Case Summary (G.R. No. 107916)
Trial Court Proceedings and Order
Petitioner-municipality moved under Rule 67, Section 2 to take possession upon depositing provisional compensation. Despite petitioners’ opposition, the RTC granted immediate possession, finding that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s failure to declare the municipal resolution invalid left it effective. The court held that eminent domain was not among the acts requiring SP approval under Section 19 of BP 337.
Appellate Proceedings
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It found clear public purpose in Resolution No. 43-89 and ruled that, absent a formal invalidation by the provincial board, expropriation could proceed. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
Further Proceedings and Injunction
The municipality constructed three buildings on the land. Petitioners secured a TRO from the Supreme Court enjoining further occupation and construction. The SC later held the former mayor in contempt for violating the TRO; a new mayor sought to dissolve the injunction pending final resolution.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether a municipal resolution authorizing expropriation remains valid despite provincial disapproval.
- Whether the taking was arbitrary or politically motivated and whether petitioners could claim damages against the former mayor.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The petition is denied. The decisions of the CA and the RTC are affirmed. The TRO is lifted.
Analysis of the Power of Eminent Domain
Eminent domain is an inherent sovereign power to compulsorily appropriate private property for public use, subject to just compensation and due process (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 9). This power may be delegated to local government units under BP 337.
Legality of the Municipal Resolution Despite Provincial Disapproval
Under Section 153 of BP 337, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan may declare a municipal ordinance or resolution invalid only if it is beyond the powers conferred by law. The provincial board’s mere disapproval on policy grounds is ultra vires. Jurisprudence (e.g., Velazco v. Blas) holds that any other grounds usurp municipal legislative functions. Accordingly, Resolution No. 43-89 remained valid authority f
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 107916)
Facts
- On July 23, 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, adopted Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 authorizing the mayor to initiate expropriation of one hectare of Lot No. 6138-Pls-4 (TCT No. T-3132) owned by Percival Moday for a farmers’ center and sports facilities.
- The lot formed part of a 5.6610-hectare parcel in the names of Zotico and Leonora Moday, with an assessed value of P3,580.00 for the entire parcel (P632.39 per hectare in 1989).
- The municipal mayor approved Resolution No. 43-89 and forwarded it to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, which on September 11, 1989 disapproved it as unnecessary, noting available alternative lots.
- Despite disapproval, the Municipality of Bunawan filed a petition for eminent domain in the RTC of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, later adding Zotico and Leonora Moday as defendants.
- On March 6, 1991, the Municipality moved to take possession, having deposited P632.39 as provisional value, which the RTC granted after a hearing over petitioners’ opposition.
- The RTC’s possession order was issued July 2, 1991; petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied October 31, 1991.
- Petitioners sought certiorari relief for grave abuse of discretion, which the Court of Appeals dismissed on July 15, 1992; its motion for reconsideration was denied October 22, 1992.
- Meanwhile, the Municipality erected three buildings (ABC Hall, Motorpool, Gymnasium) on the subject land.
- On November 23, 1992 petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, and on December 8, 1993 secured a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the RTC order and municipal occupation of the site.
- In March 1995 the Supreme Court cited then‐Mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo for contempt, imposed a fine, and ordered demolition of structures built in violation of the restraining order.
- After mayoral succession and motions by the current mayor, petitioners pressed their claim that the expropriation was void and politically motivated, and sought damages from former Mayor Bustillo.
Procedural History
- Sangguniang Bayan adopts Resolution No. 43-89 →