This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
150640, 22 March 2007 Facts Barangay Sindalan, pursuant to its resolution, filed a complaint for eminent domain against the Sindayan spouses who were the registered owners of the parcel of land subject of the expropriation. The barangay sought to convert a portion of spouses Sindayan’s land into Barangay Sindalan’s feeder road. The spouses argued that the expropriation of their property was improper because it was sought for a private use. They alleged that the expropriation of their property, which was adjacent to Davsan II Subdivision, would benefit only the homeowners of said subdivision. The RTC ruled that the barangay had the lawful right to take the property of the Sindayan spouses. The Court of Appeals reversed. Issue Whether the proposed exercise of the power of eminent domain would be for a public purpose – No, the contemplated road to be constructed by the barangay would benefit only the residents of a subdivision. Held In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, it is basic that the taking of private property must be for a public purpose. In this jurisdiction, "public use" is defined as "whatever is beneficially employed for the community." The intended feeder road sought to serve the residents of the subdivision only. It has not been shown that the other residents of Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, will be benefited by the contemplated road to be constructed. While the number of people who use or can use the property is not determinative of whether or not it constitutes public use or purpose, the factual milieu of the case reveals that the intended use of respondents’ lot is confined solely to the Davsan II Subdivision residents and is not exercisable in common. Considering that the residents who need a feeder road are all subdivision lot owners, it is the obligation of the Davsan II Subdivision owner to acquire a right-of-way for them. To deprive respondents of their property instead of compelling the subdivision owner to comply with his obligation under the law is an abuse of the power of eminent domain and is patently illegal. Without doubt, expropriation cannot be justified on the basis of an unlawful purpose. Laynesa v. Uy, G.R. No. 149553, 29 February 2008 [Tenants filed a case of threatened ejectment and legal redemption against alleged owners of an agricultural land before the DARAB. While the case was pending, the local government passed a municipal resolution embodying an ordinance which reclassified the subject land from agricultural to industrial. The alleged owners of the land argued that DARAB had no jurisdiction since the subject land was already classified as industrial.
Sec. Notably. The DARAB ruled in favor of the Laynesas. The CA reversed and ruled that DARAB had no jurisdiction. and from the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) that the subject land was not covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT) or by Presidential Decree No. Thereafter. When Cuba Sr. Meanwhile. the deed was not registered with the Register of Deeds.” As such. 67. Santos. transferring the property to Pacita Uy. the evidence on record shows that when the Laynesas . Pacita demanded that the Laynesas vacate the land. executed a deed of assignment of the undelivered owner’s share of the produce in favor of Pacita. She claimed that she had purchased the land. Cuba. 28 and reclassified the land from agricultural to industrial. Camarines Sur approved Resolution No. Later. Sec. Sixto Cuba Jr. and Bienvenido Cuba. According to the CA. which embodied Ordinance No. (PD) 27. namely Sixto Cuba Jr.Held: Despite the reclassification of an agricultural land to non-agricultural land by a local government. Pacita and her husband Paquito alleged that DARAB had no jurisdiction since the land had already been reclassified as industrial land. Subsequently. amending or modifying in any manner the provisions of RA 6657. The Laynesas filed a complaint before the DARAB for threatened ejectment and legal redemption of the subject property. Furthermore. on the quasi-judicial powers of the DAR has not been repealed by RA 7160. executed a deed of absolute sale of unregistered land. the Municipal Council of Tagbong.. Pili. Jr. DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The certifications were sought so the land could be reclassified as industrial land. delivering the owner’s share of the produce to the children of Cuba Sr. the DARAB still retains jurisdiction. Subsequently. Pacita obtained a certification from the Municipal Agricultural Office (MAO) that the property was not prime agricultural property. 50 of RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.. while the remaining portion was leased to Santos Laynesa and his son Nicolas as tenants. 20(e) of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code is unequivocal that nothing in said section shall be construed “as repealing. Santos and Nicolas continued as tenants. died. ] Facts Robert Morley was an owner of a parcel of land in Camarines Sur. A portion of the land was sold to Sixto Cuba Sr.
(2)Sec. Thus. through the DARAB. In view of the foregoing reasons. 50 of RA 6657 on quasi-judicial powers of the DAR has not been repealed by RA 7160. granting local government units the power to reclassify land. as to the issue of reclassification. the DARAB had no jurisdiction. RA 7160 shall govern in case of conflict between it and RA 6657. amending or modifying in any manner the provisions of [RA] 6657. the DARAB still retains jurisdiction over a complaint filed by a tenant of the land in question for threatened ejectment and redemption for the following reasons: (1)Jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. preference is vested with the DAR because of its expertise and experience in agrarian reform matters. the DAR. Issue Whether the reclassification of a lot by a municipal ordinance. 20(e) of RA 7160 is unequivocal that nothing in said section shall be construed “as repealing. However. RA 7160 or the Local Government Code was passed into law. Despite the reclassification of an agricultural land to non-agricultural land by a local government. suffices to oust the jurisdiction of the DARAB over a petition for legal redemption filed by the tenants – NO Held Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657). the complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the DARAB.filed their action with the DARAB. the adjudication of agrarian reform disputes was placed under the jurisdiction of the DAR.” As such. the property was no longer agricultural but had been reclassified. without the Department of Agrarian Reform’s (DAR’s) approval. It cannot be questioned that the averments of the DARAB case clearly pertain to an agrarian reform matter and involve the implementation of the agrarian reform laws. Primary jurisdiction means in case of seeming conflict between the jurisdictions of the DAR and regular courts. in 1991. Being a later law. The case filed by the Layneses who were tenants of an agricultural land was for threatened ejectment and its redemption from respondents. shall exercise quasi-judicial functions and has exclusive original jurisdiction over all disputes involving the enforcement and implementation of all agrarian reform laws. we rule that the DARAB retains jurisdiction over disputes arising from agrarian reform matters even though the . Thus. Such being the case. Sec. It bears stressing that the DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Landowners must understand that while RA 7160. 30 of said Code must be strictly complied with. we rule that respondents failed to adduce substantial evidence to buttress their assertion that all the conditions and requirements have been satisfied. On the issue of whether there has been a valid reclassification of the subject lot to industrial land. the stringent requirements set forth in Sec. granted local government units the power to reclassify agricultural land. . the Local Government Code.landowner or respondent interposes the defense of reclassification of the subject lot from agricultural to non-agricultural use. Such adherence to the legal prescriptions is found wanting in the case at bar.
Meycauayan. Bulacan filed a complaint for expropriation against the Francia family in the RTC. 2008 Facts The Municipality of Meycauayan. to be based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated. Issue Whether a hearing is necessary to determine the public purpose of the expropriation prior the issuance of a writ of possession – No Held Under Section 19 of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code. No. 170432. The CA ruled that the hearing was not necessary because once the expropriator deposited the required amount with the Court. G. to establish a common public terminal for all types of public utility vehicles with a weighing scale for heavy trucks. the issuance of writ of possession became ministerial. which located at the junction of the North Expressway main road artery and the MacArthur Highway. March 24. The RTC also ruled that the municipality may take immediate possession of the property pursuant to the Court’s writ of possession only after depositing said amount. . contending that the trial court erred in issuing its order without conducted a hearing to determine the existence of a public purpose.” Before a local government unit may enter into the possession of the property sought to be expropriated. it must (1) file a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance in the proper court and (2) deposit with the said court at least 15% of the property's fair market value based on its current tax declaration.R. The law does not make the determination of a public purpose a condition precedent to the issuance of a writ of possession. The RTC ruled that the expropriation was for a public purpose. The Francias filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. and ordered the municipality to deposit with the Court 15% of the fair market value of the property sought to be expropriated. “the local government unit may 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 based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated. The municipality planned to expropriate the property of the Francias.Francia v.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.