DIGEST/ HANNAH GRACE REFUGIO/ JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION, INC v. MUNICIPALITY (now CITY) OF PASIG, METRO MANILA

 

JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION, INC v. MUNICIPALITY (now CITY) OF PASIG, METRO MANILA

G.R. NO. 152230

August 9, 2005

 

FACTS

        The Municipality of Pasig needed an access road from E. R. Santos Street, a municipal road near the Pasig Public Market, to Barangay Sto. Tomas Bukid, Pasig, where 60 to 70 houses, mostly made of light materials, were located. The road had to be at least three meters in width, as required by the Fire Code, so that fire trucks could pass through in case of conflagration. Likewise, the residents in the area needed the road for water and electrical outlets. The municipality then decided to acquire 51 square meters out of the 1,791-square meter property of Lorenzo Ching Cuanco, Victor Ching Cuanco and Ernesto Ching Cuanco Kho covered by Transfer Certificate of Title.

        On April 19, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Pasig approved an Ordinance authorizing the municipal mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings to acquire the said property and appropriate the fund therefor. The ordinance stated that the property owners were notified of the municipality’s intent to purchase the property for public use as an access road but they rejected the offer.

        On July 21, 1993, the municipality filed a complaint, amended on August 6, 1993, against the Ching Cuancos for the expropriation of the property under Section 19 of RA NO 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code. The plaintiff alleged therein that it notified the defendants, by letter, of its intention to construct an access road on a portion of the property but they refused to sell the same portion. The plaintiff appended to the complaint a photocopy of the letter addressed to defendant Lorenzo Ching Cuanco. 

        The plaintiff deposited with the RTC 15% of the market value of the property based on the latest tax declaration covering the property. On plaintiff’s motion, the RTC issued a writ of possession over the property sought to be expropriated. On November 26, 1993, the plaintiff caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the dorsal portion of TCT No. PT-92579 under the name of the Jesus Is Lord Christian School Foundation, Incorporated (JILCSFI) which had purchased the property. Thereafter, the plaintiff constructed therein a cemented road with a width of three meters; the road was called Damayan Street.

        The defendants claimed that, as early as February 1993, they had sold the said property to JILCSFI as evidenced by a deed of sale bearing the signature of defendant Ernesto Ching Cuanco Kho and his wife.

        When apprised about the complaint, JILCSFI filed a motion for leave to intervene as defendant-in-intervention, which motion the RTC granted on August 26, 1994. 

        In its answer-in-intervention, JILCSFI averred, by way of special and affirmative defenses, that the plaintiff’s exercise of eminent domain was only for a particular class and not for the benefit of the poor and the landless. It alleged that the property sought to be expropriated is not the best portion for the road and the least burdensome to it. The intervenor filed a crossclaim against its co-defendants for reimbursement in case the subject property is expropriated. In its amended answer, JILCSFI also averred that it has been denied the use and enjoyment of its property because the road was constructed in the middle portion and that the plaintiff was not the real party-in-interest. The intervenor, likewise, interposed counterclaims against the plaintiff for moral damages and attorney’s fees.

        Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision of declaring respondent municipality (now city) as having the right to expropriate petitioner’s property for the construction of an access road. Petitioner argues that there was no valid and definite offer made before a complaint for eminent domain was filed as the law requires (Art. 35, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code). Respondent contends that a letter to purchase was offered to the previous owners and the same was not accepted.

ISSUE

        Whether or not a letter to purchase is sufficient enough as a definite and valid offer to expropriate and whether or not the property is being used already for public purpose, the same can still be expropriated.

RULING:

        The Supreme Court ruled that failure to prove compliance with the mandatory requirement of a valid and definite offer will result in the dismissal of the complaint. The purpose of the mandatory requirement to be first made to the owner is to encourage settlements and voluntary acquisition of property needed for public purposes in order to avoid the expense and delay of a court of action.

        The contention of the petitioner was rejected that its property can no longer be expropriated by the respondent because it is intended for the construction of a place for religious worship and a school for its members. As aptly explained by this Court in Manosca v. Court of Appeals, thus: It has been explained as early as Seña v. Manila Railroad Co., that: A historical research discloses the meaning of the term “public use” to be one of constant growth. As society advances, its demands upon the individual increases and each demand is a new use to which the resources of the individual may be devoted. . . . for “whatever is beneficially employed for the community is a public use.” Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando states: The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time when it was felt that a literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not so any more. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirements of public use.