FACTS:
The petitioner is the registered owner of a land in Pasig City, while the respondent is the Municipality of Pasig (now City of Pasig). The respondent notified the petitioner of its intention to expropriate a portion of her property for sports development and recreational activities for the residents of Barangay Caniogan, claiming it was in line with their program for the deserving poor sectors. The petitioner opposed the expropriation, arguing that her property was neither sufficient nor suitable for the alleged purpose. The respondent filed a complaint for expropriation, which the petitioner moved to dismiss. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, prompting the petitioner to file a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, leading the petitioner to file a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The petitioner raised various grounds challenging the lower court's decision, including lack of evidence for the necessity and public use requirement, non-compliance with conditions precedent, and denial of due process.
ISSUES:
-
Whether there is genuine necessity for the taking of the petitioner's property.
-
Whether the public use requirement for the exercise of the power of eminent domain has been complied with.
-
Whether the respondent city has complied with all conditions precedent for the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
-
Whether the court's order effectively amounts to the taking of petitioner's property without due process of law.
-
Whether the court of appeals erred in applying the rule on actionable documents and hypothetical admission of facts alleged in a complaint.
RULING:
- The Court did not explicitly state the ruling in the given text.