FACTS:
Filstream
International is the registered owner of parcels of land located in Antonio
Rivera St., Tondo II Manila. On January 7, 1993, it filed an ejectment suit against
the occupants (private respondents) of the said parcels of land on the grounds
of termination of the lease contract and non-payment of rentals. The ejectment
suit became final and executory as no further action was taken beyond the CA.
During the
pendency of the ejectment proceedings private respondents filed a complaint for
Annulment of Deed of Exchange against Filstream. The City of Manila came into
the picture when it approved Ordinance No. 7813 authorizing Mayor Alfredo Lim
to initiate acquisition through legal means of certain parcels of land.
Subsequently, the City of Manila approved Ordinance No. 7855 declaring the
expropriation of certain parcels of land which formed part of the properties of
Filstream. The said properties were sold and distributed to qualified tenants
pursuant to the Land Use Development Program of the City of Manila. The City of
Manila then filed a complaint for eminent domain seeking to expropriate lands in
Antonio Rivera St. The RTC issued a Writ of Possession in favor of the City.
Filstream
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to quash the writ of possession. The
motion to dismiss was premised on the following grounds: no valid cause of action; the petition does
not satisfy the requirements of public use and a mere clandestine maneuver to
circumvent the writ execution issued by the RTC of Manila in the ejectment
suit; violation of the constitutional guarantee against non-impairment of
obligation and contract; price offered was too low hence violative of the just
compensation provision of the constitution.
The RTC
denied the two motions. Filstream filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA which
dismissed the petition for being insufficient in form and substance, aside from
the fact that copies of the pleadings attached to the petition are blurred and
unreadable.
ISSUES/HELD:
1. WON City of Manila may exercise right of
eminent domain despite the existence of a final and executory judgment ordering
private respondents to vacate the lots.
YES. Petitioner
Filstream anchors its claim by virtue of its ownership over the properties and
the existence of a final and executory judgment against private respondents
ordering the latter’s ejectment from the premises.
Private
respondents’ claim on the other hand hinges on an alleged supervening event
which has rendered the enforcement of petitioner’s rights moot, that is, the
expropriation proceedings undertaken by the City of Manila over the disputed
premises for the benefit of herein private respondents. For its part, the City of Manila is merely
exercising its power of eminent domain within its jurisdiction by expropriating
petitioner’s properties for public use.
There is
no dispute as to the existence of a final and executory judgment in favor of
petitioner Filstream ordering the ejectment of private respondents from the
properties subject of this dispute. Thus,
petitioner has every right to assert the execution of this decision as it had
already became final and executory.
However,
it must also be conceded that the City of Manila has an undeniable right to
exercise its power of eminent domain within its jurisdiction. The right to
expropriate private property for public use is expressly granted to it under
Sec 19 of the Local Government Code. Sec 100 of the Revised Charter of the City
of Manila further empowers the city government to expropriate private property
in the pursuit of its urban land reform and housing program. The city’s right
to exercise these prerogatives notwithstanding the existence of a final and
executory judgment over the property to be expropriated had already been
previously upheld by the court in the case of Philippine Columbian Association vs Panis:
“The City of Manila, acting through
its legislative branch, has the express power to acquire private lands in the
city and subdivide these lands into home lots for sale to bona-fide tenants or
occupants thereof, and to laborers and low-salaried employees of the city.
That only a few could actually benefit
from the expropriation of the property does not diminish its public use
character. It is simply not possible to
provide all at once land and shelter for all who need them (Sumulong v.
Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 [1987]).
Corollary to the expanded notion of
public use, expropriation is not anymore confined to vast tracts of land and
landed estates. It is therefore of no
moment that the land sought to be expropriated in this case is less than the
half a hectare only (Pulido v. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 63 [1983]).
2. WON expropriation of Filstream’s lots were
legally and validly undertaken.
NO. We take judicial notice of the fact that urban land reform
has become a paramount task in view of the acute shortage of decent housing in
urban areas particularly in Metro Manila. Nevertheless,
despite the existence of a serious dilemma, local government units are not
given an unbridled authority when exercising their power of eminent domain
in pursuit of solutions to these problems. Constitutional
provisions on due process and just compensation for the expropriation of
private property must be complied with. Other laws have also set down specific
rules in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, to wit:
• Sec 19 of LGC provides that such
exercise must be pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent
laws.
• Sec 9 of the Urban Development and
Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA) provides an order of priority in the acquisition of
land for socialized housing, with private lands listed as the last option.
• Sec 10 of UDHA provides that
expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition such as
community mortgage, land swapping, donation to the government, etc. have been
exhausted, and, where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by
small property owners shall be exempted.
Compliance
with the above legislated conditions are deemed mandatory because these are the
only safeguards in securing the right of owners of private property to DUE
PROCESS when their property is expropriated for public use.
There is
nothing in the records which would indicate that the City of Manila complied
with the above conditions. Filstream’s properties were expropriated and ordered
condemned in favor of the City of Manila sans any showing that resort to the
acquisition of other lands listed under Sec. 9 of RA 7279 have proved futile. Evidently,
there was a violation of petitioner Filstream’s right to due process.
It
must be emphasized that the State has a paramount interest in exercising its
power of eminent domain for the general good considering that the right of the
State to expropriate private property as long as it is for public use always
takes precedence over the interest of private property owners. However we must not lose sight of the fact
that the individual rights affected by the exercise of such right are also
entitled to protection, bearing in mind that the exercise of this superior
right cannot override the guarantee of due process extended by the law to
owners of the property to be expropriated. (
0
Comments
