Municipality of Parañaque vs. V.M.

Realty Corporation (1998)

Facts: Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution, the Municipality of Parañaque filed

a complaint for expropriation against private respondent, over two parcels of land to be
used for a socialized housing project. Respondent filed an answer and alleged that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action because the complaint was filed pursuant to a
resolution and not an ordinance as required by RA 7160 and that the cause of action, if
any, was barred by res judicata.

Held: A local government unit cannot authorize an expropriation of private property

through a mere resolution of its lawmaking body. The Local Government Code,
particularly Section 19 expressly and clearly requires an ordinance or a local law for the
purpose. A resolution that merely expresses the sentiment or opinion of the municipal
council will not suffice.
The power of eminent domain is lodged in Congress, which may delegate the
exercise thereof to LGU's. The latter, when authorized by Congress, is subject to the
legislature's control and restraints imposed through the law conferring the power or in
other legislations.
The principle of res judicata does not bar subsequent proceedings for the
expropriation of the same property when all the legal requirements for its valid exercise
are complied with. The State or its agent cannot be forever barred from exercising said
right of eminent domain by reason alone of previous non-compliance with any legal
requirement. The same is also true of the principle of law of the case.
Hence, the State or its authorized agent may still subsequently exercise its right
to expropriate once all the legal requirements are complied with. To rule otherwise will
not only improperly diminish the power of eminent domain but also clearly defeat social
justice. The petition is denied without prejudice to petitioner's proper exercise of its
power of eminent domain over the subject property.