PROV. OF CAMARINES SUR vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 103125 May 17, 1993
FACTS:
On
December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines
Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the Provincial
Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial
capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and
non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial
government employees.
Pursuant
to the Resolution, the Province, through its Governor, Hon. Luis R. Villafuerte,
filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and
Efren N. San Joaquin.
The San Joaquins
moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price
offered for their property.
The trial
court denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the Province of Camarines Sur
to take possession of the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court of
the amount of P5,714.00, the amount provisionally fixed by the trial court to
answer for damages that private respondents may suffer in the event that the
expropriation cases do not prosper. The trial court issued a writ of possession
in an order dated January18, 1990.
Asked by
the Court of Appeals to give his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General
stated that under Section 9 of the Local Government Code, there was no need for
the approval by the Office of the President of the exercise by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of the right of eminent domain. However, the Solicitor General
expressed the view that the Province of Camarines Sur must first secure the
approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the
lands of petitioners for use as a housing project.
The Court
of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court, allowing the Province of
Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' lands and the order
denying the admission of the amended motion to dismiss. It also ordered the
trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings until after the Province
of Camarines Sur shall have submitted the requisite approval of the Department
of Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of the property of the private
respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural land.
ISSUE 1: WON, the expropriation was for a
public purpose.
YES. Modernly,
there has been a shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of
"public purpose" or "public use" for which the power of
eminent domain may be exercised. The old concept was that the condemned
property must actually be used by the general public (e.g. roads, bridges,
public plazas, etc.) before the taking thereof could satisfy the constitutional
requirement of "public use". Under the new concept, "public use" means public
advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to contribute to the general
welfare and the prosperity of the whole community, like a resort complex
for tourists or housing project (Heirs of Juancho Ardano v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220
[1983]; Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SC.RA 461 [1987]).
The
expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned resolution is for a
public purpose. The establishment of a pilot development center would
inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the Province of
Camarines Sur. Once operational, the center would make available to the
community invaluable information and technology on agriculture, fishery and
the cottage industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of the farmers, fishermen
and craftsmen would be enhanced. The housing project also satisfies the public
purpose requirement of the Constitution. As held in Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154
SCRA 461, "Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a
matter of state concern since it directly and significantly affects public
health, safety, the environment and in sum the general welfare."
ISSUE 2: WON a local government unit needs
the approval of the DAR to reclassify land before it can expropriate it.
The power
of expropriation is superior to the power to distribute lands under the land
reform program. (Juancho Ardana v Reyes).
It is true
that local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can
exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature. It is also true
that in delegating the power to expropriate, the legislature may retain certain
control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local
governments. While such delegated power may be a limited authority, it is
complete within its limits. Moreover, the limitations on the exercise of the
delegated power must be clearly expressed, either in the law conferring the
power or in other legislations.
Resolution
No. 129, Series of 1988, was promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg.
337, the Local Government Code, which provides:
A local government unit may, through
its head and acting pursuant to a resolution of its sanggunian exercise the
right of eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings for public use
or purpose.
Section 9
of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government units
must first secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the
conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use before they can
institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no
provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the
expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of
the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Statutes
conferring the power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be
broadened or constricted by implication.
To sustain
the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer
expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges,
schools, hospitals, etc, without first applying for conversion of the use of
the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects
would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be
the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is
for a public purpose or public use.
Ordinarily,
it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that shall
determine whether the use of the property sought to be expropriated shall be
public, the same being an expression of legislative policy. The courts
defer to such legislative determination and will intervene only when a
particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use.
There is
also an ancient rule that restrictive statutes, no matter how broad their
terms are, do not embrace the sovereign unless the sovereign is specially
mentioned as subject thereto.
The orders
of the CA nullifying the trial court's order allowing the Province of Camarines
Sur to take possession of private respondents' property and requiring the
Province of Camarines Sur to obtain the approval of the Department of Agrarian
Reform to convert or reclassify private respondents' property from agricultural
to non-agricultural use are set aside.
● Although
local governments do not have inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise
it only when expressly authorized by legislature, and the latter may retain
certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof, such
delegated power although limited it is complete within its limits. Nothing in
the LGC limits this power by requiring the approval of DAR. Likewise, there is
nothing in CAR law which expressly subjects such expropriations under the
control of DAR.
0
Comments
