Title
Heirs of Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong
Case
G.R. No. 135087
Decision Date
Mar 14, 2000
Heirs of Suguitan challenged Mandaluyong City's expropriation of land via resolution, not ordinance; SC ruled resolution invalid, requiring strict compliance with RA 7160.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 135087)

Facts:

  • Background of Proceedings
    • On October 13, 1994, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaluyong City adopted Resolution No. 396, S-1994, authorizing Mayor Benjamin S. Abalos to institute expropriation proceedings over a 414-sqm parcel of land covered by TCT No. 56264 for expansion of the Mandaluyong Medical Center.
    • By letter dated January 20, 1995, the City offered to buy the property; Alberto S. Suguitan refused to sell.
    • On March 13, 1995, the City filed Complaint for Expropriation (SCA No. 875) with the RTC of Pasig.
  • Trial Court Actions
    • Suguitan’s Motion to Dismiss argued (a) lack of lawful exercise of eminent domain, (b) absence of public necessity, (c) no provision for just compensation, (d) no appropriation of funds, and (e) allegation of bad faith. Motion denied on October 24, 1995.
    • On November 14, 1995, the RTC allowed the City to take immediate possession upon deposit of P621,000 (15% of FMV based on tax declaration). Possession effected December 15, 1995 via writ of possession.
    • On July 28, 1998, Branch 155 RTC issued Order of Condemnation declaring the City’s right to take the property upon payment of just compensation and directing appointment of commissioners.
  • Petition for Certiorari
    • Heirs of Alberto Suguitan filed Petition under Rule 45 to reverse the July 28, 1998 order.
    • Petitioners contended the City lacked authority: Section 19, RA 7160 requires an ordinance—not a resolution—to exercise eminent domain.
    • Respondent City asserted that under IRR, a sanggunian resolution suffices to initiate expropriation; ordinance needed only to appropriate funds after court determination of compensation.

Issues:

  • Whether the City of Mandaluyong validly exercised its delegated power of eminent domain through a sanggunian resolution alone, in lieu of an ordinance required by Section 19 of RA 7160.
  • Whether the Implementing Rules and Regulations (Article 36, Rule VI) may dispense with the ordinance requirement for initiating expropriation proceedings.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.