Case Digest (G.R. No. 137152)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 137152)
Facts:
This is City of Mandaluyong v. Antonio N., Francisco N., Thelma N., Eusebio N., Rodolfo N., All Surnamed Aguilar, G.R. No. 137152, January 29, 2001, Supreme Court First Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court. On August 4, 1997, petitioner City of Mandaluyong filed an expropriation complaint in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Pasig City, seeking to expropriate three adjoining parcels (TCT Nos. 59780, 63766 and 63767) totaling 1,847 sq.m. at 9 de Febrero Street, Barangay Mauwag, for a medium‑rise condominium project. The complaint alleged that parts of the lots had long been occupied by tenants and other informal settlers; the lots had earlier been classified as Area for Priority Development (APD) No. 5 under Proclamations issued pursuant to P.D. No. 1517. The Sangguniang Panlungsod adopted Resolution No. 516 (1996) authorizing the Mayor to initiate expropriation; Mayor Abalos had offered to buy the land at P3,000/sq.m. on January 10, 1996, an offer respondents allegedly did not receive.Respondents answered, denied receipt of the offer, challenged the public purpose and asserted the lots were their only real property, contending the Bureau of Internal Revenue zonal valuation was higher. They filed a Motion for Preliminary Hearing asserting lack of jurisdiction over the person and lack of cause of action. Petitioner amended the complaint on November 5, 1997 to drop TCT No. 59780 and to add a co‑owner; the amended complaint (admitted December 18, 1997) therefore sought two parcels (TCT Nos. 63766 and 63767) totaling 1,636 sq.m.
The trial court granted respondents' preliminary‑hearing motion, conducted a hearing on February 25, 1998 (respondents presented testimony and documents; petitioner presented none), and thereafter, on September 17, 1998, dismissed the Amended Complaint. The court held respondents to be “small property owners” exempt from expropriation under R.A. No. 7279 and found petitioner failed to prove the intended beneficiaries were landless and homeless; the court denied reconsideration on December 29, 1998. Petitioner brought this Rule 45 petition for review to the Court.
The factual record shows that the two subject lots were registered in the names of several siblings as co‑owners (titles issued 1987); they executed an extrajudicial partition in 1998 that produced individual titles allocating shares of 300 sq.m. each to four siblings, 347 sq.m. to Eusebio (deceased) and 89 sq.m. to Virginia. After Eusebio's death, his five heirs inherited his 347 sq.m. share, reducing each heir’s share well below 300 sq.m. Respondents submitted assessor certifications showing no other registered real property in their names in numerous Metro Manila cities; petitioner offered no land titles to contradict these certifications. The record also shows ejectment orders executed September 17, 1997, culminating in respondents' possession of the lots prior to the hearing.
Issues:
- Did respondents qualify as "small property owners" exempt from expropriation under R.A. No. 7279, Section 3(q)?
- Was petitioner entitled to proceed by expropriation when R.A. No. 7279, Section 10, requires expropriation to be resorted to only after other modes of acquisition have been exhausted?
- Did petitioner establish that the proposed expropriation served a public purpose (i.e., that the intended beneficiaries were landless and homeless) sufficient to sustain the action?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)