Case Digest (G.R. No. 202384)
Facts:
Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. (now Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.) v. South Rich Acres, Inc., Top Service, Inc. and the City of Las Piñas, G.R. Nos. 202384 and 202397, May 04, 2021, the Supreme Court En Banc, Inting, J., writing for the Court.South Rich Acres, Inc. (SRA) and Top Service, Inc. are private corporations asserting ownership of seven contiguous parcels that form part of a private road network known as Marcos Alvarez Avenue. On July 2, 1997 the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Las Piñas enacted City Ordinance No. 343-97, declaring the whole length of Marcos Alvarez Avenue a public road. SRA and Top Service filed a petition for declaratory relief and damages with a prayer for preliminary injunction in RTC Branch 253, Las Piñas (Civil Case No. LP-97-0190) seeking annulment of the ordinance, alleging the subject lots remained privately owned and that the ordinance effected a taking without just compensation.
The City answered asserting the avenue was government property, withdrawn from commerce as open space. Royal Asia Multi-Properties, Inc. (RAMPI) intervened supporting the ordinance; RAMPI later transferred its rights to EPCIB/BDO, which substituted as intervenor-defendant. The RTC granted a preliminary injunction and, after trial, rendered a Decision dated April 30, 2004 declaring City Ordinance No. 343-97 invalid and unconstitutional for taking private property without just compensation and denying SRA/Top Service’s damage claims against EPCIB/BDO.
EPCIB/BDO filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in CA-G.R. CV No. 91117, issued a Decision dated March 9, 2012: it affirmed the RTC’s declaration that the ordinance was unconstitutional as an unlawful taking and sustained that the City had not acquired the lots by donation or expropriation; but it ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel notices of lis pendens annotated on all TCTs of the Royal South Subdivision (BDO’s properties), finding the lis pendens improper because those lots were not subject of the litigation. Motions for reconsideration were denied by CA Resolution dated June 20, 2012.
BDO filed a Petition for Review (G.R. No. 202384) and S...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the RTC Decision dated April 30, 2004 declaring City Ordinance No. 343-97 unconstitutional final and executory as to the City of Las Piñas such that it cannot be disturbed on appeal?
- Did City Ordinance No. 343-97 validly exercise the police power of the City of Las Piñas or did it effect an unconstitutional taking of private property requiring just compensation (i.e., was it an exercise of eminent domain)?
- Was the CA correct in ordering the cancellation of the notices of lis pendens annotated on the transfer certificates of ti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)