View full case

HEIRS OF ALBERTO SUGUITAN v. CITY OF MANDALUYONG

FACTS:

The case involves an expropriation proceeding filed by the City of Mandaluyong to acquire a property owned by Alberto Suguitan for the expansion of the Mandaluyong Medical Center. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaluyong City issued a resolution authorizing the expropriation, and the City Mayor wrote a letter to Suguitan offering to buy his property, which was refused. The City of Mandaluyong then filed a complaint for expropriation. Suguitan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but it was denied by the trial court. The trial court allowed the City of Mandaluyong to take immediate possession of Suguitan's property upon the deposit of 15% of the fair market value. Eventually, the trial court issued an order of condemnation, declaring that the City of Mandaluyong has the lawful right to take the property for public use upon payment of just compensation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a resolution can serve as a valid authorization for a local government unit to exercise the power of eminent domain.

  2. Whether the City of Mandaluyong complied with the requisites for the proper exercise of the power of eminent domain.

  3. Whether an ordinance promulgated by the local legislative body authorizing its local chief executive to exercise the power of eminent domain is necessary prior to the filing of the complaint with the court.

  4. Whether the provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Local Government Code, which requires only a resolution to authorize an expropriation proceedings, prevails over the law itself.

RULING:

  1. No, a resolution cannot serve as a valid authorization for a local government unit to exercise the power of eminent domain. The law specifically requires an ordinance for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, and a resolution is not equivalent to an ordinance. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, unlike a resolution which is temporary in nature.

  2. The City of Mandaluyong failed to comply with the requisites for the proper exercise of the power of eminent domain. The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the courts to ensure that the power of eminent domain is being exercised in accordance with the law. In this case, the local government unit used a resolution instead of an ordinance to authorize the exercise of the power of eminent domain, which is contrary to the requirement of the law.

  3. Yes, an ordinance promulgated by the local legislative body is necessary prior to the filing of the complaint with the court. Although the determination and award of just compensation is indispensable to the transfer of ownership, an initial finding by the court that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property for public use is required. The ordinance must be enacted before the court determines the amount of just compensation.

  4. No, the provision in the IRR does not prevail over the law itself. The law itself, Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code), requires that the chief executive of the local government unit must act pursuant to an ordinance in exercising the power of eminent domain. The discrepancy between the IRR and the law is merely an oversight in the wording of the implementing rules.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The power of eminent domain is essentially legislative in nature but it may be validly delegated to local government units, other public entities, and public utilities. However, the exercise of this delegated power must strictly comply with the terms of the law.

  • The power of eminent domain must be exercised for public use, purpose, or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.

  • Just compensation must be paid to the owner of the property being expropriated, in accordance with the Constitution and other pertinent laws.

  • The requisites for the proper exercise of the power of eminent domain by a local government unit include the enactment of an ordinance by the local legislative council, the exercise of the power for a public purpose, payment of just compensation, and a valid and definite offer made to the owner of the property.

  • An ordinance promulgated by the local legislative body is necessary prior to the filing of a complaint for expropriation with the court.

  • The determination and award of just compensation is the last stage of the expropriation proceedings, which cannot be arrived at without an initial finding by the court that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property for public use.

  • The provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Local Government Code does not prevail over the law itself. The law itself, Republic Act No. 7160, must be followed in exercising the power of eminent domain.