erred when it issued its March 2.A. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 42370 OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF CALOOCAN OVER THE SAME LOT SOUGHT TO BE EXPROPRIATED WHICH SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK AS DISPOSED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS.[35] In G. CV No. primarily contends that the CA smaller lots into which a much bigger lot had previously been subdivided. and consider and treat them as one again for the purpose of subdividing it 1993 Decision in CA-G. [48] and is for the exercise is a justiciable question. and even to private enterprises performing public the courts have no power to interfere. occupants would provide the latter with more healthful. the question that this Court must resolve is whether these requisites have been adequately addressed. (3) the taking must be for public use. and that necessity must be of a public compulsory sale to the State. decent and Over the years and in a plethora of cases. local for its site. it is described as the highest With respect to the second. and that is. the expediency of constructing it. necessity to take the private property. The Courts Ruling It is incontrovertible that the parcels of land subject of these consolidated The power of eminent domain is an inherent and indispensable power of the petitions are private property. the first requisite is satisfied. may directly determine the necessity for appropriating private without just compensation. Section 9.Respondent Court did not sustain the clear finding of the trial court that no Albeit the power partakes of a sovereign character. one of which is. In such a case.[50] utility of the proposed improvement. Also called the power of expropriation. the question of necessity is essentially a an ejectment case. and it may select the exercise of the power and provides a measure of protection to the exact location of the improvement.[49] political question. precisely.[46] (1) the property taken must be private property. it is by no means evidence sufficient to prove its claim that the expropriation of said lots and absolute. the power need not be specifically conferred on the held: government by the Constitution.[54] we declared that the foundation of the right to exercise eminent acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a domain is genuine necessity. Its exercise is subject to limitations. the petitions raise only one fundamental issue. in City of Manila v. the extent of the public necessity for Just like its two companion fundamental powers of the State.[51] the power its construction. Thus. this Court has recognized the peaceful surroundings and thus improve the quality of their lives was ever following requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain: presented by respondent NHA. administrative bodies. the character. it is well-settled that the individuals right to property. State.[56] Thus. (2) there must be genuine Stripped of non-essentials. when the power is clearly superior to the final and executory judgment rendered by a court in exercised by the Legislature. 5 CONSTI II | ATTY. Chinese Community. Article III of the Constitution. The legislature. comply with due process of law. Article III of the Constitution.[47] By virtue of its sovereign character. whether the NHA may validly expropriate the parcels of land (4) there must be payment of just compensation. Judge and most exact idea of property remaining in the government that may be Labra.[52] those of the representatives of the people. or to substitute their own views for services. the suitableness of the of eminent domain is exercised by the Legislature. merely imposes a limit on the governments property for a particular improvement for public use. However. and (5) the taking must subject of these cases. subdividing them again into much smaller lots for resale to their present Section 9. the determination of whether there is genuine necessity exercise of the power prevails over the non-impairment clause. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . it is well to recall that in Lagcao v.[57] we Being inherent. and government units. it may be location selected and the consequent necessity of taking the land selected delegated by Congress to the President.[53] Accordingly. in providing for the exercise of the power of eminent which mandates that private property shall not be taken for a public use domain. are all questions exclusively for the legislature to determine.[55] However. As a rule. At dwellers as well as the provision of related facilities and services. 1259. maintain and ensure adequate social services including housing purpose. said: [Art.[61] we deemed compliant with Constitution. the expropriation of the dwellers in the area or property involved. we examine the purpose for which the schools. As set forth in its petition. sewerage. barangay centers.[58] The only remaining obstacle in the completion of this Decree No. undertake. Decree No. mostly underprivileged long-time occupants of Grace Park. water and power system. Guerrero. sec. with the private sector. [Art. (Pres. e) Such other activities undertaken in pursuance of the objective to provide Around 510 families with approximately 5 members each will be benefited and maintain housing for the greatest number of people under Presidential by the project. Justice Irene R. parks. relocation and resettlement of squatters and slum Decree No. such as roads. in cooperation supporting infrastructure and other facilities. 1072. Perforce. and into much smaller lots for distribution and sale at a low cost to qualified beneficiaries. The 1987 Constitution goes even further by providing that: Socialized housing is defined as. 9] a) The construction and/or improvement of dwelling units for the middle and lower income groups of the society. The 1973 Constitution made it incumbent upon the State to the public use requirement. the authority to expropriate came from Presidential b) Slum clearance. a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and 6 CONSTI II | ATTY. justifies the taking of the subject property for the purpose of improving and d) The provision of economic opportunities. being implemented for government Specifically. Cortes. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . drainage. issued by then President Ferdinand E. Decree No. promote full par.was directed by of existing houses and other dwelling structures and the construction and legislation. that time. question. 757. including the development of upgrading the area by constructing roads and installing facilities thereon commercial and industrial estates and such other facilities to enhance the under the Governments zonal improvement program and subdividing them total community growth. --. and as explicitly recognized under the 1973 Constitution. the construction of dwelling units for the The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the middle and lower class members of our society. it being a program clearly devoted to a public establish. The issue of necessity then assumed the nature of a political provision of basic community facilities and services. 1) project is the lots subject of these consolidated petitions as the other lots in Grace Park have already been expropriated. c) Slum improvement which consists basically of allocating homelots to the President Marcos had legislative powers. where there are none.D. rearrangement and re-alignment subject properties identified with specificity in the P. and for the common good.[59] xxxx The Zonal Improvement Program (ZIP). urban renewal or redevelopment and the construction of low- by NHA.[60] It is an integral part of the governments socialized housing expanded concept of public use but also because of specific provisions in the program which. in Sumulong v. community centers.In the instant cases. including the construction of the The state shall. NHA playgrounds and other recreational facilities. This definition was later expanded to include among others: employment. including the construction prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from of the supporting infrastructure and other facilities (Pres. expropriation was undertaken by NHA. 7]. Marcos in 1977. speaking eloquently for the Court. not only because of the Constitution. 1). II. sec. sec. footpaths. 1224. a rising standard of living and an improved quality of life for all. draws breath from policy mandates found in the 1987 cost housing is recognized as a public purpose. poverty through policies that provide adequate social services. open spaces. II. As to the third requisite of public use. by law. clinics. 9. being taken so that they can be occupied by all but only by those who satisfy prescribed qualifications. being himself a beneficiary of the Emphasis supplied) expropriation (because he has been a long-time resident of Grace Park). The public character of purpose for the taking under the socialized housing program. The parcels of housing measures does not change because units in housing projects cannot land subject of the expropriation are. or slum clearance. we have petitioner Lim and respondents Vega. that the public use requisite for the to property. p. the to give it back to him. particularly important to draw Court said: attention to paragraph (d) of Pres. despite the efforts of Governments at the national and local We are not persuaded. It shall also promote adequate employment to state that whatever is beneficially employed for the general welfare opportunities to such citizens. 37/221.at an average of 66. or slum improvement emphasize the public it does what Justice Laurel referred to as its nationalistic and socialist traits purpose of the project. sec. Inc. given that the Constitution speaks of lands.[63] State shall respect the rights of small property owners. 36. Reyes and absolute terms. not of landed estates. (Art.5 square meters beginning has to be made. 1224 which should be construed in relation with the preceding three paragraphs. merely to emphasize that the philosophy of our Constitution embodying as relocation and resettlement. levels and of international organizations. Baylosis. In the implementation of such program the satisfies the requirement of public use. nor be entitled to the same area of the land they now have. continue to deteriorate in both relative that case. cannot assert any right to be awarded the very same lots they currently Population growth. No. This contention sadly fails to comprehend the public environment and in sum. the migration to urban areas and the mushrooming of occupy. In especially in developing countries. Santos.for distribution to deserving dwellers in the area. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . XIII. In the light of the foregoing. negates the postulate which at one time reigned supreme in valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving American constitutional law as to their well-nigh inviolable character. at this juncture.A. Upon the who need it. crowded makeshift dwellings is a worldwide development particularly in developing countries. all at once. A be subdivided into much smaller lots --. Shortage in housing is a matter of state would be incongruous for government to take his land away from him only concern since it directly and significantly affects public health. Provisions on economic This is not to say of course that property rights are disregarded. the general welfare. safety. the living conditions of the majority of the people in slums and squatter areas and rural settlements. This is opportunities inextricably linked with low-cost housing.resettlement areas. and United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 1987 as the International Year Mercado.. this Court adopted the dissenting opinion of Justice J. L. who argue that the lots they own should not be expropriated are of Shelter for the Homeless to focus the attention of the international already titled in their names and are very small in area. Manapat.[62] discoverable upon even a sudden dip into a variety of [its] provisions although not extending as far as the destruction or annihilation of the rights It need only be added. and those similarly situated as he. Tuason & Co. petitioner Manapat insists that. it Housing is a basic human need. concerned that. 1043-4] eminent domain cannot be determined on a purely quantitative or area basis. M. precisely. in Republic v. It is. Res. At present. completion of the project. Land Tenure Administration[65] is instructive. [G. B.[66] that the propriety of exercising the power of Vol. The General Assembly is [s]eriously subdivided portions of the original Grace Park Subdivision. being already the community on those problems. J. Oracion. it may not be amiss 7 CONSTI II | ATTY. Dec. v. for it is not possible to provide housing for all per lot[64] --. Yearbook of the United Nations 1982. Still. this Court is satisfied that "socialized housing" Speaking through Justice (later Chief Justice) Enrique M. the falls within the confines of "public use". This is concept influenced by changing conditions. Fernando. So basic and urgent are housing problems that the Then. including in particular. No. Inc. and only because it was better equipped to administer for the otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. indeed sq m in other urban areas and who do not own any other real property.[67] we had occasion to declare that the fact that Loberanes. which rejects the doctrine of laissez faire with The Courts departure from the land size or area test finds further affirmation its abhorrence for the least interference with the autonomy supposed to be in its rulings in Mataas na Lupa Tenants Association. Dimayuga[68] enjoyed by the property owner. Constitution of which it is an expression. where that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet expropriation is resorted to.[72] Small property owners are owners of residential else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of lands with an area not exceeding 300 sq m in highly urbanized cities and 800 economic forces. No. urban land reform and housing.[70] As to the observance of the fifth requisite.[69] as far back as 1919. as public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or almost two decades after the expropriation cases against the property advantage.A. Here as almost everywhere shall be exempted. That they are now before this Court is fundamental law. So is the social justice principle enshrined in the attestation enough that they were not denied due process of law. the This particular grant of authority to Congress authorizing the expropriation due process clause. R.not so under our Constitution.[73] adopted as a national policy. Vega and Santos. Here of course this development was envisioned. Guerrero. 7279[71] to lose their well-defined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that. v. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter One final matter: the propriety of the application by the CA of R. it is unmistakable that all the requirements in the Baylosis case. parcels of land owned by small property owners the increasing social challenges of the times. questioned rulings exempted from expropriation the lots owned by In a more recent decision. it is clear that public use. So Justice Laurel affirmed not only in the above opinion but in another concurring opinion quoted with approval in at least two of our subsequent To satisfy the fourth requisite.A. all the parties have of land is a clear manifestation of such a policy that finds expression in our been given their day in court. that the subject cases be remanded to the trial court for the determination decided barely two months ago. Thus. the NHA may validly expropriate the subject traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic. as Justice Malcolm pointed out and the aforecited Sumulong v. No. 7279 was enacted in 1992. by the Constitution itself in its declaration of Invoking this limitation under the said law. Reyes and Chief Justice Paras From the foregoing disquisitions. continue The Court is not unaware of the condition now imposed by R. Mercado. not to say obsolete.B. have rendered this consolidated cases is: YES. Quimque. parcels of land. Under case law. public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals. the appellate court in the principle concerning the promotion of social justice. optionally. of the amount of just compensation. and partially exempted the property is less than -hectare and that only a few would actually benefit the lot of Oracion. as a requisite for the exercise Our Constitution is much more explicit. in the expropriation proceedings. for purposes of urban development and housing under the Act. however. We had occasion to reiterate such a view in the ACCFA case. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . did not take too firm a foothold in our jurisprudence. 7279. There is no room for it for laissez of eminent domain in the instant cases. Given this discussion. from the expropriation does not diminish its public use character. the opinion being penned by Justice Makalintal. Why it should be thus is so plausibly set forth in the for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain have been complied ACCFA decision. the said determination is a judicial prerogative.L. as so clearly pointed out in the respective dissenting opinions of Justice J. faire. we affirm the appellate courts disposition decisions. has been adequately fulfilled.A. We quote: with. inasmuch The CAs ruling on this point is incorrect. 8 CONSTI II | ATTY. our answer to the singular and fundamental issue in these The growing complexities of modern society. Laissez faire. SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS. ANITA O. The case will proceed only if the trial court's order of expropriation became final and executory and the expropriation causes prejudice to the property owner. Before this court is a Motion1 filed by the National Power Corporation seeking to withdraw its Petition for Review2 dated June 4. and Lydia Tablizo. ESPINAS. Teofilo Tablizo. the SO ORDERED. Alice Balin. 1994 Resolutions in CA-G. The National Power Corporation instituted expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of a right-of-way easement over parcels of land located in Barangay Marinawa. which affirmed the trial court's Decision recalling the Writ of Possession issued in the National Power Corporation's favor.owners herein were instituted with the RTC in 1977. Posada. ADRIAN TABLIZO. 191945. ALFREDO M. v. Adrian Tablizo. the Court cannot agree with the disposition of the appellate court that the DECISION subject lots not exceeding 300 sq m are exempt from expropriation.R. ALICIA O. non praeteritis.[75] In these consolidated cases. upon its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. The law looks forward. not backward. OLIVO. SALAZAR. CV No.R. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . the May 27. LIM. and the March 2. 7279 does not suggest that the LYDIA T. the Court RENATO BUENO. No. Bato. 2015 formam imponere debet. expropriation complaint should be dismissed by the trial court. 2009. 27159 are AFFIRMED. Renato Bueno. (l)aws shall have no retroactive effect.R. OLIVO. AND ADELFA O. The Petition sought to reverse the Decision3 of the Court of Appeals dated August 7.4 The expropriation w. ANGELITA O. J. A new statute should affect the future. Catanduanes owned by respondents Socorro T. 1994 LEONEN. ALICE BALIN.R. PREMISES CONSIDERED.[74] Article 4 of the Civil Code even explicitly declares. 1993 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. 10200-10212 and the June 28. 10200-10212 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.[76] The laws prospective application being clearly stated. Section 49 of the said law indicates that it shall take effect Respondents. When the taking of private property is no longer for a public purpose. Nova constitutio futuris G. not the past. Petitioner. Legislature has intended its provisions to have any retroactive application. SOCORRO T. On the contrary. No. CV No. unless the contrary is provided.: Decision in CA-G. POSADA. March 11. TEOFILO TABLIZO.A. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION. AND finds that the language of R. ORDONO. 2010.as for the construction and maintenance of 9 CONSTI II | ATTY. CV Nos. 1994 and the July 25. WHEREFORE. 280. Branch 438 of the Regional Trial The National Power Corporation opposed the recommendation of the Court of Virac.11 c. or as determined by the assessor. Section 210 of the Rules of Court. within a fast-growing community. alleging that it represented the provisional value of the properties.00 per square meter based on the following d.00.00 per square meter. shall not exceed 10% of the market ranges from P 1. The Schedule of Fair Market Values prescribed P160. arguing that: right to expropriate the properties and ordered the creation of a a. 2002.00. The Provincial Appraisal Committee valued the lot at P500. respondents. 0008.000. The location of the subject parcels of land. In their Answer. the court-appointed commissioners recommended a fair market value of P1. a tourist attraction. Only an easement of right-of-way shall be acquired over the properties of the other defendants which remain classified as cocoland and as provided The prevailing market value of the properties along the national highway in [Republic Act No.its Substation Island Grid Project. ideal both for residential and business e. The approved zonal values of real properties in Catanduanes classified as considerations: Residential Regular (RR) is P105. which is along the highway. hence if the alleged that the value of the properties was P2.00 to P 2. 000. respondents objected to the offer and [respondents] and others can be found on the property.00 for all lots along purposes. the value of the land at the time of taking and not its potential as a On January 28.9 b. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . [respondents] would be constrained to leave their homes to relocate. a stones- the national road from Marinawa Bridge to FICELCO. throw from the seashore of Cabugao Bay and not too distant from "Maribina Falls".6 The National Power Corporation offered the. the National Power Corporation filed a Notice to Take building site is the criteria for determination of just compensation[.00 per square meter. 2003. price of P500. It alleged that it was entitled to a Writ of Possession in view of its deposit with the Land Bank of the Philippines in the amount of P3. On July 10. in the property. whichever is lower.12 In the Order dated December 16. 500. about 3 1/2 kilometers from the capital town of Virac.5 The case was docketed as Civil Case No.] Possession before the court on the basis of Rule 67. 2003.13 10 CONSTI II | ATTY.00 per Structures and improvements consisting of the residential houses of square meter.7 expropriation proceeds.500.] 6395 (NPC Charter).00 per square meter as per interview value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest with the residents of the place. f. the opinion given by the persons who live in the area should not be given commission to determine the amount of just compensation to be paid to weight because they are not experts in real estate appraisal. Catanduanes confirmed the National Power Corporation's commissioners. 15 It also served respondents with a Notice to Take Possession stating that "it shall enter and take possession of the property on September 26. In the Order dated July 14.93. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN .18 June 5.17. For this reason. the trial court granted the Urgent Ex Parte hereby.19 represents only the value of the structures and improvements and does not include the value of the land.639. No. 2006 hearing for the National Power Corporation to make the necessary deposit.14 The National Power Corporation failed to deposit the additional amount.360.00) and the amount initially instead of just an easement of right of way. the amount determined by the Court in said Order Residential Houses. Undaunted. payment of amount of P827. alleging that this represented the value of the 3.000. and after due notice to the 11 CONSTI II | ATTY.00. this Court. 2006 and for misleading this Court when it filed its Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Possession. determined by the trial court (P827. all factors carefully evaluated and considered.20 The trial court stated that this amount required upon the filing of the complaint. it deposited with Land Bank of the Philippines the amount of P580. for the construction of the deposited by the National Power Corporation (P564. which the trial court denied. AS A FINAL NOTE. 8974. 2006. fixes the just compensation at TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2. 2005.17 [petitioner]. this Court.000.21 Substation Island Grid Project. respondents filed an Urgent Motion to Grant Defendants Time to Remove their Houses and Improvements as well as Additional Deposit for Use in Land Acquisition and Expenses for Transfer of their Respective AND. still it would not be entitled to a Writ of Possession until it has paid the value of The trial court granted respondents' Motion in its Order dated June 5. The trial court issued an Order during the November 22. based on the value determined by the one hundred [percent] (100%) of the value of the property based on the commissioners.On November 19. 2003. And what should be its value? Is it the zonal valuation of the Bureau It fixed the value of the structures and improvements on the land in the of Internal Revenue? Under Section 4 of Rep. paid by NPC. 2006. 2005. Even if said amount is fully.00) Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession and issued a Writ of per square meter for the taking of the properties of [respondents] by Possession. It ordered the National Power Corporation to deposit an current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue is additional amount of P262. Respondents filed a Motion to Lift and/or Suspend the Issuance of the Writ LIKEWISE. The issue The National Power Corporation filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion for the on the amount of just compensation was also submitted for decision. hereby. the land. in view of NPC's failure to comply with the Court's order dated of Possession.83).22 Issuance of a Writ of Possession. RECALLS its order granting said Motion and CANCELS the Writ of Possession.769.000. the trial court resolved the issue of just compensation as follows: WHEREFORE.954 square meters sought to be expropriated. [A]ct. the National Power Corporation amended its was the difference between value of structures and improvements Complaint stating that it needed to acquire portions of the properties."16 On November 27. it should now be the basis for the re-issuance of a Writ of Opposition to the Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Possession . ultimately. court on January 7. the National Power Corporation informed its counsel on determined by the trial court. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN .nay. 2010. 2014 that it no longer needed the properties as it was set to acquire were paid. 2012. in turn. This Court believes that this basis is used because the just During the pendency of the case before this court. Hence. for its Amended Complaint before the trial court to be dismissed. the complaint has long been Restraining Order35 dated December 13.]"39 The Court of Appeals also held that "the writ of possession was correctly recalled by the lower court. 12 CONSTI II | ATTY.36 SO ORDERED. The National Power Corporation filed its Reply34 to the Comment. The National Power Corporation appealed the trial court's Decision to the Court of Appeals.42 praying for the withdrawal of its appeal before this court and. the National Power Corporation filed a Very Urgent reversible error "in adopting the recommendation of the appointed Motion to Resolve38 stating that "the delay in the possession of the subject commissioners insofar as the value of the subject property is concerned.24 On August 7. 2010."28 Citing Republic v. Motion to Withdraw Appeal.43 Respondents filed their Comment33 on September 17. even the transfer of ownership if fully paid.]"41 The National Power Corporation filed a Motion for Reconsideration. the National Power compensation is yet to be determined during the second stage of the Corporation filed an Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary expropriation proceeding. substantially reiterating the arguments in its Petition. the National Power Corporation. 2013.26 It held that the trial court committed no On May 17.40 It also requested its counsel to withdraw Civil Case No.25 the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision denying the appeal. that the National Power Corporation must first pay respondents the amount In a turn of events. this court issued a Resolution37 deferring action on the Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. and the just compensation has already been determined above. Respondents. the National Power Corporation cannot take possession of the an alternative site.31 0008 before the trial court because "it [was] impractical to pursue the acquisition of the original site[. filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before this court.30 In the absence of proof that respondents July 24. it filed a Thus. Order. 2009. through counsel."27 properties — intended for the Marinawa 10 MVA Sub-Station Project — would adversely affect the implementation of the Codon-Virac Transmission Lines[. which was received by this filed. 2013. property. but this was denied in the Resolution32 dated April 14. filed their Comments and Therefore. Judge Gingoyon.defendant.23 (Emphasis supplied) On March 11.29 it held. 2013. In the instant case. During the pendency of the complaint before the trial court. in The power of eminent domain is an inherent competence of the state. citations omitted) conjunction with the law that limits and conditions the power of eminent domain. by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and Republic Act No. It 13 CONSTI II | ATTY. Thus: There are two (2) stages in every action for expropriation. ["] power but subjects it to a limitation: that it be exercised only for public use The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the and with payment of just compensation. one or another of the parties may believe the order to be conditions. It is the proceedings before the Trial Court. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . would an order of condemnation be a final one. and findings of. since it finally disposes of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by the Court on the merits. for the public use or purpose described in the complaint. "no objection to the exercise of the essential to a sovereign. The order fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before. However. but it should not be read as superseding the power of this court to Obviously. exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit.45 Whether the use is public or determination by the Court of "the just compensation for the property whether the compensation is constitutionally just will be determined finally sought to be taken. more than three (3) commissioners. Republic Act No. the commissioners would be final. private property.' under what Obviously. too. So. "of condemnation declaring. the state may already enter and possess Expropriation. landowner. for thereafter. Thus. upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the Expropriation proceedings for national infrastructure projects are governed complaint. the procedure by which the government takes possession of the property subject to the guidelines in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. such a dissatisfied party may seek a reversal of the order by promulgate rules of procedure. would be a final one. The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to We grant the Motion to Withdraw the Petition for Review. The second phase determines the compensation to be paid to the the effect of dismissing its Amended Complaint before the trial court. " This is done by the Court with the assistance of not by the courts.46 (Emphasis supplied.We are asked to decide whether the National Power Corporation may be undergoes two phases. our existing rules should be read in taking an appeal therefrom." An order of dismissal. as the Rules expressly state. too.44 of course. It would finally dispose of the second stage of the suit. The first phase determines the propriety of the allowed to withdraw its Petition for Review and whether the withdrawal has action. 8974 does erroneous in its appreciation of the evidence or findings of fact or otherwise. if not of dismissal of the action. 8974. The first phase of expropriation commences with the filing of the complaint. too. Thus. and how may be limited by law. if this be ordained. these. instrumentality can be delegated with the power to condemn. It ends with the order of the trial court to proceed with the expropriation and determination of just compensation. is outlined primarily in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. the manner of its exercise such as which government and leave nothing more to be done by the Court regarding the issue. the Constitution does not explicitly define this right of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall be filed or heard. It ends with an order. that the plaintiff has a I lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned. however. — Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and requires the immediate payment of the zonal value and the value of the after due notice to the defendant. and after due notice to the defendant. mandates: merely "engaged in speculation and guess-work"49 when they arrived at the amount. Bureau of Internal Re venue. on the other hand.93. 8974. immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.Whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-way or location for any national government infrastructure project through expropriation. 8974 to govern the expropriation of private property for national government infrastructure projects. is not the only set of rules that governs the first phase of expropriation. the The National Power Corporation argues that the Writ of Possession should appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation not have been recalled because it already deposited P580.000. Congress . and the commissioners Section 4 of Republic Act No.769. . On November 7. In contrast. enacted Republic Act No. 8974. the plaintiff shall have the right to take or improvements on the land to the property owner before the trial court can enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with allow the government to take possession. 8974 "provides for a procedure Sec. amount ordered by the trial court to be paid to respondents was the amount the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property of just compensation. the National Power Corporation argues that the amount of demand to the authorized government depositary. 2000.15 per square meter. Such deposit shall be in money. Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.00 per square meter is excessive since the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue classifies the property as (Emphasis supplied) cocolana48 pegged at P4. and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7 hereof. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN ."50 Section 4. just compensation at P2. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings. bank subject to the orders of the court. (Emphasis supplied) Rule 67. . The value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the 14 CONSTI II | ATTY. the court shall property to be expropriated. The law qualifies the manner by which the government may enter and take possession of the Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned. which should have been distinguished from the the amount equivalent to the sum of (1) one hundred percent (100%) of the provisional amount required for the issuance of a Writ of Possession. (BIR). It argues that the (a) Upon the filing of the complaint. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized government eminently more favorable to the property owner than Rule 67"47 since it depositary. . 2. Republic Act No. Rule 67 only requires the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the the government to deposit the assessed value of the property for it to enter assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such and take possession. Section 2 of the Rules of Court states: As stated in Gingoyon. unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on In its Petition. the proceedings before the proper court under the following guidelines: provisional amount required by Republic Act No. It is the Bureau of Internal Revenue. unlike Rule 67. contrary to the requirements of Section 7 of Republic Act No. According 8974: to the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . 8974. the trial court recalled the Writ of The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. it based the value of the improvements on the property on the determination made by the commissioners. Section 2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Section 10. Corporation must first comply with the guidelines stated in Republic Act No. the National Power Corporation's Substation Island Grid Project. Respondents also argue that the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the trial court's recall of the Writ of Possession because there was no showing that any payment was made to respondents. as required by Gingoyon. prevailing market values of the properties similarly located.The Department national infrastructure projects covered by the law. Valuation of Improvements and/or Structures. and not on the determination made by the National Power The purpose for the taking of private property was for the construction of Corporation.53 Thus. Valuation of Improvements and/or Structures . and opinions of the residents in the area. transmission and distribution"54 are Section 7. 8974 clarifies: Possession because the National Power Corporation failed to deposit the additional amount. 8974. costs of improvements. projects related to "power generation. of right-of-way. the necessary implementing rules and regulations for the The trial court allowed the National Power Corporation to take possession equitable valuation of the improvements and/or structures on the land to of the properties because of its deposit with Land Bank of the Philippines of be expropriated. but replacement cost method. However.52 The law also requires the immediate payment of the value of the improvements and/or structures on the land before the trial court can issue the Writ of Possession. requires immediate payment to the landowner of 100% of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal valuation of In their Comment. in coordination with the local government units concerned in the acquisition 8974 before it can take possession of respondents' property. improvements/structures is defined as the amount necessary to replace the 15 CONSTI II | ATTY. The National Power of Public Works and Highways and other implementing agencies concerned. since the value was based on location. The replacement cost of the in granting the Writ of Possession in the first place. are hereby mandated to adopt within sixty (60) days upon approval of this Act. the trial court committed two errors. . respondents argue that the Court of Appeals did not err the Bureau of Internal Revenue. First. the Implementing Agency shall determine the valuation of the improvements and/or structures on the land to be acquired using the We find that the trial court erred.Pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. which determines the zonal value.51 Section 4 of Republic Act No. not the in sustaining the amount of just compensation determined by the trial court court. not in recalling the Writ of Possession. the alleged provisional value.deposit of the provisional amount was sufficient to be granted a Writ of Possession and to take possession of the property. site or location for any national government infrastructure project. the II location. 2006 recalling the issuance of the Writ of Possession in its alleged provisional value with Land Bank of the Philippines. the National Power Corporation argued that it was unable to commence the The second error of the trial court occurred when it issued a Writ of Substation Project as it was paralyzed by the trial court's Decision dated Possession on the basis of the National Power Corporation's deposit of the November 27. and not a the residents of the province. it cannot be considered as compliance with Section 4 of Republic Act No. these instances. Considering that the National Power Corporation failed to comply with the equipment. 8975. not on its actual favor. In the valuation of the affected improvements/structures. the necessity of the taking.56 payment to respondents. mere deposit with the authorized government depositary. They character of its use.improvements/structures. on the other hand."59 There are. or the proffered' value by the implementing agency. not the commissioners. Without such 897558 and argued that the project cannot be restrained by the recall of a direct payment. In Gingoyon: The National Power Corporation manifested that the project was "intended to resolve the six (6) to eight (8) hours of daily brownouts being suffered by [T]he law plainly requires direct payment to the property owner. Contrary to the National Power Corporation's claims..53 (Emphasis previously issued Writ of Possession because this amounted to an injunctive supplied) writ expressly prohibited by Section 4 of Republic Act No. a Writ of Possession should not have costs associated with the acquisition and installation in place of the affected been issued.93 was the correct provisional value. In its Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. A injunction. The owner of the property is not precluded from contesting the power of the implementing Respondents. among other things. the kinds and quantities of materials/equipment used. configuration and other physical features of the properties. Writ of Possession may be issued once there is confirmation by the trial court of the proffered value. Inc. and prevailing construction prices.97 hours per day and not 6 to 8 hours as claimed by the National Power Corporation. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . the Implementing Agency shall consider. based on the current market prices for materials. 8974.769. (Emphasis supplied) According to the law. filed their Comments and Opposition to agency to exercise eminent domain. and all other attendant guidelines in Republic Act No. the implementing agency may deposit the proffered value (FICELCO)60 showed that brownouts in the entire province only averaged with the trial court having jurisdiction over the expropriation proceedings. instances when immediate payment cannot be made even if the implementing agency is willing to do so. Even if the deposit of P5 80. no writ of possession may be obtained. 8974. improvements/structures. In argued that records of the First Catanduanes Electric Cooperative."57 It cited Section 3 of Republic Act No. The recall of an improperly issued Writ of Possession is not the same as an that determines the proffered value of the improvements and structures. 2. labor. it is the implementing agency. of course. contractor's profit and overhead. the public the Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order. respondents never filed any motion for the issuance of a restraining order 16 CONSTI II | ATTY. requiring a party or a court. The first is an action by the trial court to correct an erroneous A party. It is an ancillary or payment to the owner of the property.No court. Nolasco:65 preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when. to refrain from a particular act or acts. continuance or non-performance of the act or acts restrain. parties must specifically pray for its Section 3 of Republic Act No. among other requisites. a injunctive writ by lower courts.64 For an injunctive writ to be issued. . or (a) Acquisition. in that a provisional proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. shall issue any temporary restraining order. officials or any person or entity. (a) The applicant is entitled to the relief demanded. it is issued only when it is established that: The National Power Corporation's argument that the recall of a Writ of Possession amounts to an injunctive writ prohibited under Section 3 of Republic Act No. They argued that demanded. or is attempting to issuance while the second is an ancillary remedy to preserve rights. except the Supreme Court. 8975 states: such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of. Sec. 8974. In Republic v. Prohibition on the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders.61 preventive remedy resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests during the pendency of the case. 8975 is without merit. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding. either for a' limited period or perpetually. threatening. to The commission. clearance and development of the right-of-way and/or site or location of any national government project (Emphasis supplied) The recall of a Writ of Possession for failure to comply with the guidelines of (c) Section 4 of Republic Act No. deposit was sufficient compliance when the law requires immediate agency or person. court. Section 4(a)62 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. do. 8974 is not the same as the issuance of an injunctive writ.or injunctive writ against the National Power Corporation. agency or a person is doing. 8975 contemplates only the issuance of an issuance. the applicant is entitled to the relief 17 CONSTI II | ATTY. prohibit or compel the following acts: complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant. and 'tending to render the judgment ineffectual. or is procuring or suffering to be done. PNOC-Energy Development the trial court recalled the Writ of Possession upon a finding that the Corporation:63 National Power Corporation misled the trial court by making its own A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action or interpretation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. or in requiring the performance of an act or acts. In Nerwin Industries Corporation v. Under Rule 58. preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the (b) government. 3. acting under the government's direction. and the whole or part of Section 3 of Republic Act No. or Preliminary Injunctions and Preliminary Mandatory Injunctions. As such. whether public or private. or any of its subdivisions. The status quo is Just compensation as required by the Constitution is different from the the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the provisional value required by Republic Act No. 8975 cannot diminish the constitutionally mandated judicial power to determine III whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. The trial court's order To clarify.. If it is the ministerial duty of the trial court to forthwith issue the writ of later found that the guidelines were not complied with. It does not preclude the lower courts Power Corporation's own acts that prevented it from implementing its from assuming jurisdiction over complaints or petitions that seek as ultimate infrastructure project. it was the National preliminary mandatory injunctions. the payment of the provisional value as a prerequisite to the of condemnation stands regardless of whether a Writ of Possession was issuance of a writ of possession differs from the payment of just already issued. PHIVIDEC Industrial Authority:70 In expropriation cases involving national infrastructure projects. that is. preliminary injunctions.e. Respondents did not file an application for the issuance of a writ of 18 CONSTI II | ATTY. 8974. and court did not issue any injunctive writ. the trial court recalls possession. 8974. the trial Upon compliance with the requirements. just compensation is based on the prevailing fair market value of the property.67 adds: Procedure. however. When a trial court recalls a Writ of Possession in an expropriation proceeding. While the provisional value is based on the current relevant zonal valuation.68 Corporation v. the determination of just compensation. the status of the parties before the expropriation complaint was filed. discretion or judgment in determining the amount of the provisional value of the properties to be expropriated as the legislature has fixed the amount under Section 4 of R. may it be prohibitory or mandatory. Inc.What is expressly prohibited by the statute is the issuance of the provisional preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order against it. 8974. 8974. A statute such as Republic Act No.. compensation for the expropriated property. the parties do not revert to status quo.A. relief the nullification or implementation of a national government infrastructure project. [I]t is settled that the sole object of a preliminary injunction.69 the trial court proceeded with the second phase of expropriation. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . a petitioner in an expropriation court issues a Writ of Possession upon compliance by the implementing case . No hearing is required and the court neither exercises its the Writ of Possession for being improperly issued. The trial reliefs of temporary restraining orders.66 (Emphasis supplied) In accordance. Cipres Stevedoring & Arrastre. with Rule 67. is entitled to a writ of possession as a matter of right and it becomes agency of the guidelines stated in Section 4 of Republic Act No. i. As the appellate court- The National Power Corporation was not able to take possession of the explained: property because it failed to comply with Republic Act No. In Capitol Steel controversy. In other words. is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard and the final judgment rendered. Section 4 of the Rules of Civil Philippine Ports Authority v. no statute. If the proceedings fail. The executive department or the legislature may make the judicial determination of just compensation.76 (Emphasis supplied) 19 CONSTI II | ATTY. the price and value of the article established as shown by sale. In Export Processing Zone Authority v. Judge Dulay:75 The statutory requirement to pay a provisional amount equivalent to the full The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a Bureau of Internal Revenue zonal valuation does' not substitute for the judicial function. 8974. just compensation could be determined by the court. In City of Manila v. Code73 constitutes an advance payment only in the event the expropriation Of course. should not be confused with payment of just compensation for the taking of Just compensation. the fair' value of the have already taken possession of the property before the proper amount of property between one who desires to purchase and one who desires to sell. citation omitted) anymore enough. in the ordinary way of business.71 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original. It allows frontloading the costs of the exercise so without just compensation. and of an indemnity for damages if the proceedings are Alegar Corporation:72 dismissed. decree. the money could be used to indemnify complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated the owner for damages. Such deposit also has a dual purpose: as pre-payment if the compensation. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . expropriation succeeds and as indemnity for damages if it is dismissed. would public or private. the current price. on the other hand. it may be a factor to be considered in the determination of just prospers.The first refers to the preliminary or provisional determination of the value The payment of a provisional value may also serve as indemnity for damages of the property. the general or ordinary price for which property may be sold in that locality. has [sic] also been described in a variety of ways as the "price fixed by the buyer and seller The National Power Corporation was only required to pay the provisional in the open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal trade and value so that it could take possession of respondents' properties. is the final determination of the fair property even if it could be a factor in eventually determining just market value of the property. It has been described as "the just and compensation. However. It is not a final determination of just compensation and may not [T]he advance deposit required under Section 19 of the Local Government necessarily be equivalent to the prevailing fair market value of the property. the trial court had already determined the amount of just There is no need for the determination with reasonable certainty of the final compensation even before the National Power Corporation could take amount of just compensation before the writ of possession may be possession of the properties. or executive order can that it is the government instrumentality that bears the burden and not the mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings. This advance payment. competition. Payment of the provisional value is not issued. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "justness" of the decreed compensation. a prerequisite for the issuance of a writ of possession. It serves a double-purpose of pre-payment if the property in the event that the expropriation does not succeed." Market values. in accordance with Rule 67 or Republic Act No. Ordinarily. is fully expropriated. the government. The payment to the property initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee owner of a preliminary amount is one way to ensure that property will not in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use be condemned arbitrarily.74 (Emphasis supplied) has to suffer by reason of the expropriation. owner whose property is taken. Government. 79 property. " If the genuine public properties. it must really without a ghost of a chance to defeat the case of the expropriating return the property to the private owner. dishonor the judgment of any question on the validity of the exercise of the power of eminent domain expropriation. Republic. compensation. at the minimum. then there is no more cogent point for the government's retention of the This court considered the case "difficult" as it called for "a difficult but just expropriated land. et (Emphasis supplied) al. the private owner is deprived of were incurred in the course of the taking. is offensive to possession. in the process.1991.82 necessity—the very reason or condition as it were— allowing. the landowner being property is for a public purpose."83 In allowing the reconveyance. If it fails in discharging this burden. manner it pleases and. The same legal situation should hold if the government solution. then it behooves the condemnor to return the said property to its private owner.80 The property owners were assured that they would be given a right to repurchase once Lahug Airport is closed or its operations are transferred to Mactan Airport. a genuine need.Once the amount of just compensation has been determined. If not. failing which it should file another IV petition for the new purpose. The government cannot plausibly keep the property it expropriated in any Before the issue of just compensation can even be considered by this court. property against his will. de Ouano. et al.:77 It is the state that bears the burden of proving that the taking of private In esse. In Vda. as an eminent domain concept. Lahug Airport ceased operations Public use.]78 must first pertain to its necessity. an exacting public purpose to take private In Heirs of Moreno v. the expropriation of a private land ceases or disappears. it stands to original or deviates from the declared purpose to benefit another private reason that this is the amount that must be paid to the landowner as person. the mandatory requirement of due process ought to be strictly followed. expropriation is forced private property taking. instead of the provisional value in order to enter and take the private property. or Complaint for Reconveyance to compel the repurchase of the expropriated what is productive of general benefit [of the public]. v.81 In . then. subject to whatever damages agency. utility. if the latter so desires. Airport in 1949. must pay the proper amount of just our laws. this court stated: devotes the property to another public use very much different from the 20 CONSTI II | ATTY. such that the state must show. In other words. who eminent domain. In the exercise of the power of landowners to renounce their productive possession to another citizen. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority. has now acquired an expansive when Mactan Airport became fully operational. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . or advantage. the purpose to be specifically alleged or least reasonably private property was expropriated for the proposed expansion of Lahug deducible from the complaint. taking of private property necessarily includes its will use it predominantly for that citizen's own private gain. at the first instance. A condemnor should commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for expropriation. The former owners filed a meaning to include any use that is of "usefulness. It has been said that the direct use by the state of its power to oblige compensation for his or her property. This is not in keeping with the idea of fair play[. in expropriation. Withal. " This not in good conscience retain the beneficial interest.00 for Lot No. petitioners would be denied the use of their properties upon a restore to respondent MCIAA what they received as just compensation for state of affairs that was not conceived nor contemplated when the the expropriation of Lots Nos. 916 and 920.. 1190 of the Civil Code. the provision is undoubtedly in managing them to the extent that petitioners will be benefited thereby. . i. For.. 1454 of the Civil Code. i. one that is akin what they have received . In-return.00 for Lot No." Constructive trusts are fictions of equity to [the landowner] or that [the landowner] had a right to repurchase the which are bound by no unyielding formula when they are used by courts as same if the purpose for which it was expropriated is ended or abandoned or devices to remedy any situation in which the holder of the legal title may if the property was to be used other than as the Lahug Airport. a trust by virtue of law is bound to return.and while the inclusion of this pronouncement in the judgment of condemnation would have been ideal. are echoed in Art. shall return to each other The predicament of petitioners involves a constructive trust. . respondent MCIAA as representative of the State is obliged to government with the latter obliging itself to use the realties for the reconvey Lots Nos. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . respondent MCIAA and petitioners over Lots Nos.e." In the case at bar. P7. 916 and 920 to the Hence. expropriation was authorized. . he may demand the reconveyance of the property to him. No . 916 and 920 to petitioners who shall hold the same expansion of Lahug Airport. failing to keep its bargain. "When the conditions have for their purpose the extinguishment of an obligation to give. . in this case. leasehold right ofDPWH. 916 and P9. R-1881 to the effect that "the [condemned] lot would return enrichment of the defendant. petitioners as if they were plaintiff beneficiaries of a constructive trust must- otherwise. applicable. R-1881. upon the fulfillment of said conditions. the provisions which. 920 with consequential damages by way of legal interest from 16 November 1947. 916 and 920 in Civil Case No..Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority [v. In case of the loss. If the fulfillment of the obligation is offered by the grantor when it becomes due. doubt. "If an absolute improvement of the thing.065. such precision is not absolutely necessary nor is it fatal to the cause of petitioners herein.e. the parties. with respect to the debtor. 1454 is not perfect.. . ." established. Court of Appeals] is correct whether in the numerous and varying fact situations presented to the courts in stating that one would not find an express statement in the Decision in there is a wrongful holding of property and hence a threatened unjust Civil Case No. be compelled by petitioners to reconvey the parcels of land to them. the government can subject to existing liens thereon. deterioration or to the implied trust referred to in Art. Petitioners must likewise pay respondent MCIAA the necessary expenses it may have Although the symmetry between the instant case and the situation incurred in sustaining the properties and the monetary value of its services contemplated by Art. the return or repurchase of the condemned properties of petitioners could be readily justified as the manifest legal effect or consequence of the trial court's underlying presumption that "Lahug Airport will continue to be The rights and obligations between the constructive trustee and the in operation" when it granted the complaint for eminent domain and the beneficiary. conveyance of property is made in order to secure the performance of an are laid down in the preceding article shall be applied to the party who is obligation of the grantor toward the grantee. as explained by an expert on the law of trusts: "The only The government however may keep whatever income or fruits it may have problem of great importance in the field of constructive trusts is to decide 21 CONSTI II | ATTY. omission notwithstanding.. petitioners conveyed Lots Nos.291. airport discontinued its activities. They state that they have no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Considering that eminent domain is the each other. if petitioners do not want to appropriate such improvements or respondent In the early case of City of Manila v. in an action for expropriation. If the plaintiff will no longer be devoted for a public purpose. but they object to the dismissal of the Amended Complaint before Petitioners need not also pay for improvements introduced by third parties. As for the improvements that respondent MCIAA may have made on Lots Nos. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . . subject to the approval of the court." the Respondents filed a Motion for Leave to File Comment to Petitioner's creditor being the person who stands to receive something as a result of the Motion to Withdraw Appeal. 916 and 920.86 contracts and relevant provisions of law. the Court was confronted does not choose to sell them. subject to-some well-defined 22 CONSTI II | ATTY. They argue that the grant of a Motion to process of restitution. later discovers no longer exists. a judgment duly rendered by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The plaintiff should V not be required to continue the action. 1189 of the Civil Code. in the same way thai petitioners need not account for the interests that the amounts they received as just The National Power Corporation now requests this court for leave to compensation may have earned in the meantime. Consequently petitioners as creditors do not have to Withdraw would be unjust. dismiss the petition? It resolved the issue in the affirmative therein. as the disposition of these properties is governed by existing Review is to make the Court of Appeals' Decision final and executory. 916 and 920 which is the natural consequence of nature and time. petitioners must pay respondent their prevailing free market price in case In National Housing Authority v. the advisability or necessity of which he must be determined on a case-to-case basis. if any. From their point of view. the improvements would have to be removed with the question: May the petitioner.84 (Emphasis supplied) and held: Heirs of Moreno illustrates the difficulty of determining the respective rights The right of the plaintiff to dismiss an action with the consent of the court is of the parties once it has been determined that the expropriated properties universally recognized with certain well-defined exceptions. taking of private property for public use. the trial court. after without any obligation on the part of petitioners to pay any compensation he has been placed in possession of the property and before the termination to respondent MCIAA for whatever it may have tangibly introduced of the action. They propose that the effect of withdrawing the Petition for i. or that the result of the action would be different from what he had intended. Under Art. Heirs of Guivelondo:87 petitioners opt to buy them and respondent decides to sell. Ruymann.. the law considers the fruits and interests as the equivalent of a vacant lot owned by FICELCO. DPWH. "If the thing is improved by its nature.obtained from the parcels of land. the National Power settle as part of the process of restitution the appreciation in value of Lots Corporation cannot resort to a withdrawal of an appeal in order to invalidate Nos. no expropriation proceeding can continue if the property to be expropriated will not be for public use. In other words.. the improvement shall inure to the benefit of the creditor . As a matter of justice and withdraw this Petition on the ground that it was in the process of acquiring convenience. . then he should be permitted to withdraw his action. Matters involving the discovers that the action which he commenced was brought for the purpose dismissal of an expropriation case or the return of expropriated property of enforcing a right or a benefit. or by time.e. when it is not to his advantage to do so. the very moment that it appears at any stage of the In the case at bar. . in Metropolitan Water District v. not through repeated suits on the same claim. . it was held: It is not denied that the purpose of the plaintiff was to acquire the land in . the action must December 10. is public use. If. The fundamental basis then of all actions brought for the expropriation of lands. Litigation should be However. (Emphasis supplied) Considering that the National Power Corporation is no longer using Respondent landowners had already been prejudiced by the expropriation respondents' properties for the purpose of building the Substation Project. obligation of the trial court to dismiss the action. Court of Appeals is apropos: 23 CONSTI II | ATTY. That must be true even during the pendency of the appeal of [sic] at A final and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or any other stage of the proceedings. Hence. for example. during pendency of the case. it would be the duty and the appeals. our reprobation in the case of Cosculluela v. the Order cannot be maintained at all except when the expropriation is for some public became final and may no longer be subject to review or reversal in any court. it should be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court that determinations are not infallible. under the power of eminent domain. Although judicial lower court. just compensation unacceptable. .exceptions.88 . against respondents only to abandon it later when it finds the amount of subject to the approval of the court. Courts. 1999. then it would become the duty and the obligation of the appellate court to dismiss it. if it should be made to appear to the satisfaction of the appellate court that the expropriation is not for public use. the Court action for eminent domain at the instance of the plaintiff during the had occasion to apply the above-quoted ruling when the petitioner. petitioner did not appeal the Order of the trial court dated proceedings that the expropriation is not for a public use. which declared that it has a lawful right to expropriate necessarily fail and should be dismissed. In National Housing Authority: to dismiss an action. condemned was no longer necessary in the maintenance and operation of its system of waterworks. resolved that the land sought to be and the judgment had already become final and executory. in granting permission executory. Courts should not require parties to consequence of making the trial court's order of condemnation final and litigate when they no longer desire to do so. That being true. [City of Manila and Water District] refer to the dismissal of an Subsequently. the grant of the Motion to Withdraw carries with it the necessary discouraged and not encouraged. Petitioner cannot be permitted to institute condemnation proceedings it may be allowed to discontinue with the expropriation proceedings. Notably. De Los Angeles. use. question for a public use. of course. case. . should always take into consideration the effect which said dismissal would have upon the rights of the defendant. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . The rule is different where the case had been decided the pendency of the expropriation case. Indeed. . . judicial error should be corrected through the expropriation is not for some public use. And even during the pendency of the appeal. during the trial in the reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. for the reason that the action the properties of respondent Heirs of Isidro1 Guivelondo. the government already took possession of the property. is that expropriation proceedings must be dismissed when it is determined that it is not for a public purpose. therefore. The expropriation case is not automatically dismissed when the property ceases to be for public use. 24 CONSTI II | ATTY. 2010. Second. Catanduanes. Respondents have not yet been deprived of their property since the National Power Corporation was never able to take possession. the trial court's order already became final and executory. We condemn in the strongest possible terms the cavalier court. We cannot determine whether damages have been suffered as a result of the expropriation. The state must first file the appropriate Motion to Withdraw before the trial court having jurisdiction over the proceedings. 2014 is NOTED. This case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Virac.It is arbitrary and capricious for a government agency to initiate The withdrawal of the Petition before this court will have no practical effect expropriation proceedings. the Motion to Withdraw Appeal dated August 28. This case needs to be remanded to the trial court to determine whether respondents have already been prejudiced by the expropriation. The grant or denial of any Motion to Withdraw in an expropriation proceeding is always subject to judicial discretion.cralawred The rule. seize a person's property. the expropriation case already caused prejudice to the landowner. First. the National Power ground that there are no appropriations for the property earlier taken and Corporation should file the proper Motion to Withdraw before the trial profitably used. except when: WHEREFORE. The Motion for Leave to File Comment (to Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw Appeal) dated September 30. Branch 43 for appropriate action. It is now the burden of the National Power Corporation to plead and attitude of government officials who adopt such a despotic and prove to the trial court its reasons for discontinuing with the expropriation. In order to prevent this absurdity. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . 2014 is GRANTED insofar as it withdraws the Petition for Review dated June 4. Lastly. allow the judgment of other than to make the trial court's order of condemnation final and the court to become final and executory and then refuse to pay on the executory.89 (Emphasis supplied) Respondents may also plead and prove damages incurred from the commencement of the expropriation. and SO ORDERED. if any. irresponsible stance. therefore.C. These principles are applied by this Court in resolving this petition for review on certiorari of the July 22. such right may be exercised only pursuant to an Ordinance (Sec. the plaintiff filed a complaint for expropriation involving the same parcels of land which was docketed as Civil PANGANIBAN. like the Municipality of Paraaque. record). authorize an expropriation of private property through a mere resolution of While defendant in Civil Case No. 17939 of this Court (page 26. R. 19. J. No. vs. 7160). de Buncio vs. No.R. Municipality. the principle of res judicata does not bar The herein defendant is the successor-in-interest of Limpan Investment subsequent proceedings for the expropriation of the same property when Corporation as shown by the Deed of Assignment Exchange executed on all the legal requirements for its valid exercise are complied with. petitioner. hence. states no cause of action. June 13. record). the same became final. defendants motion for reconsideration is hereby granted. No pronouncement as to costs. V. Said case was dismissed with prejudice on May 18. there is no such MUNICIPALITY OF PARAAQUE.: Case No. The order of dismissal was not appealed. which affirmed in toto[3] the Regional Trial Courts August 9. In the instant case. 1998] The right of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain is not disputed. REALTY CORPORATION. A resolution that in said case (C. July 20. Estate of the late Anita de Leon). 17939) is conclusive between the parties and their merely expresses the sentiment or opinion of the Municipal Council will not successors-in-interest (Vda. On the other hand. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN .[4] The trial court dismissed the expropriation suit as follows: SO ORDERED. cannot pursue the present action without violating the principle of [r]es [j]udicata. suffice. 1987. However. 1996 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals[2] in CA This case is hereby dismissed. 1994 is vacated and set aside. ordinance passed by the Municipal Council of Paraaque enabling the respondent. DECISION Assuming that plaintiff has a cause of action. 1988 (page 39.[G. The plaintiff can not be allowed to A local government unit (LGU). to exercise the power of eminent domain. the same is barred by a prior judgment. 1994 Resolution. On September 29. thru its Chief Executive. GR CV No. The Local Government Code expressly and clearly Corporation. The order dated February 4.M. the doctrine of res judicata still applies because the judgment requires an ordinance or a local law for the purpose.[5] 25 CONSTI II | ATTY. 48048. Statement of the Case WHEREFORE. No. 1990. The complaint. 127820.A. 17939 was Limpan Investment its lawmaking body. San reconsideration and transfer of venue were denied by the trial court in a Dionisio. and that the principle of res judicata was not applicable. 577. 1994. 1994. Petitioners motions for with a combined area of about 10. Branch 134. Whether or not the Resolution of the Paraaque Municipal Council No. 93- Bayan Resolution No. 26 CONSTI II | ATTY. 4.[17] Petitioner then appealed to Title No. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . private respondent filed its Answer containing case. stressing that the trial courts Order dated February 4. Series of 1991. Metro Manila. and (b) the cause of action.M. was barred by a prior As previously mentioned. 1993. 1994 Resolution[16] nullifying two parcels of land (Lots 2-A-2 and 2-B-1 of Subdivision Plan Psd-17917). Paraaque. R. the trial court issued its August 9. Realty Corporation over Thereafter. Series of 1993 is a substantial compliance of the statutory requirement enter into a negotiated sale of the property with private respondent.[14] On March 24. Court of Makati. raising the following issues: alleviating the living conditions of the underprivileged by providing homes for the homeless through a socialized housing project.[15] petitioner filed on January 8. Whether or not the principle of res judicata is applicable to the present On February 21.[10] by the plaintiff-appellant. 93-95. Finding the Complaint sufficient in form and substance. the complaint was filed for the purpose of Respondent Court. the Regional Trial 2.[6] the Municipality of Paraaque filed on September 20.[8] Parenthetically. if any. said court issued an Order dated February 4. which of Section 19. Acting on petitioners motion. declaration.[9] previously made an offer to 95. 1994. a Complaint for expropriation[7] against Private Respondent V. Whether or not the complaint in this case states no cause of action. Allegedly. in its assailed Resolution promulgated treated as a motion to dismiss. and covered by Torrens Certificate of Resolution dated December 2. 1997. 48700. 1994.[18] affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. it was also for this stated purpose that petitioner. Whether or not the strict adherence to the literal observance to the rule subject property upon deposit with its clerk of court of an amount of procedure resulted in technicality standing in the way of substantial equivalent to 15 percent of its fair market value based on its current tax justice. Series of 1993. 7180 [sic] in the exercise of the power of eminent domain the latter did not accept.000 square meters.[19] denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.Factual Antecedents its opposition. 1994 Order and dismissing the case. issued an Order dated January 10.[13] alleging in the main that (a) the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant to a resolution and not to an ordinance as required by RA 7160 (the Local Government Code). Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 1994 was in accord with Section 19 of RA 7160. its Answer was courts Decision. its February 4. the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial judgment or res judicata.[11] giving it due course. 1994. located at Wakas.A. On private respondents motion. Respondent Court.[12] authorizing petitioner to take possession of the 3. pursuant to its Sangguniang 1. eminent domain for public use.[23] Petitioner seeks to bolster this contention by citing Article 36. the amount to be paid for the expropriated property 27 CONSTI II | ATTY.[25] An LGU may therefore exercise the power to expropriate private property only when authorized by 2. Section 19 of RA 7160. however. It provides as follows: The Courts Ruling Section 19. the requirements of the law[22] because the terms ordinance and resolution are synonymous for the purpose of bestowing authority [on] the Hence. or purpose. which provides: If the LGU fails to acquire a private property for public use.[21] the law conferring the power or in other legislations. pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided. The principle of res judicata as a ground for dismissal of case is not Congress and subject to the latters control and restraints.[20] local government unit through its chief executive to initiate the expropriation proceedings in court in the exercise of the power of eminent domain. imposed through applicable when public interest is primarily involved. The Issues Rule VI of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code. through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance.: property through a resolution of the Sanggunian authorizing its chief executive to initiate expropriation proceedings. further. viz. upon payment of just compensation. which delegates to LGUs the power of eminent domain. also lays down the parameters for its exercise.) 1. A resolution duly approved by the municipal council has the same force and effect of an ordinance and will not deprive an expropriation case of a The Court disagrees.[26] In this case. or welfare through purchase. The power of eminent domain is lodged in the valid cause of action. finally. this appeal. which may delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs. legislative branch of government. petitioner posits two issues. That First Issue: the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner. Eminent Domain. A local government unit may.[24] (Italics supplied. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . purpose. That the local government unit may Resolution Different from an Ordinance immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property Petitioner contends that a resolution approved by the municipal council for based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: the purpose of initiating an expropriation case substantially complies with Provided. or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless. the LGU may expropriate said Before this Court. and such offer was not accepted: Provided. That. other public entities and public utilities. exercise the power of The petition is not meritorious. the law is applied according to its express terms. Court of of a fundamental or private right of the people. Indeed. requires that the local chief executive act pursuant to an ordinance. in behalf of the LGU. RA 7160. In a clear divergence from the previous Local Government Code. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the where a literal interpretation would be either impossible or absurd or would property sought to be expropriated. No species of the applicable law at that time was BP 337. to exercise the power of eminent ordinance possesses a general and permanent character. since the law requiring an ordinance is not at all impossible.[27] lead to an injustice.[33] 2. If Congress intended to allow LGUs to exercise eminent domain through a mere resolution.demands a strict construction. there was no compliance with the first requisite that the mayor be Moreover. the following essential requisites must concur before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain: We are not convinced by petitioners insistence that the terms resolution and ordinance are synonymous. as required under Section 9. [l]egislative intent is determined principally from the language of a statute.from resolution under BP 337 eminent domain by an LGU. In contrast. the two are enacted differently -. and other pertinent laws. Petitioner cites Camarines Sur vs. Thus. But Congress did not. it would have simply adopted the language of the previous Local Government Code. the Appeals[28] to show that a resolution may suffice to support the exercise of manifest change in the legislative language -. A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. absurd. Section 19 of RA 7160 categorically 3. (Emphasis supplied) Local Government Code which was already in force when the Complaint for expropriation was filed. based on the fair market value at an LGU to exercise eminent domain. unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members. but said offer was not accepted.[29] This case.a third property. or for the benefit of the poor and the landless. reading is necessary for an ordinance.[32] An local chief executive. Thus. In the case at bar. or unjust. the local chief executive sought to exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution of the municipal council. but a resolution is merely a declaration of 1. which had provided that a mere resolution would enable 28 CONSTI II | ATTY.shall be determined by the proper court. and interpretation would be resorted to only 4. however. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. There is payment of just compensation. and is guarded by the Government Code. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN .[30] the previous Local property is held by individuals with greater tenacity. but a resolution is domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private temporary in nature. An ordinance is a law. the power of eminent domain necessarily involves a derogation authorized through an ordinance. Article III of the Constitution.[34] In the instant case. there is no reason to depart from this rule. Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous. but not for a resolution. Additionally. purpose or welfare. is not in point because to ordinance under RA 7160 -. explicitly required an ordinance for this purpose.[31] the present the time of the taking of the property. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use.[35] Accordingly. petitioner merely alleged requires only a resolution to authorize an LGU to exercise eminent domain. Rule VI thereof. It has therefore no power to amend or act beyond the authority given and the limitations imposed on it by law. and thus partakes only of a share in Complaint for expropriation which was based on a mere resolution. petitioner did not raise this point before prevails over said rule which merely seeks to implement it. When the legislature interferes with that right and. 93-35. It is discrepancy seems to indicate is a mere oversight in the wording of the hornbook doctrine that: implementing rules. surely copy thereof. the law itself. the chief executive of the LGU must act pursuant to an ordinance. It merely upholds the law as to be true. Rule VI of the Implementing Rules. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . which provides that territorial and political is hypothetically admitted by the motion. since it must conform to the The fact that there is no cause of action is evident from the face of the limits imposed by the delegation. 1993. Strictly speaking. also requires that. may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the worded in RA 7160. for their truth Article X of the Constitution. We stress that an LGU is created by law and all its prayer of the complaint?[42] powers and rights are sourced therefrom. and ratified all the acts interpretation. which cannot defy its will or modify or violate of action. the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error it. petitioner argues that its public purposes. Besides.[38] Indeed. the existence of such an ordinance. Consequently. x x x in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. but it did not present any certified true This is clearly misplaced. than the right to the freehold of inhabitants.[39] in affirming the trial courts Decision which dismissed the expropriation suit. it was mentioned by private respondent. what the of petitioners Complaint for expropriation filed on September 23.[37] It is axiomatic this Court. the power of eminent domain delegated to an LGU is in reality not eminent but inferior domain. The issue rather is: admitting them subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy. In the second place. Series of 1993. Whether those allegations are true or not is beside the point. Complaint Does Not State a Cause of Action Second Issue: 29 CONSTI II | ATTY. because Section 19 of RA 7160. Sanguniang Bayan passed an ordinance on October 11. the Court does not diminish the policy embodied in Section 2. this allegation does not cure the inherent defect mere administrative rule issued for its implementation. In this ruling. which This argument is bereft of merit. since Article 32.[41] In any event. for greater In its Brief filed before Respondent Court. appropriates the land of an individual without his consent.[36] of its mayor regarding the subject expropriation. In fact. The eminent domain.[40] Petitioner relies on Article 36. the question submitted before the court for determination is the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint itself. and only in that the clear letter of the law is controlling and cannot be amended by a passing. 1994 which the plain meaning of the law should not be enlarged by doubtful reiterated its Resolution No.Constitution and laws more sedulously. in exercising the power of eminent domain. In the first place. the national legislature is still the principal of absence of an ordinance authorizing the same is equivalent to lack of cause the local government units. Costs for public use. but also right of the State or its agent to expropriate private property. the same is also true of the principle of law of is a previous final judgment on the merits in a prior expropriation case the case. like WHEREFORE. the petition is hereby DENIED without prejudice to petitioners police power. The State or its authorized agent may still subsequently exercise its right to expropriate the same Be that as it may. For example. Parenthetically requisites for the application of res judicata are present in this case. the highest and most exact idea of property. fact that a prior final judgment over the property to be expropriated has become the law of the case as to the parties. the Court holds that the principle of res judicata. dictates that the right to exercise the power be absolute and unfettered even by a prior judgment or res judicata. as prescribed by law. The scope of eminent domain is plenary and.[48] By the same token. our ruling that petitioner cannot exercise its delegated power of eminent domain through a mere resolution will not bar it from reinstituting similar proceedings. and subsequently exercising its power of eminent domain over the same Eminent Domain Not Barred by Res Judicata property. In Republic vs De Knecht. To rule otherwise finds application in generally all cases and proceedings. the State or its authorized agent cannot be forever barred from exercising said right by reason alone of previous non- compliance with any legal requirement. and they have the right to resume the possession of the property whenever the public interest requires it. a final judgment dismissing an expropriation suit on the ground that there was no prior offer precludes another suit raising the same issue. While the principle of res judicata does not denigrate the right of the State to exercise eminent domain. which property. PASCUAL | EMINENT DOMAIN | TAN . There and by parity of reasoning. remains in the government. all others are properly complied with. The very clearly defeat social justice.[46] All separate interests of individuals in property are held against petitioner.[45] cannot bar the will not only improperly diminish the power of eminent domain. or in the SO ORDERED. Notwithstanding the grant to individuals. as an inherent power of the State. of the government under this tacit agreement or implied reservation.[44] all the and. however. it does apply to specific issues decided in a previous case.[47] Thus. it cannot. which has State or its agent to exercise eminent domain is not diminished by the mere been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over it. the eminent domain. bar the State or its agent from 30 CONSTI II | ATTY. can reach every form of property which the State might need proper exercise of its power of eminent domain over subject property. subject matter and cause of action. aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity. nature of eminent domain. thereafter complying with this requirement. once all legal requirements are complied with. for that matter. once the said legal requirement As correctly found by the Court of Appeals[43] and the trial court.[49] the Court ruled that the power of the involving identical interests.