View full case

CITY OF MANILA v. ALEJANDRO ROCES PRIETO

FACTS:

The City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8070 on January 19, 2004, authorizing the City Mayor to acquire certain parcels of land belonging to respondents for the City of Manila's Land-For-The-Landless Program. Initially, petitioner attempted to acquire the subject lots through negotiated sale, but the respondents refused to accept the offered price of P2,000.00 per square meter. Thus, petitioner filed a complaint for expropriation before the RTC. Petitioner sought the issuance of a writ of possession and manifested that it had deposited a sum representing more than 100% of the assessed value of the properties. The RTC issued an order denying the writ of possession pending the deposit of an additional amount. After the additional amount was deposited, a writ of possession was issued. The RTC granted petitioner's complaint for expropriation, finding that all the requisites for the exercise of eminent domain have been met. Respondents’ motions for reconsideration were denied. Appeals were then filed with the CA. The CA reversed the RTC’s decision, finding that petitioner failed to comply with the rules and limitations on eminent domain. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the CA erred in finding that petitioner failed to prove that it complied with pertinent laws in the exercise of its power of eminent domain.

RULING:

The petition is bereft of merit. Compliance with Section 19 of the Local Government Code (LGC) and Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 is mandatory. Petitioner's bare allegations and unsupported generalizations do not suffice to prove such compliance. The petition failed because there was no evidence showing that petitioner:

  • Attempted to first acquire lands listed in Section 9(a) to (e) before proceeding to expropriate private lands,

  • Conducted a study showing comparisons and considerations for its claimed on-site development choice,

  • Presented evidence indicating that the prospective beneficiaries of the expropriation are the "underprivileged and homeless" contemplated under Section 8 of R.A. No. 7279,

  • Made a valid and definite offer to the property owner before filing the expropriation complaint.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. The exercise of the power of eminent domain involves a derogation of fundamental rights and must undergo painstaking scrutiny, especially when exercised by local governments.

  2. A local government unit has a delegated power of eminent domain and must strictly comply with the limitations imposed by the delegating principal.

  3. The conditions set forth in Section 19 of the LGC and Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 are mandatory and constitute strict limitations necessary to safeguard private property owners' due process rights.

  4. Assertions or generalizations without evidence do not meet the requirement of judicial scrutiny in expropriation cases.

  5. The government must exhaust all reasonable efforts, including negotiated sale, to acquire property for public use before resorting to expropriation.