The only ground upon which Section 153 of B.P. Blg. 337 provides:
a provincial board may
declare any municipal Sec. 153. Sangguniang
Panlalawigan Review. (1)
Within thirty days after
receiving copies of
approved ordinances, Diosdado Lagcao vs Hon Judge
resolutions and executive Generosa Labra
orders promulgated by the
municipal mayor, the Facts:
sangguniang panlalawigan
The Province of Cebu donated 210
shall examine the
documents or transmit lots to the City of Cebu. Included in
them to the provincial the said donation is Lot 1029. In
attorney, or if there be 1965, petitioners Lagcao purchased Lot
none, to the provincial 1029 in installment basis from the City
fiscal, who shall examine of Cebu.
them promptly and inform The same lots, however, reverted
the sangguniang
back to the province and the sale f Lot
panlalawigan in writing of
any defect or impropriety 1029 to Lagcao was being annulled by
which he may discover the province. The appellate court
therein and make such ordered the issuance of Deed of Sale in
comments or favor of Lagcao.
recommendations as shall Lagcao initiated demolition
appear to him proper.
proceedings against the squatters
occupying Lot 1029. This was enjoined
(2) If the sangguniang
panlalawigan shall find that by the MTC granting the motion filed
any municipal ordinance, by the Province of Cebu.
resolution or executive The Province of Cebu filed
order is beyond the power expropriation proceedings against
conferred upon the Lagcao. The purpose of which is to
sangguniang bayan or the
construct in the lots socialized housing.
mayor, it shall declare such
ordinance, resolution or
executive order invalid in Issue: WON the private property may
whole or in part, entering be expropriated for the purpose of
its actions upon the minutes socialized housing thereon
and advising the proper
municipal authorities Ruling:
thereof. The effect of such
The SC granted the petition of
an action shall be to annul
the ordinance, resolution or Lagcao and declared that the purpose
executive order in question was not public use but is only
in whole or in part. The beneficial to few a handful few. It
action of the sangguniang explained:
panlalawigan shall be final.
Facts: Ruling:
Petitioner, Filstream International The SC held that the City
Inc., is the registered owner of the Government of Manila has the right to
properties subject of this dispute expropriate private properties for its
consisting of adjacent parcels of land public use. Thus:
located in Manila.
xx the City of Manila has an General powers The city may
undeniable right to exercise its power have a common seal and alter the
of eminent domain within its same at pleasure, and may take,
jurisdiction. The right to expropriate purchase, receive, hold, lease, convey,
private property for public use is and dispose of real and personal
expressly granted to it under Section property for the general interest of the
19 of the 1991 Local Government city, condemn private property for
Code, to wit: public use, contract and be contracted
with, sue and be sued, and prosecute
SECTION 19. Eminent Domain A and defend to final judgment and
local government unit may, through its execution, and exercise all the powers
chief executive and acting pursuant to hereinafter conferred. (R.A. 409, Sec.
an ordinance, exercise the power of 3; Italics supplied).
eminent domain for public use, or
purpose, or welfare for the benefit of xxx xxx xxx
the poor and the landless, upon
payment of just compensation, Sec. 100. The City of Manila is
pursuant to the provisions of the authorized to acquire private lands in
Constitution and pertinent the city and to subdivide the same into
laws: Provided, however, that the home lots for sale on easy terms to city
power of eminent domain may not be residents, giving first priority to
exercised unless a valid and definite the bona fide tenants or occupants of
offer has been previously made to the said lands, and second priority to
owner, and such offer was not laborers and low-salaried
accepted; Provided, further, That the employees. For the purpose of this
local government unit may section, the city may raise necessary
immediately take possession of the funds by appropriations of general
property upon the filing of the funds, by securing loans or by issuing
expropriation proceedings and upon bonds, and, if necessary, may acquire
making a deposit with the proper court the lands through expropriation
of at least fifteen (15%) of the fair proceedings in accordance with law,
market value of the property based on with the approval of the President x x
the current tax declaration of the x. (Italics supplied).
property to be expropriated: Provided,
finally, That the amount to be paid for In fact, the City of Manilas right
the expropriated property shall be to exercise these prerogatives
determined by the proper court, based notwithstanding the existence of a
on the fair market value at the time of final and executory judgment over the
the taking of the property. (Italics property to be expropriated has been
supplied) upheld by this Court in the case of
Philippine Columbian Association vs.
More specifically, the City of Panis, G.R. No. 106528, December 21,
Manila has the power to expropriate 1993.[32] Relying on the
private property in the pursuit of its aforementioned provisions of the
urban land reform and housing Revised Charter of the City of Manila,
program as explicitly laid out in the the Court declared that:
Revised Charter of the City of Manila
(R.A. No. 409) as follows:
The City of Manila, acting THE CITY OF MANILA
through its legislative branch, has the vs.
express power to acquire private lands CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA, ET
in the city and subdivide these lands
AL
into home lots for sale to bona-fide
tenants or occupants thereof, and to
laborers and low-salaried employees of Facts:
the city. The City of Manila filed a petition
for expropriation or private properties
That only a few could actually for the purpose of constructing public
benefit from the expropriation of the improvement. Included in the private
property does not diminish its public
properties to be expropriated is the
use character. It is simply not possible
to provide all at once land and shelter parcel of lot covered by the Chinese
for all who need them (Sumulong v. Cemetery.
Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 [1987]). The Chinese Community refused
the offer on the ground that
Corollary to the expanded notion expropriation is not necessary, there
of public use, expropriation is not will be more expenses to be incurred
anymore confined to vast tracts of land
and that parcels of lots to be
and landed estates (Province of
Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals, G.R. expropriated were already devoted for
Nol 103125, May 17, 1993; J. M. public use.
Tuason and Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure
Administration, 31 SCRA 413 Issue: WON the parcel of lot forming
[1970]). It is therefore of no moment part of Chinese Cemetery and owned
that the land sought to be by the Chinese Community be
expropriated in this case is less than
expropriated
the half a hectare only (Pulido v. Court
of Appeals, 122 SCRA 63 [1983]).
Ruling:
Through the years, the public use The SC ruled in the negative. Thus,
requirement in eminent domain has it stated:
evolved into a flexible concept,
influenced by changing conditions xx Where a cemetery is open to
(Sumulong v. Guerrero, supra;
public, it is a public use and no part of
Manotok v. National Housing
Authority, 150 SCRA 89 [1987]; Heirs of the ground can be taken for other
Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA public uses under a general authority.
220 [1983]). Public use now includes And this immunity extends to the
the broader notion of indirect public unimproved and unoccupied parts
benefit or advantage, including a which are held in good faith for future
particular, urban land reform and
use It is alleged, and not denied, that
housing. xx
the cemetery in question may be used
by the general community of Chinese,
which fact, in the general acceptation
of the definition of a public cemetery,
would make the cemetery in question that it thereby declared that it was
public property. If that is true, then, of necessary to appropriate the property
course, the petition of the plaintiff of Juan de la Cruz, whose property,
perhaps, was not within the city limits
must be denied, for the reason that the
at the time the law was adopted? The
city of Manila has no authority or right legislature, then, not having declared
under the law to expropriate public the necessity, can it be contemplated
property. xx that it intended that a municipality
should be the sole judge of the
The Supreme Court also added necessity in every case, and that the
xx But, whether or not the courts, in the face of the provision that
"if upon trial they shall find that a right
cemetery is public or private property,
exists," cannot in that trial inquire into
its appropriation for the uses of a and hear proof upon the necessity for
public street, especially during the the appropriation in a particular case?
lifetime of those specially interested in
its maintenance as a cemetery, should The Charter of the city of Manila
be a question of great concern, and its authorizes the taking
appropriation should not be made for of private property for public use.
Suppose the owner of the property
such purposes until it is fully
denies and successfully proves that the
established that the greatest necessity taking of his property serves no public
exists therefor. xx use: Would the courts not be justified
in inquiring into that question and in
On the issue on whether the finally denying the petition if no public
eminent domain may be exercised by a purpose was proved? Can it be denied
municipality, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts have a right to inquire
into that question? If the courts can
in the wise:
ask questions and decide, upon an
issue properly presented, whether the
xx It can scarcely be contended that a use is public or not, is not that
municipality would be permitted to tantamount to permitting the courts to
take property for some public use inquire into the necessity of the
unless some public necessity existed appropriation? If there is no public use,
therefor. The right to take private then there is no necessity, and if there
property for public use originates in the is no necessity, it is difficult to
necessity, and the taking must be understand how a public use can
limited by such necessity. The necessarily exist. If the courts can
appellant contends that inasmuch as inquire into the question whether a
the legislature has given it general public use exists or not, then it seems
authority to take private property for that it must follow that they can
public use, that the legislature has, examine into the question of the
therefore, settled the question of the necessity.
necessity in every case and that the
courts are closed to the owners of the The very foundation of the right to
property upon that question. Can it be exercise eminent domain is a genuine
imagined, when the legislature necessity, and that necessity must be
adopted section 2429 of Act No. 2711, of a public character. The
ascertainment of the necessity must particular case. (Creston Waterworks
precede or accompany, and not follow, Co. vs. McGrath, 89 Iowa, 502.)
the taking of the
land. (Morrison vs. Indianapolis, etc. By the weight of authorities, the courts
Ry. Co., 166 Ind., 511; have the power of restricting the
Stearns vs. Barre, 73 Vt., 281; exercise of eminent domain to the
Wheeling, etc. R. R. Co. vs. Toledo, Ry. actual reasonable necessities of the
etc. Co., 72 Ohio St., 368.) case and for the purposes designated
by the law. (Fairchild vs. City of St.
The general power to exercise the right Paul. 48 Minn., 540.) xx
of eminent domain must not be
confused with the right to exercise it in
a particular case. The power of the
legislature to confer, upon municipal CAMARINES NORTE ELECTRIC
corporations and other entities within COOPERATIVE, INC. (CANORECO)
the State, general authority to exercise vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. LUIS L.
the right of eminent domain cannot be DICTADO, Presiding Judge, RTC,
questioned by the courts, but that
Branch 39, Daet, Camarines Norte,
general authority of municipalities or
entities must not be confused with the EDUARDO R. MORENO, LT. COL.
right to exercise it in particular RUFINO CHAVEZ, CAPT. ALFREDO
instances. The moment the municipal BORJA, CONRAD C. LEVISTE and VINES
corporation or entity attempts to REALTY CORPORATION
exercise the authority conferred, it
must comply with the conditions
Facts:
accompanying the authority. The
Conrad Leviste filed a complaint for
necessity for conferring the
authority upon a municipal corporation the foreclosure of mortgage against
to exercise the right of eminent Philippines Smelter Co. Judgment was
domain is admittedly within the power made in favor of Leviste. Two parcels
of the legislature. But whether or not of lot were levied upon and were sold
the municipal corporation or entity is at public auction. The lots were sold
exercising the right in a particular case
to Vines Realty Co.
under the conditions imposed by the
general authority, is a question which Owner Vines Realty Co. filed a
the courts have the right to inquire petition for the removal of the
into. improvements on the lot. Included in
such improvements are the power
The conflict in the authorities upon the lines owned by petitioner CANORECO.
question whether the necessity for the
exercise of the right of eminent domain
Issue: WON the installed power lines
is purely legislative and not
judicial, arises generally in the wisdom and posts constitute expropriation of
and propriety of the legislature in property that would required
authorizing the exercise of the right of CANORECO to pay just compensation
eminent domain instead of in the
question of the right to exercise it in a Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the respondents of its ordinary use. For these
simple right-of-way easement do not reasons, Vines Realty is entitled to payment
require the owner to be compensated. of just compensation, which must be neither
more nor less than the money equivalent of
However, due to the nature of the
the property.
power lines, the private owner is
constricted in its use of the lot. The Just compensation has been
Supreme Court stated: understood to be the just and complete
equivalent of the loss, which the owner of
xx Electric cooperatives, like the res expropriated has to suffer by reason
CANORECO, are vested with the power of of the expropriation. The value of the land
eminent domain. and its character at the time it was taken by
the Government are the criteria for
The acquisition of an easement of a determining just compensation. No matter
right-of-way falls within the purview of the how commendable petitioners purpose is, it
power of eminent domain. Such conclusion is just and equitable that Vines Realty be
finds support in easements of right-of-way compensated the fair and full equivalent for
where the Supreme Court sustained the the taking of its property, which is the
award of just compensation for private measure of the indemnity, not whatever
property condemned for public use. The gain would accrue to the expropriating
Supreme Court, in Republic vs. PLDT thus entity.
held that:
Moreover, CANORECO only sought the
"Normally, of course, the power of eminent continuation of the exercise of its right-of-
domain results in the taking or way easement and not ownership over the
appropriation of title to, and possession of, land. Public utilities power of eminent
the expropriated property; but no cogent domain may be exercised although title is
reason appears why said power may not be not transferred to the expropriator.
availed of to impose only a burden upon the Consequently, we rule that a courts
owner of condemned property, without loss writ of demolition cannot prevail over the
of title and possession. It is unquestionable easement of a right-of-way which falls
that real property may, through within the power of eminent domain. xx
expropriation, be subjected to an easement
of right-of-way."
Facts: Ruling:
The SC held that the two parcels of It bears emphasis that
lots are still owned by the Valdehueza when Valdehueza and Panerio
and Panerio. The rights of Vicente Lim mortgaged Lot 932 to
respondent in 1964, they were
as a mortgagee is still protected. Thus,
still the owners thereof and
it is held: their title had not yet passed to
the petitioner Republic. In fact,
it never did. Such title or
xx Here, the annotation ownership was rendered
merely served as a caveat that conclusive when we
the Republic had categorically ruled
a preferential right to acquire in Valdehueza that: It is true
Lot 932 upon its payment of a that plaintiffs are still the
reasonable market value. It registered owners of the land,
did not proscribe Valdehueza there not having been a
and Panerio from exercising transfer of said lots in favor of
their rights of ownership the Government.
including their right to
mortgage or even to dispose of For respondents part, it is
their property. In Republic vs. reasonable to conclude that he
Salem Investment entered into the contract of
Corporation we recognized the mortgage with Valdehueza and
owners absolute right over his Panerio fully aware of the
property pending completion of extent of his right as a
the expropriation proceeding, mortgagee. A mortgage is
thus: merely an accessory contract
intended to secure the
It is only upon the completion performance of the principal
of these two stages that obligation. One of its
expropriation is said to have characteristics is that it
been completed. Moreover, it is is inseparable from the
only upon payment of just property. It adheres to the
compensation that title over the property regardless of who its
property passes to the owner may subsequently
[25]
government. Therefore, until be. Respondent must have
the action for expropriation has known that even if Lot 932 is
been completed and ultimately expropriated by the
terminated, ownership over the Republic, still, his right as a
property being expropriated mortgagee is protected. In this
remains with the registered regard, Article 2127 of the Civil
owner. Consequently, the latter Code provides:
can exercise all
rightspertaining to an Art. 2127. The mortgage
owner, including the right to extends to the natural
dispose of his property subject accessions, to the
to the power of the State improvements, growing fruits,
ultimately to acquire it through and the rents or income not yet
expropriation. received when the obligation
becomes due, and to the amount to be paid to the
amount of the indemnity property owner but also the
granted or owing to the payment of the property within
proprietor from the insurers of a reasonable time. Without
the property mortgaged, or in prompt payment, compensation
virtue of expropriation for cannot be considered just. xx
public use, with the
declarations, amplifications,
and limitations established by
law, whether the estate It was also held that Vicente Lim did
remains in the possession of not act in bad faith.
the mortgagor or it passes in
the hands of a third person. xx 932 by its failure to pay just
compensation. The issue of bad
In summation, while the
faith would have assumed
prevailing doctrine is that the
non-payment of just relevance if the Republic
compensation does not entitle actually acquired title over Lot
the private landowner to 932. In such a case, even if
recover possession of the respondents title was
expropriated lots, however, in registered first, it would be the
cases where the government
Republics title or right of
failed to pay just
compensation within five ownership that shall be
(5) years from the finality of upheld. But now, assuming
the judgment in the that respondent was in bad
expropriation proceedings, the faith, can such fact vest upon
owners concerned shall have the Republic a better title over
the right to recover possession Lot 932? We believe not. This
of their property. This is in
is because in the first place, the
consonance with the principle
that the government cannot Republic has no title to speak
keep the property and dishonor of. xx
the judgment. To be sure, the
five-year period limitation will
encourage the government to CASES ON EMINENT DOMAIN
pay just compensation
punctually. This is in keeping
with justice and equity. After
all, it is the duty of the CAMARINES NORTE ELECTRIC
government, whenever it takes
property from private persons COOPERATIVE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS
against their will, to facilitate
the payment of just Facts:
compensation. In Cosculluela v.
Court of Appeals, we defined Conrad L. Leviste filed with the
just compensation as not only
the correct determination of the Regional Trial Court a complaint for
collection of a sum of money and After the petition filed before the
foreclosure of mortgage against Philippine Court of Appeals was dismissed, the
Smelter Corporation (PSC). The trial court petitioner re-constructed its power lines
rendered decision in favor of Leviste for along the provincial road upon the
failure of PSC to file an answer to the authority of the District Engineer of the
complaint. DPWH due to public need. Vines Realty
however sent a letter prohibiting the said
When the decision was final and
construction without its permission.
executory, the trial court issued a writ of
Petitioner replied that the power lines were
execution and the respondent sheriff levied
constructed within the right of way of the
upon two parcels of land which were sold at
provincial road.
a public auction in favor of Vines Realty
Corporation (Vines Realty). Hence, this petition.
the taking of its property, which is the (PPI), a non-stock, non-profit organization
valid exercise of the police power of the Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc.
compensation of her land. The Gozun the sum of P2,695,225.00 as the just
Republic, therefore, should pay compensation for her two parcels of land
Castellvi interest at the rate of 6% that have a total area of 539,045 square
per annum on the value of her land, meters, minus the sum of P107,809.00 that
minus the provisional value that she withdrew out of the amount that was
was deposited, only from July 10, deposited in court as the provisional value
of her lands, with interest at the rate of 6%,
per annum from July 10, 1959 until the day
full payment is made or deposited in court;
(e) the attorney's lien of Atty. Alberto
Cacnio is enforced; and
claim is that the said lots were bequeathed fraud had been perpetrated by Respondent
to the Bureau of Education (now Bureau of de Ocampo in securing the lower courts
Public Schools) by the late Esteban decision ordering the registration of the lots
Jalandoni through his will. in his name, as well as the issuance of the
decree of registration and the
Respondent de Ocampo, on the
corresponding certificate of title, on the
other hand, predicates his claim on an
grounds which, briefly restated. advert to
application for registration of the same lots.
respondent de Ocampo's alleged
He averred that the lots were unregistered
misrepresentations that the two parcels of
lands belonging to and possessed by him,
land applied for by him in the land
by virtue of a donation from Luis Mosquera.
registration case were "different from the
Respondent Anglo intervened in the two parcels of land of the same lot
case having allegedly bought the same lots numbers, technical descriptions and areas
from de Ocampo belonging to the Government, knowing
De Ocampo averred in his answer such allegations to be false, the truth of the
that the properties alleged to have been matter being that said parcels of land are
donated by Esteban Jalandoni to the the the same property owned by the
then Bureau of Education were different Government"; that there was previous
from the properties involved in this case. registration of the same parcels of land,
The lots applied for by de Ocampo and Lots Nos. 817 and 2509, under the Torrens
which the Republic sought to recover were System in favor of Meerkamp and Company
unregistered lands, and that granting, which later sold the same to Jalandoni who,
in turn, gave the lots to the Bureau of A consideration in depth of the
Education as a legacy and that the Court of unique and peculiar facts attendant to this
First Instance no longer had jurisdiction to case and the procedural and substantive
decree again the registration of Lots Nos. implications of the dismissal of the appeal
817 and 2509, in favor of respondent de now sought to be reviewed and
Ocampo, in view of the earlier registration reconsidered; and a due and proper regard
of the same lands in favor of Meerkamp to the merits of the case rather than a
and Company. fascile reliance on procedural rules, compel
this Court to reverse and set aside the
The trial court concluded that the
dismissal of Republic's appeal by
evidence adduced by the petitioner in this
respondent Court of Appeals.
incident does not establish actual and
constructive fraud which is the only kind of 1. The documentary exhibits
fraud that is considered a legal ground to adduced by Republic in the hearing of the
review, reopen or set aside the decree Amended Petition below signed by the
which has already been issued in the name Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental,
of Alfredo V. de Ocampo. stating that there was registered a sale
executed by Meerkamp and Company in
The Republic appealed but was
favor of Esteban Jalandoni and as a result
dismissed.
the name of the Company was cancelled
and the title was issued to Jalandoni; that
Issue/s:
the title was later cancelled by virtue of the
1. Whether the dismissal by the Court will of Jalandoni leaving the parcel of land
of Appeals of Republic's appeal to the then Bureau of Education.
from the decision of the trial court
The trial court also made the
denying its Amended Petition, is
express finding that the alleged deed of
not proper and should be set aside
donation by Luis Mosquera in favor of
as contended by Republic, or
respondent de Ocampo does not appear in
correct and should be maintained,
his notarial book which is on file in the
as argued by respondents.
Bureau of Record Management, Manila.
Ruling:
The Provincial Assessor of Negros misrepresentations and machinations,
Occidental likewise issued a certification which, buttressed by strong evidence, can
stating that Lots Nos. 817 and 2509 were nullify the second registration and/or set
never declared in the name of Mosquera. aside OCT No. 576 issued to respondent de
His later certification states that the said Ocampo taken in relation with the
lots were assessed in the name of the procedural and substantive implications
Bureau of Education, and that the technical which could and would arise if the appeal
descriptions in the Bureau of Lands records were dismissed, namely, the risk that the
show that the same lots were in the name holdings may be transacted to third parties
of Meerkamp and Company. and the fact that Republic's action to
recover tile holdings would give rise to
Authorities are in agreement that a
multiplicity of suits compel Us to
land registration court is without
conclude that the only recourse in the
jurisdiction to decree again the registration
interest of just and expeditious proceedings
of land already registered in an earlier
considering that these have been pending
registration case, and that the second
for close to twenty (20) years now is to
decree entered for the same land is null and
suspend Our rules and/or to except this
void.
case from their operation. For when the
operation of the Rules of will lead to an
2. There is a serious charge, which
injustice we have, in justifiable instances,
is also crucial to the issue between the
resorted to this extraordinary remedy to
parties, that respondent de Ocampo used
prevent it.
fraudulent misrepresentations and
machinations in securing his title. If the
While the above exceptions are
charge is true, there is the element of wilfull
predicated on different grounds, they
intent to deprive Republic of just rights
nevertheless support the view that the rigid
which constitutes the essential
adherence to the rules on perfection of
characteristics of actual as distinguished
appeals may and should be relaxed where
from legal fraud.
compelling reasons so warrant. The grounds
invoked in this case not only lack of
3. The foregoing overriding
jurisdiction but gross injustice itself more
considerations then the alleged lack of
than justify the exception considering
jurisdiction and the alleged fraudulent
further that the delay in the perfection of
the appeal involved six (6) days only.