Case Summary (G.R. No. 127820)
Procedural History
– Sept. 20, 1993: LGU files expropriation complaint based on Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95, Series of 1993.
– Jan. 10 & Feb. 4, 1994: RTC gives the complaint due course and authorizes immediate possession upon 15% deposit.
– Feb. 21, 1994: Respondent moves to dismiss (no ordinance; barred by res judicata).
– Aug. 9 & Dec. 2, 1994: RTC nullifies authorization order and dismisses the case; motions denied.
– July 22, 1996: CA affirms RTC decision in toto.
– July 20, 1998: SC denies petition for review on certiorari.
Issues
- Does a municipal council resolution satisfy the ordinance requirement under RA 7160 Sec. 19 for initiating expropriation?
- Is the present suit barred by res judicata given a prior expropriation case dismissed with prejudice?
Ordinance vs. Resolution Requirement
• RA 7160 Sec. 19 mandates that an LGU’s chief executive exercise eminent domain “acting pursuant to an ordinance.”
• A municipal ordinance is a general, permanent law approved on third reading; a resolution merely expresses council sentiment and is temporary.
• The former Local Government Code (BP 337 Sec. 9) permitted resolutions; RA 7160, effective Jan. 1, 1992, deliberately shifted to require an ordinance.
• Implementing Rules (Art. 36, Rule VI) conflict by allowing a resolution, but the statute controls over administrative rules.
• Petitioner’s belated claim of an October 11, 1994 ordinance was unproved and, even if existing, cannot cure the defect in the original complaint filed under a mere resolution.
Res Judicata and Eminent Domain
• All elements of res judicata exist: prior final judgment on the merits involving identical parties (and successors) and subject matter.
• However, eminent domain is an inherent State power and cannot be permanently foreclosed by prior judgments: the State may reassert expropriation after complying with all legal prerequisites.
• Res judicata only bars re-litigation of specific issues already adjudicated (e.g., lack of prio
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 127820)
Facts and Background
- Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95, Series of 1993, Municipality of Parañaque filed an expropriation complaint on September 20, 1993, against V.M. Realty Corporation.
- Subject properties: Lots 2-A-2 and 2-B-1 of Subdivision Plan Psd-17917, totaling about 10,000 sqm at Wakas, San Dionisio, Parañaque, covered by Torrens Title No. 48700.
- Stated purpose: alleviate underprivileged living conditions by providing socialized housing for the homeless.
- Prior attempt: under Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 577, Series of 1991, the Municipality offered a negotiated sale to V.M. Realty, which was not accepted.
Procedural History
- RTC Makati, Branch 134:
- January 10, 1994 Order: Complaint given due course.
- February 4, 1994 Order: Authorized taking possession upon deposit of 15% of fair market value.
- V.M. Realty’s Answer (February 21, 1994):
- Raised affirmative defenses and counterclaim: lack of ordinance (RA 7160 Sec. 19) and res judicata.
- Moved to dismiss.
- RTC Resolution (August 9, 1994): Vacated February 4 Order and dismissed the case for failure to state cause of action and due to res judicata. Subsequent motions for reconsideration and transfer of venue denied (December 2, 1994).
- Court of Appeals (July 22, 1996): Affirmed in toto the RTC Resolution; denied motion for reconsideration (January 8, 1997).
- Supreme Court: Petition for review on certiorari (G.R. No. 127820) filed by Municipality of Parañaque, decision promulgated July 20, 1998.
Issues
- Whether a municipal council resolution complies with the “ordinance” req