G.R. No. L-6407 - People vs. Castro

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-6407)

Procedural History

The Sangguniang Bayan of Bunawan adopted Resolution No. 43-89 authorizing commencement of expropriation; the municipal mayor approved and transmitted it to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, which disapproved the resolution. The municipality filed a Petition for Eminent Domain in the Regional Trial Court. The RTC granted the municipality’s motion to take possession after deposit of the provisional valuation (P632.39), and set hearing for just compensation. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in the RTC was denied. Petitioners sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration. Petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court; a temporary restraining order was issued by the Supreme Court in December 1993, and subsequent contempt proceedings and administrative developments (including payment of fines and change of municipal administration) followed.

Lower Courts’ Reasoning

The RTC ruled that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s disapproval did not render the municipal resolution void because the provincial body had not declared the resolution invalid on the statutory ground of lack of authority; the RTC also considered that the SP’s role was limited to review under the then-applicable provisions and that eminent domain was not among the acts listed as requiring SP approval under Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 337. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the public purpose of the expropriation clear from the municipal resolution and noting that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan did not expressly declare the resolution invalid; the CA further observed that the SP’s reason for disapproval failed to identify alternative municipal lots allegedly available for the same purpose.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

(1) Whether a municipality may lawfully exercise eminent domain based on a municipal sanggunian resolution that the provincial sanggunian disapproved; (2) whether the Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s disapproval, based on asserted lack of necessity, rendered the municipal resolution null and void; (3) whether the expropriation was tainted by political motive or was unnecessary given alleged available municipal lands; and (4) whether the former mayor could be held personally liable in damages for enforcing a void resolution.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Foundation

The Court applied the 1987 Constitution (Article III, Section 9: private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation) as the operative constitutional standard. The statutory framework invoked was Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (Local Government Code then in force): Section 9 (permitting local government units to exercise eminent domain through their head pursuant to a sanggunian resolution) and Section 153 (Sangguniang Panlalawigan review procedure and the limited ground for declaring municipal ordinances/resolutions invalid). The Court also considered Section 19 (enumerating acts of the Sangguniang Bayan requiring Sangguniang Panlalawigan approval) to note that eminent domain was not among those specified.

Court’s Analysis on the Scope of Sangguniang Panlalawigan Review

The Court emphasized that Section 153 grants the Sangguniang Panlalawigan a narrowly circumscribed power: it may declare a municipal ordinance, resolution, or executive order invalid only if it is beyond the powers conferred upon the sanggunian or mayor. Reliance was placed on prior jurisprudence (Velazco v. Blas and earlier authorities) holding that provincial disapproval must be premised on a strictly legal question of authority; disapproval on other grounds (such as policy, convenience, or asserted lack of necessity) exceeds the provincial board’s statutory function and impermissibly usurps municipal legislative authority. Applying that principle, the Court found that because B.P. Blg. 337 expressly authorized municipalities to exercise eminent domain through a sanggunian resolution, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan lacked statutory authority to nullify Resolution No. 43-89 on the ground that expropriation was unnecessary.

Public Use, Necessity, and Evidence on Alternatives

The Court reiterated the limitations on eminent domain: the taking must be for public use, just compensation must be provided, and due process must be observed; moreover, necessity and public character of the taking

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-6407)

Title, Citation and Panel

Reported at 335 Phil. 1057, Second Division; G.R. No. 107916; decision promulgated February 20, 1997.
Case captioned: Percival Moday, Zotico Moday (deceased) and Leonora Moday, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Judge Evangeline S. Yuipco of Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, Agusan del Sur and Municipality of Bunawan, respondents.
Decision authored by Justice Romero; concurred in by Regalado (Chairman), Puno, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ.

Central Issue Presented

Whether a municipality may validly expropriate private property by virtue of a municipal resolution (Municipal Resolution No. 43-89) which was disapproved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Petitioners seek reversal of Court of Appeals decision and resolution promulgated July 15, 1992 and October 22, 1992, respectively, and a declaration that Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 of the Bunawan Sangguniang Bayan is null and void.

Material Facts (Background and Chronology)

On July 23, 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur passed Municipal Resolution No. 43-89: "Authorizing the Municipal Mayor to Initiate the Petition for Expropriation of a One (1) Hectare Portion of Lot No. 6138-Pls-4 along the National Highway Owned by Percival Moday for the Site of Bunawan Farmers Center and Other Government Sports Facilities."
The lot in question is part of 5.6610 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-3132 in the name of Zotico Moday, married to Leonora Moday.
Assessed value in 1989: entire lot P3,580.00; assessed value of one hectare about P632.39.
Resolution No. 43-89 was approved by then Municipal Mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo and transmitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for review.
On September 11, 1989, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved the resolution, commenting that "expropriation is unnecessary considering that there are still available lots in Bunawan for the establishment of the government center."
The Municipality of Bunawan filed a Petition for Eminent Domain against petitioner Percival Moday in the Regional Trial Court, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur; the complaint was later amended to include Zotico and Leonora Moday as defendants.

Trial Court Proceedings — Motion to Enter Possession and Ruling

On March 6, 1991, the Municipality filed a Motion to Take or Enter Upon the Possession of the Subject Matter, stating it had deposited with the municipal treasurer the necessary amount under Section 2, Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court and asserting it would be in the government's best interest to be allowed to take possession.
Petitioners opposed the motion. After a hearing on the merits, the Regional Trial Court granted the municipality's motion to take possession.
The trial court held that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's failure to declare the resolution invalid leaves it effective, and that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's duty was merely to review ordinances and resolutions under Section 208(1) of B.P. Blg. 337 (old Local Government Code).
The trial court added that the exercise of eminent domain is not one of the two acts enumerated in Section 19 (of the same Code) requiring the approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Dispositive portion of the July 2, 1991 Order: deposit of P632.39 (Official Receipt No. 5379647 on December 12, 1989) determined as provisional value; Motion to Take or Enter Upon Possession GRANTED; Sheriff ordered to place plaintiff in possession; hearing set for August 9, 1991 to ascertain just compensation or fair market value.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court on October 31, 1991.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court; the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on July 15, 1992.
The Court of Appeals held the public purpose for expropriation was clear from Resolution No. 43-89 and that since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan did not declare Resolution No. 43-89 invalid, expropriation could proceed.
The appellate court also denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on October 22, 1992.
The Court of Appeals observed that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's reason for disapproving the resolution "could be baseless, because it failed to point out which and where are 'those available lots.'"

Municipality’s Use of Subject Property and Subsequent Actions in Supreme Court

The Municipality erected three buildings on the subject property: Association of Barangay Councils (ABC) Hall (wooden), Municipal Motorpool (wooden), and Bunawan Municipal Gymnasium (concrete).
Petitioners filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court on November 23, 1992 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals decisions and declaration that Resolution No. 43-89 is null and void.
On December 8, 1993, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Judge Evangeline Yuipco from enforcing her July 2, 1991 Order and enjoining the municipality from using or occupying the buildings and from further construction on the land.
Acting on petitioners' Omnibus Motion for Enforcement of Restraining Order and for Contempt, the Court issued a Resolution on March 15, 1995 citing incumbent municipal mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo for contempt, ordering payment of fine and demolitio