Case Digest (G.R. No. 150640)
Facts:
Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, represented by Barangay Captain Ismael Gutierrez, v. Court of Appeals, Jose Magtoto III, and Patricia Sindayan, G.R. No. 150640, March 22, 2007, the Supreme Court Second Division, Velasco, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On April 8, 1983, Barangay Sindalan (petitioner) filed a Complaint for eminent domain (Civil Case No. 6756) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, San Fernando, Pampanga, to condemn a portion of respondents spouses Jose Magtoto III and Patricia Sindayan’s land (TCT No. 117674-R) for use as a barangay feeder road. The barangay council adopted Resolution No. 6 stating the road would serve residents’ access to the provincial road and contribute to general welfare. Pending the case, petitioner deposited an amount equivalent to the property’s fair market value.
Respondents opposed the taking, alleging the proposed road would principally serve the privately owned Davsan II Subdivision and thereby benefit the subdivision owner rather than the public. They pointed out that under Presidential Decree No. 957, Sec. 29 the subdivision owner is obliged to provide subdivision access. Trial developed testimony (notably of Ruben Palo) that Sitio Paraiso was within Davsan II Subdivision and that subdivision residents expected the developer to provide the access road.
On August 2, 1990 the RTC issued an Order of Condemnation declaring petitioner had a lawful right to take the property for public use and directing appointment of commissioners to determine just compensation. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On May 30, 2001 the CA reversed and set aside the RTC Order and dismissed the Complaint for eminent domain, concluding the taking was for the private benefit of the subdivision and not a public use. The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration by Resolution dated October 26, 2001.
Petitioner filed a petition fo...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the proposed exercise of eminent domain by Barangay Sindalan a taking for a public use or purpose?
- Were the constitutional requisites for valid expropriation — notably just compensation and due process — observed so as to validate the condemnation o...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)