View full case

CITY OF MANILA v. MELBA TAN TE

FACTS:

The City of Manila filed a complaint for expropriation for the purpose of building low-cost housing units, which included the respondent's property. The respondent had acquired the property in 1996 and sought ejectment of the occupants in 1998. However, before the eviction could be carried out, the City instituted an expropriation case for the same property. The first expropriation case was dismissed without prejudice. The City then filed a second complaint for expropriation and attached a copy of the ordinance authorizing the expropriation. The respondent raised several grounds for dismissal, including the invalidity of the ordinance and non-compliance with the requirements of the Urban Development and Housing Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint, citing failure to submit a certification of the amount needed for just compensation and non-compliance with the provisions of the law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, prompting the City to file a petition for review.

The petitioner is the National Housing Authority (NHA), responsible for implementing the government's socialized housing program. The respondent is a landowner whose property is subject to expropriation by the NHA for socialized housing. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint does not allege previous compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279, which set out priorities and modes of land acquisition for socialized housing. The petitioner argues that it is not bound by these requirements because it has the power of eminent domain by virtue of its charter. The court highlights that the concept of socialized housing falls within the expanded definition of public use, and that the Constitution recognizes urban renewal, development, and low-cost housing as a public purpose. The main issue is whether the expropriation for socialized housing is valid, taking into account the requirements under R.A. No. 7279 and the constitutional provisions on public use and social justice.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized housing falls within the confines of "public use".

  2. Whether the local government units have the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain for the purpose of socialized housing.

  3. Whether the defendant in an expropriation case is required to file an answer and raise all available defenses against the allegations in the complaint for eminent domain.

  4. Whether failure to file an answer in an expropriation case results in all the consequences of default.

  5. Whether the grounds for dismissal in a motion to dismiss an expropriation case are limited to those specifically mentioned in Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

  6. Whether affirmative defenses that require presentation of evidence aliunde should be alleged in an answer rather than a motion to dismiss.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized housing falls within the confines of "public use". The Constitution recognizes that the State has the duty to promote a just and dynamic social order and provide adequate social services, including decent housing for the underprivileged and homeless citizens. The public character of housing measures does not change because only those who satisfy prescribed qualifications can occupy the housing units. Housing is a basic human need and shortage in housing significantly affects public health, safety, and the general welfare. Therefore, considering the constitutional provisions and the urgent need for housing, the Court ruled that "socialized housing" is a public purpose and falls within the scope of "public use".

  2. The Court held that local government units have the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain for the purpose of socialized housing. Republic Act No. 7279 mandates local government units to inventory lands within their locality that may be utilized for socialized housing. Section 10 of the law authorizes local government units to exercise the power of eminent domain, subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, the Court affirmed that local government units have the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain for the purpose of socialized housing as provided by law.

  3. Yes, the defendant in an expropriation case is required to file an answer and raise all available defenses against the allegations in the complaint for eminent domain. Amendments may be made in the answer within 10 days from its filing.

  4. No, failure to file an answer in an expropriation case does not result in all the consequences of default in ordinary civil actions because the defendant may still present evidence on just compensation.

  5. The grounds for dismissal in a motion to dismiss an expropriation case are not limited to those specifically mentioned in Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. The allotment of the disputed land for another public purpose or the petition for a mere easement of right-of-way can be considered as grounds for dismissal.

  6. Affirmative defenses that require presentation of evidence aliunde should be alleged in an answer rather than a motion to dismiss.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The State has the duty to promote a just and dynamic social order and provide adequate social services, including decent housing for the underprivileged and homeless citizens.

  • The public character of housing measures does not change because only those who satisfy prescribed qualifications can occupy the housing units.

  • Housing is a basic human need and shortage in housing significantly affects public health, safety, and the general welfare.

  • Local government units have the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain for the purpose of socialized housing as provided by law.

  • Statutes which regulate procedure in the courts apply to actions pending and undetermined at the time those statutes were passed.

  • New court rules apply to proceedings which take place after the date of their effectivity.

  • All objections and defenses that could be availed of to defeat the expropriator's exercise of the power of eminent domain must be contained in an answer and not in a motion to dismiss because these matters require the presentation of evidence.

  • An action can be dismissed only on the grounds authorized under Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

  • The grounds for dismissal in a motion to dismiss are exclusive to those specifically mentioned in Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.

  • Affirmative defenses should be alleged in an answer and require presentation of evidence aliunde.