Case Digest (G.R. No. 187604)
Facts:
City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation, Terocel Realty Corporation, and Filomena Vda. de Legarda, G.R. No. 187604, June 25, 2012, Supreme Court Third Division, Abad, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8012 on March 1, 2001 authorizing the Mayor to acquire several titled lots (totaling 1,505.30 sq. m.) owned by respondents Alegar Corporation, Terocel Realty Corporation, and Filomena Vda. de Legarda for the City’s socialized housing program. The City offered P1,500.00 per square meter; the owners rejected that price. On December 2, 2003 the City filed a complaint for expropriation in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Civil Case No. 03-108565) alleging acquisition for its land-for-the-landless and on-site development programs and deposited P1,500,000.00 with the Land Bank to enable immediate possession.
The RTC issued a writ of possession in favor of the City on June 9, 2004; on December 19, 2006 the P1,500,000.00 deposit was released to the defendants by joint motion. On October 15, 2007 the parties agreed to forego pre-trial and to simultaneously file memoranda on whether the City had necessity to expropriate; the owners filed their memorandum but the City did not. On February 12, 2008 the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act, UDHA) — specifically, for not showing compliance with the statutory order of priority for land acquisition and for failing to exhaust modes other than expropriation (e.g., negotiated purchase) — and for failing to present evidence of genuine necessity.
The City moved for reconsideration but filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) before the RTC acted. On February 27, 2009 the CA in CA-G.R. CV 90530 affirmed the RTC’s dismissal for the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC deny the City of Manila its right to due process by dismissing the complaint without hearing the City’s side?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC’s finding that the City failed to comply with Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. 7279 in pursuing expropriation?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the RTC’s conclusion that the City failed to establish genuine necessity for the expropriation?
- Did the withdrawal by the owners of the P1,500,000.00 deposi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)