CITY OF MANILA V. ALEJANDRO ROCES PRIETO, BENITO ROCES PRIETO, MERCEDES PRIETO DELGADO MONICA, LOPEZ PRIETO, MARTIN LOPEZ PRIETO, BEATRIZ PRIETO DE LEON, RAFAEL PRIETO, BENITO LEGARDA A, INC., ALEGAR CORPORATION, BENITO LEGARDA A, JR., PECHATEN CORPORATION, ESTATE OF ROSARIO M. LLORA, AND ALL PERSONS CLAIMING INTERESTS AGAINST THEM
FACTS:
The City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8070 that authorized the City Mayor to acquire certain parcels of land belonging to respondents to be used for the City of Manila's Land-For-The-Landless Program.
Initially, petitioner attempted to acquire the subject lots by negotiated sale with the offering amount of P20,000 per sq m, which the respondents refused to accept on the ground that their properties are worth more than that.
Petitioner, then, filed a complaint before the RTC asserting its authority to expropriate the subject lots for the said project.
"Section 2, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, petitioner sought the issuance of a writ of possession for it to be able to immediately take possession of the subject properties" A sum of P4,812,920.00 had already been deposited in the bank, representing more than 100% of the assessed value of the properties shown in the declarations of real property.
RTC, issued an Order denying the issuance of the writ of possession pending the deposit of the additional amount of P825,519.00.
The RTC applied the provisions of the Local Government Code, mandating a total deposit of 15% of the fair market value of the properties subject of expropriation, for petitioner's immediate possession thereof.
However, petitioner manifested that the additional amount has already been satisfied and thus the RTC, on October 6, 2006, issued a Writ of Possession. In addition, RTC concluded that all the requisites for the local government's exercise of the power of eminent domain have been met by the petitioner.
Respondents' motion for reconsideration were denied by the RTC and appeals were then filed with the CA.
The CA ruled, on the other hand, that petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that the requirements for the proper exercise of the local government's power of eminent domain were complied with or otherwise, are not applicable to its case. CA found records lacking of any evidence to support the claims of the petitioner that an on-site development program is the most practicable and advantageous for the beneficiaries. The CA further found petitioner to have failed to exhaust other modes of acquisition before it resorted to expropriation in violation of Section 10 of RA No. 7279.
Lastly, the CA found that the intended beneficiaries of petitioner's socialized housing program are not "underprivileged and homeless", in violation of Sec 8 of RA No 7279.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in finding that petitioner (City of Manila) failed to prove that it complied with pertinent laws in the exercise of its power of eminent domain.
RULING:
The Court held that this petition is bereft of merit.
The exercise of the power of eminent domain drastically affects a landowner's right to private property, which is as much a constitutionally-protected right necessary for the prevention and enhancement of personal dignity and intimately connected with the rights to life and liberty. Therefore, the exercise of such power must undergo painstaking scrutiny.
Under the LGC, the national legislature delegated the power of eminent domain to the local government units:
Sec. 19 Eminent Domain - A local government unit may, through its chief executing and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws; Provided, however, that the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and define offer has been previously made to the owner and such offer was not accepted; Provided, further, that the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of atleast fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated; Provided, finally, that the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.
Several requisites must concur before a local government unit can exercise the power of eminent domain:
(1) An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property;
(2) The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless;
(3) There is payment of just compensation, as required under Sec.9 of Art. III of the Constitution and other pertinent laws;
(4) A valid and define offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.
The Court conforms the findings of the CA and ruled that petitioner failed to establish the other modes of acquisition under Section 10 of RA 7279 and that there was likewise no evidence presented to show that the prospective beneficiaries of the expropriation are the "underprivileged and homeless" as contemplated under Sec 8 of RA 7279.
Thus, time and time again, this Court held that in cases of land acquisitions by the government, when the property owner rejects the offer but hints for a better price, the government should renegotiate by calling the property owner to a conference. The government must exhaust all reasonable efforts to obtain by agreement the land it desires. Its failure to comply will warrant the dismissal of the complaint.
Wherefore, the petition before this court is DENIED and the RESOLUTION of the CA are AFFIRMED.
No comments:
Post a Comment