Case Digest (G.R. No. 136349)
Facts:
Masikip v. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Sandoval Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Lourdes Dela Paz Masikip is the registered owner of a 4,521-square-meter parcel in Pag-Asa, Caniogan, Pasig City. By letter dated January 6, 1994, the then Municipality of Pasig (respondent) notified petitioner of its intention to expropriate a 1,500-square-meter portion of her lot to be used for "sports development and recreational activities," pursuant to Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1993. Subsequent municipal correspondence (March 23, 1994 and December 20, 1994) reiterated the purpose, alternatively framing it as providing land opportunities to the deserving poor.
On May 2, 1994 petitioner formally protested the proposed taking as unconstitutional and unsuitable for the stated purposes. On February 21, 1995 respondent filed a complaint for expropriation in the Regional Trial Court (Pasig City, Branch 165), docketed S.C.A. No. 873, seeking condemnation, appointment of commissioners to determine just compensation, and judgment based on their report. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 25, 1995 in lieu of an answer, raising (inter alia) lack of genuine necessity/public use; arbitrary selection of the property; failure to plead prerequisites under the Local Government Code implementing rules; election-law objections; and contesting the valuation and deposit procedure.
The trial court (Branch 165, Presiding Judge Hon. Marietta A. Legaspi) denied the Motion to Dismiss on May 7, 1996 and again denied reconsideration on July 31, 1996, holding there was a genuine necessity for sports and recreational use; it then appointed the City Assessor and City Treasurer as commissioners to determine just compensation. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 41860), which dismissed the petition on October 31, 1997 and denied reconsideration on November 20, 1998. Petitioner then filed this petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (Rule 45), challenging both the procedural disposition of her Motion to Dismiss and the substantive finding of genuine necessity/public use for the exp...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner in lieu of an answer properly treated as a responsive pleading (joining the issues) under Section 3, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, and did the Court of Appeals err in treating that motion as a hypothetical admission of the plaintiff's allegations?
- Was there a genuine necessity and a public-use character to justify the expropriation of petitioner...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)