Title
Masikip vs. City of Pasig
Case
G.R. No. 136349
Decision Date
Jan 23, 2006
A landowner challenged Pasig City's expropriation of her property, claiming lack of genuine public necessity; Supreme Court ruled in her favor, dismissing the case.
expropriation
genuine necessity
sports development

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136349)

Factual Background

Petitioner owned a 4,521 square meter parcel in Pag-Asa, Caniogan, Pasig City. The City of Pasig notified petitioner of its intention to expropriate 1,500 square meters of her lot for “sports development and recreational activities” for residents of Barangay Caniogan pursuant to Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1993. The Caniogan Barangay Council issued a Certification dated November 20, 1994, which served as the basis for the ordinance. That certification identified the intended beneficiary as the Melendres Compound Homeowners Association, a private non‑profit association. Petitioner protested that the taking was unconstitutional and oppressive and pointed out that an existing public recreational facility, Rainforest Park, was already available to residents of Caniogan.

Trial Court Proceedings

Respondent filed an action for expropriation in the trial court praying for condemning petitioner’s property and for the appointment of commissioners to determine just compensation. Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 25, 1995, in lieu of an answer, invoking objections that included absence of genuine necessity, arbitrary selection of the property, defect in form, failure to comply with prerequisites under Section 34, Rule VI of the implementing rules of the Local Government Code, violation of Section 261(v) of the Omnibus Election Code, and inadequacy of the deposit for possession. The trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss by Order of May 7, 1996, held that there was a genuine necessity for the taking for sports and recreational activities, and proceeded to appoint the City Assessor and City Treasurer as commissioners to fix just compensation. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on July 31, 1996.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioner sought relief by filing a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit on October 31, 1997, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated November 20, 1998. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari.

Issues Presented

The Supreme Court distilled the contest into two principal issues. The first was procedural: whether petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, filed under Section 3, Rule 67 as then in force, was a responsive pleading that put in issue the right of the City to expropriate and thus required the trial court to receive evidence rather than treat the allegations as admitted. The second was substantive: whether respondent had established a genuine necessity and a public character for the proposed taking to justify the exercise of eminent domain.

Petitioner's Contentions

Petitioner contended that respondent failed to show a genuine necessity to appropriate her land for public use, that respondent arbitrarily and capriciously chose her property although an existing public recreational facility (Rainforest Park) served the community, that respondent’s complaint was defective for failing to allege the purpose with certainty and for failing to comply with statutory prerequisites, and that the procedures for taking possession and fixing just compensation were not properly followed. Petitioner also argued that the Motion to Dismiss she filed was the responsive pleading required by Rule 67 and therefore should not have been treated as a mere motion admitting the complaint’s factual allegations.

Respondent's Position

Respondent maintained that the taking was authorized by Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1993 and by Section 19, R.A. No. 7160, and that the purpose of the expropriation was to provide sports and recreational facilities to poor residents of Barangay Caniogan. The City pursued judicial condemnation under the expropriation procedures and sought appointment of commissioners to determine just compensation and to enable immediate possession upon deposit as provided by law.

Procedural Analysis of the Motion to Dismiss

The Court examined Section 3, Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court as it existed when petitioner filed her Motion to Dismiss and held that the motion constituted the responsive pleading in lieu of an answer and thereby joined the issues. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in treating petitioner’s motion as a hypothetical admission of the complaint’s facts, particularly the allegation of genuine necessity. The trial court should have set the case for reception of evidence to determine necessity before appointing commissioners. The Court declined to apply the 1997 amendment to Rule 67 retroactively to petitioner’s motion.

Substantive Analysis — Nature and Limits of Eminent Domain

The Court reiterated the established doctrine that eminent domain is the power of the State to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation, as articulated in US v. Toribio and subsequent authorities. The Court observed that the power is legislative in origin and that local government units exercise it only when expressly authorized by statute, here Section 19, R.A. No. 7160. Judicial review of an expropriation is confined to adequacy of compensation, necessity of the taking, and the public character of the purpose. The Court reiterated precedent that the foundation for eminent domain is a genuine necessity of a public character and that the need must exist prior to or accompany, and not follow, the taking. The Court applied the accepted standard that necessity need not be absolute but must be a reasonable or practical necessity that balances public benefit with least inconvenience to the owner.

Application of Law to the Facts

Applying these principles, the Court scrutinized the record an

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms