CASE DIGEST/ SAGUIN, GESELLE / PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, represented by GOV. LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE and HON. BENJAMIN V. PANGA

 PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, represented by GOV. LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE and HON. BENJAMIN V. PANGA as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 33 at Pili, Camarines Sur, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION), ERNESTO SAN JOAQUIN and EFREN SAN JOAQUIN, respondents. 

Facts: 

    On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees. 

    At the hearing of the motion, the San Joaquin's failed to appear. Then later on , they moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. The trial court denied the motion. The court authorized the Petitioner to take possession of the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court and  issued a writ of possession in an order.

     The San Joaquins filed a motion for relief from the order, authorizing the Petitioner to take possession of their property and a motion to admit an amended motion to dismiss. But it was denied in the order. Before the Court of Appeals, In its answer to the petition, the Petitioner claimed that it has the authority to initiate the expropriation proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) and that the expropriations are for a public purpose. 

    The Solicitor General said that there was no need for the approval by the Office of the President of the exercise of the right of eminent domain but the petitioner must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing project. 

    In the  Court of Appeals, they set aside the order of the trial court on allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents’ lands and the order denying the admission of the amended motion to dismiss. They suspend the  the expropriation proceedings of the trial court until after the they shall have submitted the requisite approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of the property of the private respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural land. 

 Issue: 

Whether the resolution is valid and that the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use? 

 Ruling: 

        The Court ruled that The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned resolution is for a public purpose. The establishment of a pilot development center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once operational, the center would make available to the community invaluable information and technology on agriculture, fishery and the cottage industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of the farmers, fishermen and craftsmen would be enhanced. The housing project also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution. There has been a  shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of “public purpose” or “public use” for which the power of eminent domain may be exercised. 

    Under the new concept, “public use” means public advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community, like a resort complex for tourists or housing project. The questioned resolution for expropriation is for a public purpose. It would have have a direct benefit and  advantage of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Additionally, the housing project also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution.

    Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that shall determine whether the use of the property sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same being an expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such legislative determination and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use.