Title
Lagcao vs. Labra
Case
G.R. No. 155746
Decision Date
Oct 13, 2004
Petitioners challenged Cebu City's expropriation of their property for socialized housing; SC ruled ordinance unconstitutional, citing bad faith, lack of public necessity, and non-compliance with RA 7279 and RA 7160.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 155746)

Factual Background

In 1965 petitioners acquired Lot 1029 from the City of Cebu, later reverted to the Province of Cebu under undisclosed circumstances. Petitioners successfully sued for specific performance, securing a final deed of sale in 1994 and registration of TCT No. 129306. Upon attempting physical possession, petitioners discovered squatters on the property and obtained final ejectment and demolition orders by April 1998.

Procedural History

After the demolition order was stayed at the mayor’s request in early 1999, the Cebu City Council passed Ordinance No. 1772 (June 1999) and subsequently Ordinance No. 1843 (July 2000) to expropriate Lot 1029 for socialized housing. Petitioners filed a complaint before the RTC seeking nullification of Ordinance No. 1843 on constitutional grounds. The trial court and RTC denied relief, prompting this petition for review.

Ordinance No. 1843 and Constitutional Issues

Ordinance No. 1843 authorized the mayor to initiate expropriation of petitioners’ land for subdivision and sale to existing occupants, appropriating ₱6,881,600 for just compensation. Petitioners challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional, arguing it failed the “public use” requirement and served political ends by conferring benefits on a limited group of squatters.

Power of Eminent Domain under RA 7160

Section 19 of RA 7160 grants local government units the power of eminent domain for public use, purpose, or welfare, subject to constitutional guarantees. Local councils may exercise this power only through ordinances and after a valid, definite offer to the owner. The ordinance must comply with due process, just compensation, and other constitutional requirements.

Constitutional Constraints: Due Process and Public Use

Due process protects private property against arbitrary state action. Expropriation must rest on genuine public necessity and cannot be capricious or discriminatory. Public use entails a benefit to the community at large, not merely a few individuals. Strict judicial scrutiny is required to prevent “whim or caprice” in selecting properties for condemnation.

Limits under RA 7279

RA 7279 prescribes priorities for acquiring lands for socialized housing:

  1. Government-owned lands
  2. Alienable public domain
  3. Abandoned or idle lands
  4. Declared development or slum sites
  5. BLISS sites
  6. Private lands (lowest priority)

Expropriation is permitted only after exhausting other acquisition modes (community mortgage, land swapping, consolidation, banking, donation, joint venture, negotiated purchase) and expressly exempts small-owner parcels from forced sale if alternatives remain.

Absence of Compliance with RA 7279 and RA 7160

The City of Cebu made no attempt to acquire higher-priority lands under Section 9 of RA 7279, nor did it exhaust alternative acquisition modes under Section 10. No valid, definite offer to purchase petitioners’ property preceded Ordinance No. 1843, violating Section 19 of RA 7160. The ordinance provided no rationale for selecting the petitioners’ lot over other p

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.