You are on page 1of 15

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 CASES (Part 3) compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit

paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of
building or maintaing a public cemeteries. State's exercise of the
City of Manila vs Chinese Community of Manila power of expropriation requires payment of just compensation.
GR 14355 (1D), 31 October 1919 Passing the ordinance without benefiting the owner of the
property with just compensation or due process, would amount to
FACTS: Petitioner (City of Manila) filed a petition praying that unjust taking of a real property. Since the property that is needed
certain lands be expropriated for the purpose of constructing a to be taken will be used for the public's benefit, then the power of
public improvement namely, the extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila the state to expropriate will come forward and not the police
and claiming that such expropriation was necessary. power of the state.
Herein defendants, on the other hand, alleged (a) that no CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY and CITY COUNCIL OF
necessity existed for said expropriation and (b) that the land in QUEZONCITY, petitioners,
question was a cemetery, which had been used as such for many vs.HON. JUDGE VICENTE G. ERICTA as Judge of the Court of First
years, and was covered with sepulchres and monuments, and that Instance ofRizal, Quezon City, Branch XVIII; HIMLAYANG PILIPINO,
the same should not be converted into a street for public INC., respondents.
The lower court ruled that there was no necessity for the 1987 Constitution Art III, Sec. 9: Private property shall not be taken
expropriation of the particular strip of land in question. for public use without justcompensation.
Petitioner therefore assails the decision of the lower court
claiming that it (petitioner) has the authority to expropriate any FACTS:
land it may desire; that the only function of the court in such Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 provides for the
proceedings is to ascertain the value of the land in question; that appropriation of 6% of memorial parks for charity burial of the
neither the court nor the owners of the land can inquire into the paupers. Himlayang Pilipino, Inc (HPI),did not appropriate the 6%
advisable purpose of the expropriation or ask any questions requirement. Seven years after, the Quezon City council issued a
concerning the necessities therefor; that the courts are mere resolution to stop any further selling and/or transaction of
appraisers of the land involved in expropriation proceedings, and, memorial park lots in Quezon City where the owners thereof have
when the value of the land is fixed by the method adopted by the failed to donate the required 6% space.
law, to render a judgment in favor of the defendant for its value.
ISSUE: W/N the courts may inquire into and hear proof upon the ISSUE:
necessity of the expropriation? Is Section 9 of the ordinance in question a valid exercise of the
HELD: Yes. The courts have the power to restrict the exercise of police power?
eminent domain to the actual reasonable necessities of the case
and for the purposes designated by the law. When the municipal
corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred,
No. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a
it must comply with the conditions accompanying such authority.
certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are
The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal
charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of building or
corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is, without
maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the
question, within the power of the legislature. But whether or not
burden to private cemeteries. (Thus, even if it is an eminent
the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a
domain, it would not have been the proper measure to promote
particular case under the conditions imposed by the general
general welfare in this case)Police power is usually exercised in the
authority, is a question that the courts have the right to inquire
form of mere regulation or restriction in the use of liberty or
property for the promotion of general health, morals, safety of the
City Government of Quezon vs. Judge Ericta GR No. L-34915 June people and more so, the general welfare. It does not involve the
24, 1983 taking or confiscation of property with the exception of a few
cases where there is a necessity to confiscate private property in
Facts: order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting the peace and
An ordinance was promulgated in Quezon city which approved the order and of promoting the general welfare as for instance, the
the regulation of establishment of private cemeteries in the said confiscation of an illegally possessed article, such as opium and
city. According to the ordinance, 6% of the total area of the private firearms.
memorial park shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased
persons who are paupers and have been residents of QC.
Himlayang Pilipino, a private memorial park, contends that the ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC
taking or confiscation of property restricts the use of property
such that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose and G.R. No. 78742 [July 14, 1989]
deprives the owner of all beneficial use of his property. It also ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, et
contends that the taking is not a valid exercise of police power, al., petitioners,
since the properties taken in the exercise of police power are vs.
destroyed and not for the benefit of the public. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.

Issue: FACTS
Whether or not the ordinance made by Quezon City is a valid The association of the Small Landowners of the Philippines invokes
taking of private property the right of retention granted by PD 27 to owners of rice and corn
lands not exceeding 7 hectares as long as they are cultivating on
Ruling: intend to cultivate the same. Their respected lands do not exceed
No, the ordinance made by Quezon City is not a valid way of taking the statutory limits but are occupied by tenants who re actually
private property. The ordinace is actually a taking without cultivating such lands.


The petitioners owned a parcel of land with an area of 1. 27. violation of due process and the requirement for just compensation.O. Half of their land they used as their court. No. 3 1986 – The petitioner protested the erroneous inclusion of his small families.O.044 It was granted by the court. No. conditions the transfer of possession and Respondents. 10. No. 2002 by the  The petitioners are Nicolas Manaay and his wife who own a 9-hectare rice land Regional Trial Court. G. CITY MAYOR beneficiaries were deemed full owners of the land they acquired and CITY COUNCIL Promulgated: under PP 27. which Chairperson. 316 provides that no tenant-farmer in agricultural Land Transfer were issued to the private respondents who then refused to pay land primarily devoted to rice and corn shall be ejected or lease rentals. E. determined. 131 and E. No. HELD Section 4 of the Constitution Yes. 131 and Whether or not the content and manner of just compensation E. who owns a 5-hectare rice land [3] Thereby. They question the constitutionality of P. Whether or not the President had the power to promulgate Proc. rights of the tenant-farmers and the land owners shall have been Dec. and nullification of the entire program. No. which satisfies the first should only have onesubject. Branch 214. --x Until then. representing coconut and rice land owners. Whether or not Proc. there is no arbitrariness in the provision as the determination of just compensation by DAR is act. 1987 – A motion for intervention was filed by Manuel Barcelona. the land was their only property and only landholding under Operation Land Transfer accusing the then Secretary of DAR of source of income.  Landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill District. worked by four tenants and Augustin Hermano. Present: compensation is money and no other. Jr. No. of P50B may not be enough. 1986 – Petitioner claims his petition was denied without hearing. 552. Whether or not the President had the legislative power for issuing the measures Whether or not the CARP and EO 228 contravene a well accepted 3. Whether or not Proc. 131 conforms to the requirements of a valid principle of eminent domain by divesting the land owner of his appropriation as specifiedin the Constitution property even before actual payment to him in full of just 4. 2. 1987 – A motion for intervention was filed by the National Federation of Sugarcane Planters.R. The subject and purpose of agrarian reform have been laid 5. JJ. 131 and E. JR.R. G. Allegedly. 2011 ownership of the land to the government on the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit of DAR of x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. and R. 1989Ponente: CRUZ.R. No. SERENO.O. 229 violates constitutional requirement that a bill down by the Constitution itself.. RESOLUTION Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v. It was granted by the Mauway. 17. Antecedents Aug. and is in fact not even fully available BERSAMIN. as they could not eject upon when E. ISSUE Whether or not the assailed statutes are valid exercises of police ISSUES power. No. The petitioners appeal the adverse decision promulgated FACTS on October 18. Whether or not the writ of mandamus can issue to the manner fixing the just compensation.[2] whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside They will be subject to one common discussion and resolution. Negros Occidental and Planters’ Committee Inc. title also remains with the landowner. G. 2002[1] and resolution promulgated on January 17. COURT OF APPEALS.: G. provided for the CARP is violative of the Constitution. Nos. 78742July 14. Series of 1997. YUSAY. Whether or not E. Certificates of 2 . Nos. worked by four tenants. domain. No.R.especially by a specific department of the only preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. 6657 since their tenants were declared full owners of the Mayor to take the necessary legal steps for the expropriation of mentioned lands. et Street and Fernandez Street in Barangay al. the CA upheld Resolution No. 1. 156684 the said determination. to be expressed in its title requirement of the lawful subject.O. No. Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform BERSAMIN. April 6. No. No. BRION. square meters situated between Nueve de Febrero Sept. 24. The petitioner is asking for the recall and cancellation of these removed from his farm holding until such time as the respective certificates. which it is claimed is compel the performance of a discretionary judicial prerogatives. MandaluyongCity.. EO 228 categorically stated that all qualified farmer. No. and the rest they rented out to nine other Sept. J. The invalidation of the said section resulted in the VILLARAMA.A. Victorias. CARP Law. for its part. adopted by the City of Mandaluyong (City) authorizing its then City 228 & 229.. 229. However. 228 & 229 were issued which rendered his their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right of retention. with 1400 planter We affirm the CA.O. The initially intended amount -versus . which claim 20 000 members).  Cases have been consolidated because they involve common legal questions. No. 228 &2292. involves not mere millions of pesos. after proof of full payment of just compensation. what is being dealt with here is not the traditional exercise of the power and eminent CARPIO MORALES. -members.D. No.R. 2003. 1987 – A motion for reconsideration was filed which had not been acted compel the DAR Secretary to issue the IRR. 27. government Otherwise. in Mandaluyong City (RTC). submitted a petition seeking to prohibit the implementation of Proc. However. 79744 residence. at the time. Nos.O. 79777: the order issued in their favor on February 19. Although the traditional medium for payment of just Petitioners. objection is raised to 6. the courts will still have the right to review with finality SPOUSES ANTONIO and FE G. they petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to Feb. J. The OF MANDALUYONG CITY. This is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. No. motion moot. 229 should be invalidated because compensation they do not provide for retention limits required by Article 13. 79310 the parcel of land registered in the names of the petitioners.Because PD No.

Francisco Sgd. as it is hereby authorizing. or usurpation. 552. the City had yet to commit acts of land for the landless. BARANGAY for certiorari and prohibition in the RTC. in session assembled. and without force and effect. In its decision promulgated on October 18. and filed a petition JOSE FERNANDEZ STREET. S-1997[4] Presiding Officer RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HON.On October 2. the CA to institute expropriation proceedings against concluded that the reversal of the January 31. declared that Resolution No. City of validity absent any sufficient showing to the contrary. this piece of land have been On January 31. Abalos. jurisdiction. 552. the City Council of Mandaluyong. THEREFORE. ABALOS to institute there was no due process in the passage of Resolution No. would certainly benefit public interest. the said families have already not also lie under the circumstances considering that the act of negotiated to acquire this land but was refused passing the resolution was not a judicial. which included making a definite offer to registered in the name of MR. 1997. 3 . Delos Santos Panglungsod of Mandaluyong City adopted Resolution No. the RTC ruled in favor of the City and occupied for about ten (10) years by many dismissed the petition for lack of merit. 552 would already pave the way for the City to City Council deems it necessary to authorize deprive the petitioners and their heirs of their only property. to authorize. and that notwithstanding the issuance of to the City Governments effort of providing Resolution No. Mayor BENJAMIN S. Roberto J. 552 was ABALOS TO TAKE THE NECESSARY LEGAL STEPS but the initial step in the Citys exercise of its power of eminent FOR THE EXPROPRIATION OF A PARCEL OF domain granted under Section 19 of the Local Government Code LAND SITUATED ALONG DR. let alone. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. the Resolution No. acting upon the social justice and urban land reform in this petitioners motion for reconsideration. of 1991. for it was privileged but deserving constituents of this enough that their views had been consulted and that they had City. 552 expropriation proceedings to achieve the because the petitioners had not been invited to the subsequent noble purpose of the City Government of hearings on the resolution to enable them to ventilate their Mandaluyong. 2001 decision by the above-named registered owner of that the RTC was not justified because Resolution No. 2002. a step towards the implementation of However. encroachment. the expropriation of said land amounting lack or in excess of jurisdiction. opposition. that notice Mandaluyong. the petitioners became alarmed. OWNED of Resolution No. The Sgd. under the present situation. 552. as it hereby Aggrieved. 552 due to its being unconstitutional. set aside its decision and City. Jose be accorded the benefit of the presumption of regularity and Fernandez Street. the suit of the YUSAY. improper. 2002. Benjamin S. the City appealed to the CA. seconded. RESOLVED. upon motion duly number of inhabitants. (f)or the purpose of developing to the petitioners (Spouses Yusay) of the succeeding hearings it to a low-cost housing project for the less conducted by the City was not a part of due process. Notwithstanding that the enactment of Resolution No. 2001. Hon. to authorize then City Mayor Benjamin S. City of Mandaluyong. Sr. and that the purpose for the expropriation was not for public use and the expropriation would not benefit the greater NOW. Mayor BENJAMIN S. RESOLVES. or had yet to act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion WHEREAS. Jose Fernandez Street. BY MR. Barangay Mauway. because Government of Mandaluyong desires. hence. that the special civil action of prohibition did WHEREAS. to provide modest and decent judicial or quasi-judicial acts done without or in excess of dwelling. or by the above-named owner in total disregard ministerial act. petitioners was premature. that to rule otherwise would be to give every affected resident effective veto ADOPTED on this 2nd day of October 1997 at powers in law-making by a local government unit. among the special civil action of certiorari was only available to assail other things. CITY OF MANDALUYONG. 552 deserved to parcel of land situated along Dr. WHEREAS. WHEREAS. Adventor R. opining that certiorari did financially hard-up families which the City not lie against a legislative act of the City Government. BENJAMIN S. or quasi-judicial.The RTC held that the petition was not premature because the passage of WHEREAS. been given the full opportunity to voice their protest. on February 19. that Hon. 552 was a mere along Dr. ABALOS. owned and towards expropriation. there is a parcel of land situated The City countered that Resolution No. to take the necessary legal steps for the expropriation of the Attested: Approved: land of the petitioners for the purpose of developing it for low cost housing for the less privileged but deserving city inhabitants. praying for the annulment MAUWAY. and that a the City of Mandaluyong. 552 was null and void. ANTONIO YUSAY confiscatory. ANTONIO purchase the property of the petitioners. the RTC. Barangay authorization given to the City Mayor to initiate the legal steps Mauway. excess. Acting Sanggunian Secretary Series of 1997. the Sangguniang Sgd. resolution reads as follows: Abalos City Councilor & Acting City Mayor RESOLUTION NO.

Must a citizen await the takeover and court. and adequate remedy in sentiment or opinion was a constitutionally protected right. board. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of SO ORDERED. Mandaluyong City dated February quasi-judicial functions. hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A local xxx government unit may. it is well to differentiate between a 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus. we sustain. whose Section 1 provides: resolution and an ordinance. 7160 (The Local Government proper court. the petitioner must allege and establish the concurrence of the following requisites. certiorari did not lie against the Sangguniang Panglungsod.public hearing. or officer thereby acts without government before he can go to court to jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of nullify an unjust expropriation? discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. or officer exercising judicial or Branch 214. Section 19 of The Local Government tribunal. board or officer. [9] is the exercise of the judicial faculty or office. gravely erred in giving due course to the petition for certiorari and prohibition. 552. board. When character. board. For certiorari to prosper. therefore. Bouvier continues. the (a) The writ is directed against a tribunal. 2002 in SCA Case No. and through under the circumstances. through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an 4 . speedy. the Sangguniang Panglungsod in no way excess of jurisdiction. Section 19. Thus. Series of 1997 of (b) Such tribunal. 19. or officer has the City of Mandaluyong null and void. Certiorari does not lie to assail the issuance of a resolution by the Sanggunian Panglungsod Nor did the Sangguniang Panglungsod abuse its discretion in adopting Resolution No. or with grave In simply expressing its sentiment or opinion through the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or resolution. 15-MD. although necessary at times. abused its discretion. 552 be It is further emphasized that a petition assailed even before its implementation? for certiorari seeks solely to correct defects in jurisdiction. or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial possession of his property by the local functions unless such court. questioned order of the Regional Trial Court. it also means the capacity to act in a Ruling specific way which appertains to the judicial power. and granting such Code clearly provides. 552. Eminent Domain. Judicial function. albeit upon different and by means of which it accomplishes its purpose and exercises grounds. alleging the facts with certainty Code) required the City to pass an ordinance. No costs. in excess of its or his jurisdiction. but the CA denied their (c) There is no appeal or any plain. a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the Moreover. however. viz: incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. as one of the powers of government. namely: of law.[6] 1. for its expression of nor any plain. and motion. which declared Resolution No. was not indispensable and merely aided in law-making. The CA disposed as follows: namely: WHEREFORE. the Court considers it necessary to first determine whether or not the action The first requisite is that the respondent tribunal. they appeal to the Court. but a legislative and policy-making body declaring its 1. which was not a part of the Judiciary settling an actual controversy involving legally demandable and enforceable rights when it adopted Resolution No. [10] is used to We deny the petition for review. Petition for certiorari. for the purpose of initiating an expropriation annulling or modifying the proceedings of such proceeding. and find describe generally those modes of action which appertain to the that certiorari and prohibition were not available to the petitioners judiciary as a department of organized government. the result announced by the CA. RTC was a proper recourse of the petitioners. In this regard.board. least of all gravely. which is nothing but an embodiment of what the or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or lawmaking body has to say in the light of attendant circumstances. speedy. for certiorari and prohibition commenced by the petitioners in the or officer must be exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Based on the foregoing. and declare that the RTC its peculiar powers. 552. [8] Before resolving these issues.[5] jurisdiction. and The petitioners moved for reconsideration. the ordinary course of law. [7] and does not correct just any error or mistake committed by a 2. The first is upon a specific matter of a temporary nature while the latter is a law that is permanent in Section 1. Can the validity of Resolution No. and there is no appeal. premises considered. not adopt a and praying that judgment be rendered resolution. therefore. sentiment or opinion. To demonstrate the The special civil action for certiorari is governed by Rule absence of abuse of discretion. The term. Republic Act No. board or officer exercising judicial resolution. board. posing the following adequate remedy in the ordinary course issues. according to Bouvier. is acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.[11] No rights can be conferred by and be inferred from a any tribunal.

and such offer which was already in force when the was not accepted: Provided. ordinance. or purpose. the Court ruled purpose or welfare. There is payment of just which may delegate the exercise thereof to compensation. That the declaration of the property to be power of eminent domain may not be expropriated: Provided. V. That determined by the proper court. the previous Local laws: Provided. executive sought to exercise the power of A local government unit may. That. upon suffice to support the exercise of eminent payment of just compensation. Realty Corporation. as required under LGUs. however. in Municipality of Paraaque v. and such the expropriated property shall be offer was not accepted: Provided. least fifteen percent (15%) of the upon payment of just compensation. (Emphasis supplied) making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market Thus. Section 9 Article III of the An LGU may therefore exercise the power to Constitution and other pertinent expropriate private property only when laws. Thus. 552 that merely proceedings over a particular expresses the sentiment of the Sangguniang Panglungsod is not private property. executive. or welfare deposit with the proper court of at for the benefit of the poor and the landless. possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation 5 . not an ordinance. sufficient for the purpose of initiating an expropriation proceeding. It provides as follows: In the case at bar. the local government unit may immediately based on the fair market value at take possession of the property upon the filing the time of the taking of the of the expropriation proceedings and upon property. or purpose. finally. In contrast. exercise. based on the by the local legislative fair market value at the time of the taking of council authorizing the local chief the property. other public entities and public utilities. the following essential requisites value of the property based on the current tax must concur before an LGU can exercise the declaration of the property to be expropriated: power of eminent domain: Provided. An ordinance is enacted determined by the proper court. to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation A resolution like Resolution No. That the Government Code. also lays down the parameters for its was not accepted. the amount to be paid for been previously made to the owner. or for the so: benefit of the poor and the landless. the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be 1. in behalf of the LGU. however. A valid and definite offer the law conferring the power or in other has been previously made to the legislations. The power of eminent case in which the Municipality of Paraaque based its complaint for domain is exercised for public use. owner of the property sought to which delegates to LGUs the power of eminent be expropriated. 3. In this case. imposed through 4. but said offer domain. Petitioner cites Camarines Sur vs. ordinance. there was no acting pursuant to an ordinance. This case. pursuant fair market value of the property to the provisions of the Constitution and based on the current tax pertinent laws: Provided. exercised unless a valid and definite offer has That.M. eminent domain pursuant to a resolution of through its chief executive and the municipal council. the present Local Government Code made to the owner. domain by an LGU. RA definite offer has been previously 7160. Complaint for expropriation was filed. or welfare for the benefit of the Court of Appeals to show that a resolution may poor and the landless. compliance with the first requisite that the exercise the power of eminent mayor be authorized through an domain for public use. authorized by Congress and subject to the latters control and restraints. That the local government explicitly required an ordinance for this unit may immediately take purpose. the local chief Section 19. however. [12] a 2. Eminent Domain. The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of government. finally. expropriation on a resolution. further. exercise the power of eminent proceedings and upon making a domain for public use. Indeed. which had provided that a power of eminent domain may mere resolution would enable an LGU to not be exercised unless a valid and exercise eminent domain. Section 19 of RA 7160. further. is not pursuant to the provisions of the in point because the applicable law at that Constitution and pertinent time was BP 337.

meaning of the law should not be enlarged by corporation. 93-35. judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings This argument is bereft of merit. in the complaint itself. and interpretation would be to lack of cause of action. speedy. It a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a is hornbook doctrine that: lawmaking body on a specific matter. officer or person. unless decided otherwise by a is the sufficiency of the allegations majority of all the Sanggunian members.Indeed. are without or in excess of its or his xxx jurisdiction. In the xxx second place.a third reading is action. or first place. In view of the absence of the proper expropriation Moreover. In fact. A municipal event. Section 19 of RA 7160 the complaint? categorically requires that the local chief executive act pursuant to an ordinance. petitioner argues that its Sangguniang and adequate remedy in the ordinary course Bayan passed an ordinance on October 11. which sedulously. the plain When the proceedings of any tribunal. petitioner merely alleged the otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as existence of such an ordinance. and only in passing. the manifest change in the legislative language from resolution under 2. verified petition in the proper court. there is which dismissed the expropriation suit. quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. In the in the action or matter specified therein. Accordingly. for their truth is exercise eminent domain through a mere hypothetically admitted by the resolution. the question submitted necessary for an ordinance. it was mentioned by insistence that the terms resolution and private respondent. of law. [13] no reason to depart from this rule. An ordinance possesses a general and x x x in a motion to dismiss permanent character. and is The special civil action for prohibition is governed also by guarded by the Constitution and laws more Section 2 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. When the legislature interferes with that right and. the power of eminent ordinance authorizing and providing for the expropriation. but not for a before the court for determination resolution. absurd. and In its Brief filed before Respondent there is no appeal or any other plain. But Congress did not. it would have simply adopted the motion. but a resolution is based on the ground that the temporary in nature. exercising judicial. We are not convinced by petitioners before this Court. a person aggrieved thereby may file a 1994 which reiterated its Resolution No. but a resolution is merely expropriation filed on September 23. people. Whether those allegations are true or not is If Congress intended to allow LGUs to beside the point. The absence of an unambiguous. and ratified all the acts of its the facts with certainty and praying that mayor regarding the subject expropriation. BP 337 to ordinance under RA 7160 demands a Prohibition does not lie against expropriation strict construction. In the instant case. present any certified true copy thereof. may Code. alleging Series of 1993. No species of property is held by individuals with greater tenacity. Court. In a clear the court render a valid judgment divergence from the previous Local in accordance with the prayer of Government Code. petitioner did not raise this point 6 . The fact that there is no cause of [l]egislative intent is determined principally action is evident from the face of the from the language of a statute. or unjust. or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. but it did not law and justice may require. than the right to the freehold of states: inhabitants. The issue rather is: language of the previous Local Government admitting them to be true. Consequently. individual without his consent. the law is applied according to ordinance authorizing the same is equivalent its express terms. An inherent defect of petitioners Complaint for ordinance is a law. 1993. since the (Emphasis supplied) law requiring an ordinance is not at all impossible. whether doubtful interpretation. the two complaint fails to state a cause of are enacted differently -. appropriates the land of an Section 2. the domain necessarily involves a derogation of a petition for certiorari filed in the RTC was dismissible for lack of fundamental or private right of the cause of action. Additionally. this allegation does not cure the ordinance is different from a resolution. board. for greater public purposes. Petition for prohibition. In any ordinance are synonymous. the resorted to only where a literal interpretation Court of Appeals committed no reversible would be either impossible or absurd or would error in affirming the trial courts Decision lead to an injustice. Where the Complaint for expropriation which was based language of a statute is clear and on a mere resolution.

the term excess of jurisdiction signifies that the 16.R. for the power of eminent domain could be exercised by the City only with the provision of Section 39 of BP129 to the effect through the filing of a verified complaint in the proper court. 70618. subordinate to the power of the State. conformably petitioners to mount any judicial challenge. for theSangguniang property . there can be no prohibition against a procedure file a motion for reconsideration and/or appeal within the whereby the immediate possession of the land under reglementary period. [19] Judge issued order dismissing the complaint "as against defendant The rule and relevant jurisprudence indicate that FRANCISCO. the petitioner must first demonstrate that for use as the new site of a modern public market and the the tribunal. well within the thirty-day period laid down by law Costs to be paid by the petitioners. board. instead of affected landowners.C." i. corporation. as regards the appropriate amount of just compensation to be paid to the which 'the period of appeal shall be thirty [30] days. Remedial Law at Friday. or person. and orderly administration of justice. and hence the period of appeal necessitating the taking of private land intended for public use. Laguna filed in the RTC.. which must be so patent was thus actually a pleading. the remedy of prohibition was not called allowed by law. the petitioners as the owners could not also be appeal shall be thirty (30) days. and the courts will be left to determine Rule 67 is a case "wherein multiple appeals are allowed. since no less than two (2) appeals are Here. The complaint appeal or other plain.the special civil action of [21] and the interest of the affected landowner is thus made partition and accounting under Rule 69. She alleged she had The petitioner must further allege in the petition and the special defense of "a constitutional defense of vested right via establish facts to show that any other existing remedy is not a pre-existing approved Locational Clearance from the H. partition.[14] The writ of prohibition is 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind directed against proceedings that are done without or in excess of Facts: The expropriation suit was commenced by complaint of the jurisdiction. wherein multiple appeals are allowed. or with grave abuse of discretion. for Execution and/or Finality of Order.e "fifteen (15) days counted from the expropriation proceedings may be taken. that in "appeals in special proceedings in accordance [22] Before the City as the expropriating authority filed such verified with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and other cases complaint. considering that only a resolution expressing the desire of condemnation is thirty (30) days counted from notice the Sangguniang Panglungsod to expropriate the petitioners of order and not the ordinary period of fifteen (15) property was issued. Francisco filed an "Ex-Parte Motion sentiment or opinion. [20] This bar against prohibition The Municipality contended that "multiple appeals are allowed by comes from the nature of the power of eminent domain as law" in actions of eminent domain. therefor. the period for appeal from an order of for. whether acquisition was authorized by a resolution of the Sangguniang exercising judicial. a record of appeal deprived of their property under the power of eminent domain. ruled otherwise and to have declared that the order sought to be considered had become final and 7 . has Bayan. however.[15] For grave abuse of discretion to be a of land in Biñan The land sought to be expropriated was intended ground for prohibition. As of then. or a "motion to dismiss" within the contemplation of Rule the other hand. Garcia and oppressive exercise of legal authority and to provide for a fair Post under case digests." Panglungsod. and it was error for the Trial Court to have SO ORDERED. taking the place of an answer in an and gross as would amount to an evasion. was not exercising judicial.S. transcended such jurisdiction or acted without any authority.R. quasi- judicial or ministerial functions. Only when the landowners are not given fifteen (15) days their just compensation for the taking of their property or when there has been no agreement on the amount of just compensation Held: Inactions of eminent domain.. or to a virtual refusal to ordinary civil action.. 2002 in CA-G. Once the State decides to exercise its power of eminent domain. no expropriation proceeding could be said to exist. Rule 67. the period of Until then. it was premature for the days prescribed for actions in general. we affirm the decision promulgated on October 18. Francisco filed a MTD. Her motion exercised its or his power in an arbitrary or despotic manner.[18] A remedy is plain. The function of prohibition is to prevent the unlawful Municipality of Biñan vs. but only expressing its collective The Municipality filed a MR. or officer has jurisdiction over a case but has plaintiff Municipality. by was filed pursuant to Section 3. as in actions for may the remedy of prohibition become available. February 03. WHEREFORE." and amending the Writ of Possessions as to "exclude prohibition was not available to the petitioners as a remedy therefrom and from its force and effects said defendant ." contending that the Order had become "final and executory for failure of the Municipality to Verily. the power of judicial review Issue: whether the special civil action of eminent domain under becomes limited in scope. provision is made to secure the prompt adjudication and payment of just compensation to the owner. speedy and adequate if Court granted the motion. speedy and adequate remedy in the named as defendants the owners of eleven (11) adjacent parcels ordinary course of law. provided always that due notice of the final order . SP No. by such adoption. [23] being required. One of the defendants. there being no Municipality of Biñan. that judgment and the acts of the tribunal or inferior court. appealed from.. board. and her against the adoption of Resolution No. 552. It directed that a separate trial be held it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of for Francisco regarding her special defenses. The speedy or adequate. Her "motion to dismiss" reason of passion or personal hostility. quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. Respondent Judge issued a writ of possession in favor of the court. [17] Francisco filed a "Motion for Separate Trial. [16]On Rule 15. not fifteen (15) days. The municipality's MR was therefore timely presented. it was not an ordinary motion governed by perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law. is thirty (30). officer.

Vicente Libo-on.298.070. sold the subject when a several judgment is proper.251 8198 Rodolfo Legaspi LEGASPI II.: with respondents for the retention of the property on which it constructed considerable improvements already being used for Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari filed pursuant to academic purposes.50. the 40.[8] Ofelia Legaspi-Muela. Legaspi.[2] denying for lack of merit the just compensation for the property. filed against respondents x-------------------------------------------------. Sr. final order or judgment had given rise property situated at Miag-ao. 2012 al. More the property was subsequently taken up at the 1093 rd meeting of than one appeal being permitted in this case. faculty and student centers. 21609-F 1. PURISIMA 21609-E 1. against one or more of them.374 8194 Rodolfo Legaspi. OFELIA April 18. render judgment parcel in favor of UPV for the stated consideration of P56. No.. 21609-B 2. 21609-J 1. among other facilities. DE MONDEJAR. LEGASPI VDA. a record on appeal will perforce have to be started building thereon road networks. Patricio. UPV immediately took possession of the proceed against the others. a Deed of Definite Sale was executed by the parties whereby Rosalina.[5] Forthwith. 1 of Psu-193912 Amd. Promulgated: 21609-D 16.R. thru UPV. 177611 of her 5 September 1978 conveyance thereof by way of barter or THEPHILIPPINES (UNIVERSITY OF exchange in favor of respondents Rodolfo Legaspi. and.494 8196 Rodolfo Legaspi. Sr.. In December 1978. respondents averred that petitioners right of expropriation should only be limited to the three lots covered by The Facts Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. Area (Sqm. The record shows that further use and development of prepared and transmitted to the appellate court. 129. the court may.executory.. infrastructure and school facilities. Vicente Legaspi.286 8195 Querobin Legaspi. the complaint for eminent domain docketed before the RTC as .. denominated and later registered in the names of respondents [9] in Chairperson. et REYES. conformity of her then tenant. Blg. LEGASPI-MUELA. Rosalina wrote a letter. classrooms. record. petitioner. Rodolfo Legaspi II and the Spouses Present: Rosalina and Dominador Libo-on. Iloilo registered in her name under "ipso facto to a situation where multiple appeals Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. De Mondejar Respondents.-x Civil Case No. 8 . that the subject parcel is within the approved and delineated campus of the UPV which had well-established its presence in the area by DECISION building its laboratories. a record of appeal being required as provided by On 4 January 1980.. Maintaining that the fair market value of the Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is the Decision dated property at the time of its entry was P49. in the expropriation case docketed the property. and SPOUSES 21609-H 1. J..648 8193 Rodolfo Legaspi. Sr.00. al. " In lieu of the original property and. thereat as Civil Case No. leaving the action to [6] As a consequence. thru the University of the Philippines in the On 2 September 1991. UPV sought 26 April 2007[1] rendered by the Eighteenth Division of the Court of confirmation of its right of condemnation as well as the fixing of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. however. PEREZ. LEGASPI. respondent Rosalina Libo-on (Rosalina) accomplished a letter of intent signifying her willingness to sell to It is claimed by the Municipality that the issuance of UPV Lot No. RODOLFO L.479. Sr.ROGER subject parcel upon deposit with the Iloilo Provincial Treasurer of B..250 8197 Ofelia Legaspi Muela VICENTE LEGASPI. that it had been constrained to resort to expropriation in view of the failure of its efforts to negotiate PEREZ. De Petitioner. the UP Board of Regents held in Quezon City on 15 December therefore.251 8201 Vicente Legaspi On 8 August 1991.251 8200 Purisima Legaspi Vda. In an the Iloilo provincial registry. J. representing the provisional valuation of Court (RTC) of Iloilo City. Registered Owner SERENO.versus .078 8192 Querobin Legaspi. JJ. 19921.133-square meter such a separate.250 8199 Querobin Legaspi ROSALINA LIBO-ON and 21609-I 1. among other matters. SP No.[7] days." The Municipality is right. 21609-C 4.[10] the Rule 65 petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines. Petitioner alleged. 19921. F-20020 of became available. et QUEROBIN L. Purisima Legaspi Vda. "the period of appeal shall be thirty (30) 1995. 85735. SR... for the nullification of the orders dated 17 petitioners motion to allow UPV to continue its possession of the November 2003[3] and 31 May 2004[4] issued by the Hon.P. however. DOMINADOR LIBO-ON. informing the Implementing Rules in relation to Section 39 of UPV that she was rescinding the sale of the subject parcel on the B. BRION.00. Mondejar. in line with its educational development plan. Presiding Judge of Branch 38 of the Regional Trial the sum of P50.[11] In their answer dated 16 December 1991.. UPV subsequently learned that Lot 1 was subdivided into ten lots CARPIO. LEGASPI.) TCT No.. with the action against several defendants. ground that she was no longer the owner of the property in view REPUBLIC OF G.. RODOLFO 21609-G 1. the RTC issued an order granting Visayas (UPV). Querobin THE PHILIPPINES). 8194 and 8196.R. T-8193. Lot No. among others. the following wise: . and 21609-A 9.

[15] Claiming to and the Provincial Engineer. (RBMI). properties sought to be taken. the RTC issued an order of condemnation (P51. 21609-A. petitioner [23] and UPV[24] filed motion. 21609-F. to wit: evidence presented in the case which showed that the same is an integral part of the UPVs developmental plan for research and WHEREFORE. 21609-I and 21609-J. petitioner also filed its 7 July of this order. 21609-H. based on the evidence adduced by the parties and condemned lots is bereft of legal basis and contrary to the the report submitted by the commissioners. 21609-G. the mortgages constituted in their favor by respondents over some of Provincial Treasurer. Notify Counsels.00) per sq. On 22 December 2003. an Order of provided for under Section 5 of Rule 67 of the Condemnation is hereby entered allowing the Revised Rules of Court. none is herein awarded. [16] The issues thus joined and the pre-trial lots.[13] upholding UPVs right to expropriate said the three (3) aforementioned subject lots. among other matters.00) for the total just compensation of dated 1 April 1992. however. Inc. same order alleging. educational use. Excluding therefrom the area occupied by the Villa Marina Beach Resort Appointment of the three (3) Commissioners is hereby which respondent Rodolfo Legaspi. however. that Lot Nos. all of the Province have relied on the certificates of title presented to them by the of Iloilo. the RTC went on to issue the discharge their respective duties. operated in the premises. 21609-B. that the exclusion of the Villa Marina Beach Resort area from the C and 21609-E. the Provincial Assessor the lots into which the Lot 1 had been subdivided. PNB and IFC filed their individual commissioners to assist the Court in the fixing answers maintaining that the said mortgages were entered into for the just compensation of the subject value and in good faith. [14] On 10 November 1994. RBMI. Sr. take their oath to faithfully perform their their respective positions as well as the issues to be tried in the duties as such commissioners and their oaths case. Legaspi. 21609-I and 21609-J all situated in Barangay Sapa.096. as fifty one thousand ninety occupied by Villa Marina Beach Resort.00) deposited by the [petitioner] in the Office of the Provincial WHEREFORE. 21609-F.096.[19] Without resolving the On 19 December 2003. On 13 April 1998. they may 7 July 1997 pre-trial order summarizing the parties admissions. 21609-D. [18] Calling the appointed are requested to make known their RTCs attention to its 2 September 1991 Order which allowed UPVs acceptance within ten (10) days from receipt continued possession of the property. Considering that the foregoing condemnation order Miag-ao. 21609-D. amount includes the amount of fifty thousand 21609-C and 21609-E.00) at the rate of six pesos area where respondent Rodolfo Legaspi. the RTC further issued the herein compensation to be determined by three (3) assailed condemnation order of the same date. 21609-A. upon payment of just On 17 November 2003. an ORDER OF Treasurer of Iloilo. upholding Commissioners who shall ascertain and report petitioners authority to expropriate the remaining seven lots to the court the just compensation for the comprising the property. except such area therein as is covered only three (3) of the ten (10) lots comprising the subject occupied by the Villa Marina Beach resort and property. [22] held in abeyance to give the court sufficient the RTC ruled as follows: time to select the three (3) competent and disinterested persons as Commissioners WHEREFORE. protesting against the latters The commissioners who are hereby occupation of a portion of the property in litigation. 1998manifestation and motion praying for the grant of a writ of possession over the entirety of Lot 1. 21609-G. that UPV has no intended use for Lot No.[20] fixing the just compensation for Lot Nos. the RTC went on to issue the 16 June 2000 motions for reconsideration of the foregoing order on the ground order. namely. in view of the Legaspis over the aforesaid 7 lots. meters. et al no opposition to petitioners motion for a declaration on its right to fifty one thousand ninety six pesos expropriate the same. Accordingly. 21609-B. 21609. to wit: seventy pesos (P50. were concerned.[17] shall be filed before this Court as part of the records of the proceedings in this case. impleading as additional defendants the In properly fixing the just Rural Bank of Miag-ao (Iloilo). 21609-A is the six pesos (P51. petitioner also filed an amended complaint. the Philippine National compensation to be paid to the [respondents] Bank (PNB) and the Iloilo Finance Corporation (IFC). Sr. [21] public use or purpose described in the complaint. [petitioner] to expropriate for public use the remaining seven (7) subject Lot Nos.516 sq. respondents also filed order is hereby issued fixing the just their manifestation and partial motion for reconsideration of the compensation of subject Lots Nos. Iloilo. the Office of the UPV Chancellor sent respondent Rodolfo Legaspi a letter. Lot Nos. There being no evidence presented by the [petitioner] having a lawful right to take the parties to support their respective claims for properties sought to be condemned. 21609-C and 21609-E covering a total area of 21609-G. [petitioner] is hereby ordered to pay 21609-D which is being used for residential purposes by 9 .070. CONDEMNATION is hereby entered covering the above-mentioned parcels of land. 21609-B. Before these commissioners so appointed conference subsequently terminated. Finding [respondents] Judge Rodolfo L. the called Omps Corner. operates a business (P6. in view of all the foregoing.516 square meters. meter. This three parcels which had been denominated as Lot Nos. 21609-I and 21609-J comprise the area 8. 21609-H. that Lot No. for the damages. petitioner moved for the continuation of the which [respondent] Rodolfo L. 21609-F. has condemnation proceedings insofar as the remaining seven lots been operating a business.[12] containing an aggregate area of 8. 21609-H. are hereby appointed as mortgagors. Legaspi. Sr.

the Provincial condemned. too. 21609-D. [25] Finding The Courts Ruling that the exclusion of the aforesaid lots would not defeat UPVs plan for its campus. would be a final one. all of determination of the authority of the plaintiff the Province of Iloilois likewise reconsidered to exercise the power of eminent domain and and set aside. decretal portion of which states as follows: WHEREFORE. the petition on the ground that. It would finally dispose of foregoing decision.[26] the We find the petition impressed with merit. of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.[28] On 26 April 2007. cannot be substituted by determination by the Court of "the just a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and mandamus. the CA ruled that the RTCs issuance of said assistance of not more than three (3) assailed orders was well within its power and duty to review. and. finding the Expropriation or the exercise of the power of eminent [petitioners] Motion for Reconsideration domain is the inherent right of the state and of those entities to dated December 19. such a April 2007 Decision on the following ground: dissatisfied party may seek a reversal of the order by taking an appeal therefrom. Sr. The Manifestation and Partial property to public use upon payment of just compensation. that the foregoing lots.[32] The nature of these two stages was discussed in G. petitioner filed the petition at bench on 25 the second stage of the suit. SP No. under Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules The second phase of the eminent of Civil Procedure. 21609. the order of this Court appointing as Commissioners the 1. Alejandro Somo.[27] order of dismissal. the which the power has been lawfully delegated to condemn private same is denied. 85735. Obviously.respondent Vicente Legaspi. Rodolfo Legaspi. assailing the RTCs order dated 31 May would an order of condemnation be a final 2004 on the ground that grave abuse of discretion attended the one. the proper remedy from said assailed orders domain action is concerned with the was an ordinary appeal which.. the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. 21609-H. There are two (2) stages in every action for Provincial Treasurer. upon the payment Provincial Engineer. utilized by the LAW ON WHICH IT IS BASED.[30] Municipality of Miag-ao as a public cemetery should be excluded from petitioners exercise of its right of expropriation. the Provincial Assessor expropriation. the following wise in the case of Municipality of Bian vs. Atty. Atty.[29] Without moving for a reconsideration of the would be final. commissioners. of course. all of the Province of Iloilo. too. be gainsaid that the outcome of the DATED MAY 31." An No pronouncement as to costs. So.R. 2003 of [respondents] Legaspis being therefor consist of two (2) stages: (a) the condemnation of the meritorious is. petitioner filed on 16 August 2004 the Rule disposes of the action and leaves nothing more 65 petition for certiorari and mandamus docketed before the CA to be done by the Court on the merits. and findings of.[33] to wit: As a consequence hereof. as CA-G. once lost. condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a Cornelio Salinas. therefore. if this be ordained." This is done by the Court with the the circumstances. (b) the determination of just partially reconsidered and judgment is hereby compensation to be paid for the taking of private property to be entered denying the expropriation of subject made by the court with the assistance of not more than three Lots Nos. "of the Office of the Solicitor General. granted and the Order property after it is determined that its acquisition will be for a dated November 17. commissioners. too. moreover. 2004 OF BRANCH 38 OF first phase of expropriation proceedings be it an order of THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO CITY expropriation or an order of dismissal finally disposes of the case 10 . more to be done by the Court regarding the issue. the RTC issued the order dated 31 May 2004. 21609-I and 21609-J. since it finally Aggrieved. Atty. 2003 of this Court is public purpose or public use. for the public use or purpose Treasurer. Judge Garcia. lawful right to take the property sought to be Legaspi II. the proceedings 19. 2003 without merit. 21609-F. together WHICH DID NOT STATE THE FACTS AND THE with the portion of Lot No. The order fixing the just amend or reverse its findings and conclusions if it deems it compensation on the basis of the evidence necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of its before. to be considered proper under taken. Even if petitioners compensation for the property sought to be choice of remedy were. the CAs then right of condemnation (or the propriety Eighteenth Division rendered the herein assailed decision denying thereof) shall be filed or heard. thus. the commissioners jurisdiction. [31] Motion for Reconsideration dated December Governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. 21609-A. for thereafter. if not of dismissal of the action. The first is concerned with the and the Provincial Engineer. the Provincial Assessor and the described in the complaint. one or another of the parties The Issue may believe the order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the evidence or findings of fact Petitioner urges the nullification of the CAs assailed 26 or otherwise. as the Rules expressly denial of the expropriation of the subject lots after the right to state. "no objection to the exercise of the order dated 17 November 2003. in the proceedings before the Trial expropriate the same was earlier upheld in the likewise assailed Court. Obviously. Atty. and. It ends with an Let copies of this Order be furnished order. and leave nothing June 2007. 1 of Psu-193912 Amd. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN DENYING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND AFFIRMING THE ORDER It cannot.

SP No.[39] Acting on the motions for excess of jurisdiction[44] and lies only when there is no appeal nor reconsideration of said order filed by petitioner. jurisprudence As to the Villa Marina Resort and the recognizes the existence of multiple appeals in a complaint for Omps Corner these places have been utilized expropriation because of said two stages in every action for by defendant Rodolfo Legaspi.096. 85735. 21609-F. 21609-B. a portion Hospital to expand and extend quality medical and other health thereof has been utilized by defendant Rodolfo services to indigent patients. was already however.617 sq. that ends with an order determining the amount of just acquisition by [UPV] would not impair or compensation[34] which. 21609-I and Nos.[46] It bears stressing that even before Although certiorari cannot be generally used as a the filing of the original complaint. on the ground that the RTC acted with grave abuse of 21609-D. the discretion in denying the expropriation of the subject lots after its record shows that the RTC issued the herein assailed 17 November right to expropriate the same had been earlier 2003 order which. on appeal. for said reason. less 21609-J. Based on the locations of these lots. the by the court that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the Omps Corner and the public cemetery and the property sought to be expropriated. however. 21609-G. the CA denied the petition filed by petitioner on the 2004 order. the amended complaint sufficient or there is need to promptly relieve the aggrieved party notwithstanding. x x x[41] alleged in the complaint from which the instant suit originated. Republic of the (Exh. 1 force his family to go astray as they have no of Psu-193912 Amd. Sr. substitute for a lapsed appeal. is final in nature and not merely interlocutory. conveying a Philippines. the RTC issued the order dated 1 April 1996. order dated 16 June 2000. 21609-G. Sr.[47] This Court has allowed the issuance of a reason why [petitioner] had expressly excluded writ of certiorari despite the availability of appeal where the latter this area from the area it intended to remedy is not adequate or equally beneficial. 21609-G. 21609-D.[38] on 16 June 2004. with respect to Lot Nos.00 UPV appears to have already deposited with the instead of perfecting an appeal from said order which it received Provincial Treasurer of Iloilo. 21609-H. [37] Without any holds that allowing the plaintiff to expropriate appeal having been perfected therefrom. the CA lost sight of the fact. such as said lot has been utilized by the Municipality of when there is grave abuse of discretion or when public welfare so Miag-ao. and must also be the reason from the injurious effects of the acts of an inferior court or why former UP President Angara wrote a letter tribunal.516 square meters. this Court believes and so with an aggregate area of 8. upholding UPVs right to expropriate the three As to the portion being utilized as (3) lots denominated as Lot Nos. that the rule had been relaxed on a number of occasions. while likewise upholding UPVs right of determined. The same is true of the second phase meters. ordered the exclusion of the portion petition for certiorari is.s Omps Corner and the rest of the mutually exclusive remedies in certain exceptional cases.Accordingly. RTCs issuance of the assailed orders dated 17 November H. including this in the expropriation would UPVs right of expropriation over the ten lots into which Lot No. 21609-B. altogether denying said right of expropriation.[42] petitioner filed on 16 August 2004 the Rule 65 petition forcertiorari docketed before the CA as CA-G. for the public use or purpose residential land where [respondent] Vicente described in the complaint. 21609. Narrow in scope and unflexible in character.[48] In SMI Development Corporation v. UPV and any plain.617 square jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or meters comprising said lots. public cemetery. [40] upon principle that certiorari cannot be used as substitute for an appeal the following succinct findings and conclusions: that has been lost. while essential for the transfer of defeat the purpose of its campus site.[49] this Court significantly upheld the CAs grant of the happy compromise acceptable to all. 21609-D and 21609-E at P51. 21609-I and 21609-J. However. for his expropriation. the RTC split the determination of lot.[45] Hence.070. requires. Sr.R. [respondent] Rodolfo Legaspi. is but the last stage of the words. the RTCs 1 April the same would be bordering to the long 1996 order attained finality and left no more question as to the cherished and revered customs and tradition propriety of the acquisition of said lots for the public purpose of respecting the dead.[50] The total area covered by Lots Nos. 10) to defendant Legaspi. 21609-F. [43] a expropriation over said lots. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of respondents. 2003 and 31 May 2004 was attended with grave abuse of 11 .00. 21609-C and 21609-E. a second and separate appeal may likewise be taken from the order fixing the just compensation. concededly. 21609-F. Sr. In other ownership in favor of the plaintiff. 21609-D. theP50. Iloilo as a public cemetery. intended to correct errors of occupied by Villa Marina Beach Resort from the 31. fixing the just compensation for Lot 21609-A. [UPVs] operation as of expropriation may be appealed by any party by filing a record a university would not be adversely affected. without including in the expropriation proceedings and the outcome of the initial finding expropriation the Villa Marina Resort. 21609-I and 21609-J is only 31. the RTC issued the second assailed 31 May law. Rule 65 petition for certiorari filed in lieu of an ordinary appeal which was not considered a speedy and adequate remedy that can It likewise bears stressing the fact sufficiently address the urgent need of the National Childrens that insofar as Lot No.[35] In the same manner that the order Legaspis family is residing. 21609-H. speedy and expropriate.[36] business even before the filing of the instant complaint. 21609-A. operating as his business establishment the where its rigid application will result in a manifest failure or Villa Marina Resort and this must be the miscarriage of justice.Considering the lack of place where to live. Indeed. certiorari and appeal are not Legaspi. opposition on the part of respondents. Indeed. Petitioner has more than amply demonstrated that the 21609-A. As to [respondent] Vicente Legaspis In the case at bench. the RTC correctly went on to issue the The order of denial of UPVs right to expropriate Lot Nos. final.and is. had been subdivided. 21609-A. On the other hand.

as where the power is exercised in an expropriation over Lot Nos. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the In sum. with an Our review of the documents attached to the pleadings explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the filed in connection with the petition before the CA and this Court conclusions of the court. More gravely abused its discretion when. 21609-F. a safeguard against the 21609-D. Branch 38 to resolve the case must ultimately depend on the power of in compliance with Section 14. [51] It has been ruled that the abuse of discretion must be so patent and The RTC compounded its error when. Heirs of the constitutional behest exposed their FRANCISCO PASTOR.[60] UPVs 13 April 1998 letter-protest against Constitution is indisputably a paramount respondent Rodolfo Legaspi. It is. Subject to the direct constitutional qualification that order where. TALISAY. The cemetery can be taken for other public uses under a general losing party is entitled to know why he lost. No less method that partakes the nature of a compulsory sale. It is motion for the grant of a writ of possession of the entire lot [62] and likewise demanded by the due process clause the motions for reconsideration of petitioner and UPV filed from of the Constitution. who is excluding the area occupied by the Villa Marina Resort from unable to pinpoint the possible errors of the petitioners exercise of its right of expropriation.617 square meters from the original judgment is rendered in favor of X and against 40. that the site of the Villa Marina Resort appears to have already with an explanation of the factual and legal been earmarked for UPVs proposed National Institute of Marine reasons that led to the conclusions of the Biotechnology. grave magisterial responsibilities but likewise to their abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical avowed fealty to the Constitution. denying petitioners right of contemplation of law. consequently. the CAs Decision sword nor the purse by the Constitution but dated 26 April 2007 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. thus. the 21609-D. ONG.[53] exercise of the right of expropriation. impetuosity of the judge. in reaching judgment. 21609-G. the judge the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City. 21609-F. should be reversed. preventing him from deciding ipse dixit. it issued the refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in assailed 31 May 2004 Order.[56] this Court ruled as follows: motion for continuation of the condemnation proceedings for the Faithful adherence to the seven remaining lots into which Lot No. Sr. in total disregard of the than that. exercise of the right of expropriation. void. nonetheless vested with the sovereign another is entered NULLYING the assailed orders dated 17 prerogative of passing judgment on the life. 21609-G. Granted that no part of the ground of a public justification whatsoever for its action. No. after all.R. Since it is a requirement of due process that the parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided. premises considered. 21609-H.[65] there is. should he believe that the decision the subject property.133 sought to be expropriated would not adversely affect UPVs Y and just leave it at that without any operations. November 2003 and 31 May 2004 and directing liberty or property of his fellowmen. 21609-A.[64] the RTC clearly abused its discretion when it court. The court cannot simply say that ruled that the exclusion of 31. likewise. CEBU. 21609-A. if location and area of the public cemetery of Miag-ao in relation to permitted. EUGENIA S. 21609-G. vs. 21609-I and 21609-J. acting on the gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual motions for reconsideration filed by the parties. 21609-H. it ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate any property excluded the area occupied by the Villa Marina Beach Resort within its territorial sovereignty for a public purpose [58] thru a owned and operated by respondent Rodolfo Legaspi. In lieu thereof. The parties to a litigation the condemnation order dated 17 November 2003. This is belied by petitioners [55] In Yao v. compensation. Thus the Court has struck down as SO ORDERED.s occupation of the property. Sr. no showing in the record of the he may appeal to the higher court. Article VIII of the been subdivided. [61] its component of due process and fair play. had requirements of Section 14. The RTC likewise court for review by a higher tribunal. June 20. Article VIII of the Constitution and reason for sustained public confidence in the in accordance with the evidence on record. arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. precisely prejudicial to the losing party. 138896. without stating the factual and legal bases therefor. decisions of lower courts and even of the [G. [63] Considering should be informed of how it was decided. In the context of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari.[57] the power of eminent domain is. the grave abuse of discretion imputable against already used by respondents for their businesses and/or the RTC was manifest as early in the assailed 17 November 2003 residences. the requirement is an assurance to evidence on record. the order which reconsidered its first assailed order and altogether judge did so through the processes of legal denied petitioners right of expropriation over Lot Nos. 21609-D. it issued the second assailed 31 May 2004 the parties that. for as long as the taking is for a public purpose and just compensation is paid. namely: EUGENIO SYLIANCO. 21609-I and 21609-J. Vouchsafed neither the WHEREFORE. petitioner. 21609-F. TEODORO sometimes cavalier attitude not only to their SYLIANCO. exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 1 of Psu-193912 Amd. [59] The fact than the Constitution mandates that (n)o decision shall be that said lots are being utilized by respondents Legaspis for their rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and own private purposes is. Court of Appeals. 21609-I and 21609-J. 21609-H.discretion. ISABEL SYLIANCO. on the ground that the same were [52] To our mind. not a valid reason to deny distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. justness of his decision. we find the RTC gravely abused its discretion law on which it is based leaves the parties in when. [54] the rule is settled that a decision that also failed to yield any basis for the RTCs pronouncement that UPV does not conform to the form and substance required by the excluded the area occupied by the Villa Marina Resort from its Constitution and the law is void and deemed legally inexistent. so authority. it the dark as to how it was reached and is issued the assailed 17 November 2003 condemnation order. and while it private property shall not be taken for public use without just upheld petitioners right of expropriation over Lot Nos. 21609-A. reasoning. without giving any rationale therefor. LAWRENCE 12 . 2000] Court of Appeals whose careless disregard of BARANGAY SAN ROQUE.

they argue that the case should have been brought before the Orders dated February 19. 1999. and whether Regional Trial Court and not with this Court. the value of the property to be expropriated would claim is purely incidental to. 1997. it is so was laid down by the Court in this wise: Cebu (Branch 1)[3] a Complaint to expropriate a property of the "A review of the jurisprudence of this Court respondents. Accordingly. Feria. Pursuant to Section 3. it is within the which were the lowest courts of record at the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal time that the first organic laws of the Judiciary Trial Court of Talisay. or possession of. litigation expenses and costs. an expropriation suit does not involve the affecting title to or possession of real property. or where the money hence. 1999 Order of the RTC thousand pesos exclusive of interest. or for annulment of a judgment or "The instant action is for eminent domain.[6] In a Resolution dated July 28. Courts. Complaint for eminent domain.respondents.740. it deals with the exercise by hence. It reasoned action is one the subject matter of which is not that "[e]minent domain is an exercise of the power to take private capable of pecuniary estimation. damages of whatever kind. it is the assessed value of the property the government of its authority and right to take private property involved which determines the jurisdiction of for public use.000. CEB-21978. 1999. or An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation.[8] "Premises considered. 1999 Order[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City extension of time to file petition was denied in the resolution of (Branch 58) in Civil Case No. LAWINA S. thus. it falls within the jurisdiction of the regional trial x"[5] courts. is pronounced by retired Justice SYLIANCO JR. 1999. This law provides that MTCs shall have exclusive original Possession issued by virtue of the latter Order jurisdiction over all civil actions that involve title to or possession are hereby recalled for being without force of real property. 7691. contract (specific performance) and in actions the RTC ratiocinated in this wise: for support. Real actions are those DECISION affecting title to or possession of real property. or a consequence determine whether the case should be filed before the MTC or the of. The test to determine whether Petitioner filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Talisay. An action for eminent sum of money. the MTC dismissed indicates that in determining whether an the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. recover a sum of money. 12 the the court. the principal cause of action nature of the principal action or remedy is the exercise of such power or right."10 condemnation of real property is a real action In the present case. contend that the Complaint for hereby granted on the ground that this Court Eminent Domain affects the title to or possession of real property.SYLIANCO. where the property were enacted allocating jurisdiction (Act 136 of involved is located. 1999 and the MTC. paragraph exclusively by courts of first instance. like in suits to RTC.00). That the right of eminent domain or Court ruled that expropriation proceedings have two phases: condemnation of real property is included in a "The first is concerned with the determination real action affecting title to or possession of of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the 13 . the due date being June 2. besides the determination of property with an assessed value of less damages. LAWSON SYLIANCO. in which it dismissed a July 14. therefore. demand an inquiry into other factors than P20. Aggrieved. 1999. In an adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the action for eminent domain. NOTARIO. It to foreclose a mortgage. real class cases." [4] jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the Assailed RTC Ruling amount of the claim. regardless of the value of the subject property. Cebu.000. the motion to dismiss is Respondents. the principal relief sought. this Court has appears from the current Tax Declaration of considered such actions as cases where the the land involved that its assessed value is only subject of the litigation may not be estimated One Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Pesos in terms of money. The (3). It ruled as follows: 1999. the Philippine Commission of June 11. Concluding that the action should have been filed before the have the defendant perform his part of the MTC since the value of the subject property was less than P20. the assessed value of which does not exceed and effect.11 In National Power Corporation v. the claim is considered capable domain is therefore within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the of pecuniary estimation. The fact that the action also sought. pursuant to BP 129 as amended by Section 3 (3) of RA February 26."[2] twenty thousand pesos or. the Court reinstated the Petition.00 are within the exclusive which the law has deemed to be more within original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial the competence of courts of first instance. We agree with the petitioner that an expropriation suit is The Facts incapable of pecuniary estimation. Jocson. Jose Y. real property. the Court The Case denied the Petition for Review "for being posted out of time on Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the March July 2. of Republic Act No. raising a pure question of law. and are cognizable (P1. denying reconsideration. Rather. in civil actions in Metro Manila. this Court has property for public use after payment of just compensation."[7] In a subsequent Resolution dated October 6. x x Accordingly. LEONARDO real property. attorneys fees.: These include partition or condemnation of. petitioner appealed directly to this Court. fifty Petitioner also challenges the May 14. Thus. However. all civil actions rationale of the rule is plainly that the second involving title to. holding basic issue is something other than the right to that an action for eminent domain affected title to real property. recovery of a sum of money. If it is primarily for the recovery of a involves real property is merely incidental. as well as the Writ of 7691. and LAWFORD SYLIANCO. In the case at bar. where the The RTC also dismissed the Complaint when filed before it. foreclosures of mortgage on. PANGANIBAN. J. "The instant action for eminent domain or 1901). on the other hand. 1999. In an Order dated April 8. as the motion for 29. has no jurisdiction over the case.

Judge Camus. and the the exercise of the right to eminent domain. the petitioners raised a proceedings are examples of real actions that affect the title to or demurrer questioning the validity of the proceedings on the possession of a parcel of land. since it finally disposes of the case.13 In the main. provided that courts of Government of the Philippines for the condemnation of a certain first instance had original jurisdiction over "all civil actions in which tract of land in Paranaque for military and aviation purposes. They Through the order of the public respondent. the Court held in Republic of the Philippines v. An order of WHEREFORE.00 as the total value of the property. would an Brgy. and that such right is observance of due process. Likewise. however. The 14 . If the nature of the principal action/remedy sought is primarily for a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.R. is merely incidental to the amount of the claim. and findings of. expropriation suit. Indeed. It reasoned be filed or heard. The property value was less than 20k and should be filed with would be final. that “The principal cause of action is the exercise of the power of "The second phase of the eminent domain eminent domain. Camus. the courts determine the authority of the pecuniary estimation” It argues that the present action involves government entity. No. It ends with an order. for the court is duty-bound to determine the just courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the compensation for it. An action for eminent domain is the court of the just compensation for the therefore within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional property sought to be taken."17 of the filing of the complaint. Verily. action and leaves nothing more to be done by SO ORDERED. the claim is considered capable of True. The the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary petitioners herein are among the defendants named. Petitioner cites Section 19 (1) of BP 129. too. In fact. of condemnation title to or possession of the same. in his pre-bar lectures. Of San Roque v Heirs of Pastor GR 138896. too. it estimation."15 The 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court were was prayed that the court will give the Government the possession not intended to change these jurisprudential precedents. of course. Likewise.” This was then filed to RTC but was dismissed. the second stage of the suit. G. action involves the title to or possession of a parcel of land. No costs. compensation to be determined as of the date convenience or welfare may demand. So.16 ground that there is no law authorizing the exercise of the power Their reliance is misplaced. expropriation suit is the governments exercise of eminent domain. he emphasizes that money was taken from the unexpended balance of the funds jurisdiction over eminent domain cases is still within the RTCs appropriated by previous statutes for the use of the Militia under the 1997 Rules. if this be ordained. the commissioners RTC. the subject of an incapable of pecuniary estimation. and leave nothing Issue: Whether or not eminent domain suit should be filed with more to be done by the Court regarding the MTC or RTC? issue."14 the forerunners of the regional trial courts. 000. the cite the observation of retired Justice Jose Y. the Petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed dismissal. not to the jurisdiction that the deposit had been made without authority of law since the of courts. the value of the property to be expropriated would just compensation on the basis of the evidence determine whether the case should be filed before the MTC or the before. The Upon the direction of the Governor-General. three (3) commissioners. Feria. The order fixing the hence. The government does not dispute respondents dismissal of the action. which provides that expropriation suit is whether the government or any of its RTCs shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over “all civil instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking of actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of private property. and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal monetary terms. Justice Feria sought merely to of eminent domain. The fact that the action also involves real action is concerned with the determination by property is merely incidental. x x x" Decision: It should be stressed that the primary consideration in an RTC. The Regional Trial Court is directed to HEAR the one. it is not a question of declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to who has a better title or right. no Barangay San Roque of Talisay. authority in remedial law. upon the payment of just property for the public benefit. of the land to be expropriated after the necessary deposit We are not persuaded by respondents argument that the present (provisional) of P600. the value of the property to be expropriated is estimated in pecuniary estimation. Cebu filed a complaint to objection to the exercise of the right of expropriate the property of Pator with MTC. Hence. It merely asserts its the public use or purpose described in the inherent sovereign power to "appropriate and control individual complaint. This is done by Trial Court. holding the Court with the assistance of not more than that an action for eminent domain affected title to real property. Zurbano that "condemnation proceedings are within the jurisdiction of Courts FACTS: of First Instance. the Court on the merits. as the public necessity. for thereafter as the Rules expressly state. they moved for the revocation of the distinguish between real and personal actions. 20 June 2000 order of condemnation be a final one. in the Facts: proceedings before the Trial Court. the question in the present suit is whether the its exercise in the context of the facts involved government may expropriate private property under the given set in the suit. that amount is determined only after Visayan Refining v. power of eminent domain and the propriety of To emphasize. This. the recovery of a sum of money. The MTC dismissed condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall the Complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. an eminent prayer was granted. It would finally dispose of MTC. if not of of circumstances. L-15870 the court is satisfied with the propriety of the expropriation. like BP 129 in respect to RTCs. Indeed. the necessity of the expropriation. for claim that it has a title to the property. would be a final Orders SET ASIDE. for the government does not even take the property sought to be condemned. His discussion on order on the same ground stated and with additional allegation this point pertained to the nature of actions. Commission and the authority for the exercise of the power of eminent domain could not be found in those statutes. the Attorney-General said case was decided during the effectivity of the Judiciary Act of filed a complaint with the CFI (Rizal) in the name of the 1948 which. that condemnation or expropriation During the pendency of the proceedings.

this authority is not absolute. It ends with an order. Proceedings of the lower court were in all respects regular and within the jurisdiction of the court. DISPOSITION Petition is denied. RULING: Yes. 1 In the proceedings in the absence of a statute authorizing the exercise of main. Apparently. and convey title to real and personal property. receive. the subject of an expropriation suit is the government’s the power of eminent domain? exercise of eminent domain. Rather. and to direct the Attorney-General. and may acquire real estate for public uses by the exercise of the right to eminent domain. This considered a public purpose given the importance of the military and aviation in the operation of the State. The deposit was made. NOTE The Supreme Court did not elaborate the reason in upholding the legality of the transfer funds used for the deposit. The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the court of “the just compensation for the property sought to be taken. In consonance with this. In the present case. 1902). hold. to cause the condemnation proceedings to be begun in the court having proper jurisdiction. an expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of money. it must be remembered that at that time there was no law requiring that compensation shall actually be paid prior to the judgment of condemnation. This prompted the petitioners to file this instant petition to government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the stop the proceedings in the CFI. This is in conformity with the just compensation requirement. if not of dismissal of the action. Section 64 of the Administrative Code of the Philippine Islands (Act No. It is subject to two limitations. a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. It only said that "the Insular Auditor was acting within his authority when he let this money out of the Insular Treasury If the nature of the principal action/remedy sought is other than the right to recover a sum of money. maintain." There is no question as to the Governor General's authority to exercise this power. As to the second requirement. they are cognizable exclusively by CFI. where such at is deemed advisable. that the taking shall be for public purpose and there must be just compensation. The Philippine Government has the general authority to exercise the power of eminent domain as expressly conferred by Section 63 of the Philippine Bill (Act of Congress of July 1. or where the money claim is purely incidental to or a consequence of where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money. the courts determine the authority of the government entity.” This is done by the Court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners." The same is subject to the limitation of due process of law. it deals with the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take private property for public use. to afford absolute assurance that no piece of land can be finally and irrevocably taken from an unwilling owner until compensation is paid. it can. Hence. Given these reasons. 2711) expressly confers on the Government General the power "to determine when it is necessary or advantageous to exercise the right of eminent domain in behalf of the Government of the Philippine Island. However. It says that the Philippine Government is authorized "to acquire. the reason behind the taking of the subject land was for military and aviation purposes. requisites for the taking of private property. 15 . namely.demurrer and motion were overruled and denied respectively by The primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the Camus. the necessity of ISSUE: Can the Philippine Government initiate expropriation the expropriation. the proceedings were made in accordance with law. The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. despite the absence of said law. and the observance of due process.