View full case

DIOSDADO LAGCAO v. JUDGE GENEROSA G. LABRA

FACTS:

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu in 1964, one of which was Lot 1029. Petitioners purchased Lot 1029 on an installment basis in 1965, but in late 1965, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029, reverted back to the Province of Cebu. Petitioners sued the province for specific performance and damages, and on July 9, 1986, the court ruled in favor of petitioners and ordered the Province to execute the final deed of sale in favor of petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, and the Province of Cebu executed a deed of absolute sale over Lot 1029 in favor of petitioners. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 129306 was issued in the name of petitioners and Crispina Lagcao. Petitioners tried to take possession of the lot but discovered it was occupied by squatters. Petitioners instituted ejectment proceedings against the squatters, and the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ordered the squatters to vacate the lot. However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia requested the deferment of the demolition, and the MTCC issued orders suspending the demolition. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Cebu City passed resolutions and ordinances identifying Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site and authorizing the expropriation of the lot for the benefit of the homeless. Petitioners filed an action for the declaration of nullity of the expropriation ordinance, arguing that it violated the concept of public use and was passed for political reasons. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and petitioners filed an appeal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Ordinance No. 1843 of the City of Cebu, authorizing the expropriation of the petitioners' property, is unconstitutional.

  2. Whether the expropriation of the petitioners' property for socialized housing purposes complies with the requirements of the Constitution and pertinent laws.

RULING:

  1. Ordinance No. 1843 of the City of Cebu, authorizing the expropriation of the petitioners' property, is constitutional. The ordinance was enacted pursuant to Section 19 of RA 7160, which grants local government units the power to expropriate for public use or purpose. The purpose of the expropriation is to provide socialized housing for the homeless and low-income residents of the City.

  2. The expropriation of the petitioners' property for socialized housing purposes must comply with the requirements of the Constitution and pertinent laws. The exercise of the power of eminent domain by local government units is not absolute and must not violate the due process clause and the requirement of just compensation. The court emphasized that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature.

  • The exercise of the power of eminent domain by local government units must comply with the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws, including the due process clause and the requirement of just compensation.

  • The exercise of eminent domain must undergo a painstaking scrutiny and cannot be trampled upon each time an ordinance orders the expropriation of a private individual's property.