G.R. No. 187604 - City of Manila vs. Alegar Corporation

On March 1, 2001, the City Council of Manila passed Ordinance 8012 authorizing the City Mayor to acquire certain lots for a socialized housing project.
The lots covered 1,505.30 square meters and were owned by Alegar Corporation, Terocel Realty Corporation, and Filomena Vda. De Legarda.
The expropriation was envisioned for the land-for-the-landless and on-site development programs of the City.

The City of Manila initially offered to purchase the lots at P1,500.00 per square meter.
The owners rejected the offer, arguing that the price was too low and, in Alegar’s case, indicating a willingness to sell only at a higher price.

On December 2, 2003, after the refusal to negotiate on a higher price, the City filed a complaint for expropriation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
The City asserted its purpose for acquiring the lots was tied to its housing programs, while the owners contended that the expropriation would benefit only a few long-term occupants.
The City deposited P1,500,000.00 with the Land Bank of the Philippines to facilitate immediate occupation of the lots pending resolution.
A writ of possession was issued by the RTC on June 9, 2004.

The parties agreed on October 15, 2007, to forego the pre-trial process by submitting memoranda on whether the expropriation was necessary for public use.
The property owners submitted their memorandum; however, the City did not do so.
On February 12, 2008, the RTC dismissed the complaint due to the City’s non-compliance with Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) 7279, which mandates an order of priority in acquiring properties for socialized housing.
The RTC also stressed that the City failed to exhaust other modes of acquisition, as required by Section 10 of R.A. 7279 and Article 35 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code.

The City moved for reconsideration of the RTC’s dismissal order but then filed notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) before a resolution of that motion.
On February 27, 2009, the CA affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, holding that:

The City did not properly establish its right to expropriate since it did not demonstrate compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. 7279.
The City’s failure to present evidence supporting the existence of a genuine public necessity for expropriation further undermined its case.
The procedural waiving of the opportunity to submit evidence, due to the parties’ agreement to simultaneous submission of memoranda, adversely affected the City’s right to be heard.

The City argued that the withdrawal of its P1,500,000.00 deposit by the owners constituted implied consent to the expropriation, but the CA ruled otherwise.

Whether the CA erred in failing to rule that the RTC denied the City its right to due process by dismissing the case without a full hearing of the City’s side.
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s ruling that the City failed to comply with the requirements under Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. 7279 concerning the expropriation of privately-owned lots for socialized housing.
Whether the CA erred in not setting aside the RTC’s ruling that the City failed to establish the existence of a genuine public necessity for the expropriation.
Whether the CA erred in ruling that the withdrawal of the P1,500,000.00 deposit by the owners did not constitute an implied consent to the expropriation of their lots.