Case Summary (G.R. No. 156684)
RTC Proceedings and Reconsideration
In January 2001, the RTC dismissed the petitioners’ certiorari and prohibition suit for lack of merit, holding that:
• Certiorari does not lie against legislative or policy acts of the City Council;
• Prohibition is unavailable because no judicial or quasi-judicial act had been committed.
On reconsideration (Feb. 19, 2002), the RTC reversed itself, declaring the resolution void for alleged lack of due process, absence of public hearing, and lack of public use.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s February 2002 order. It applied the presumption of regularity to the legislative resolution, ruled that due process did not require individual notice at every hearing, and held that public hearings, while helpful, are not indispensable to municipal lawmaking. It therefore reinstated Resolution No. 552.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether certiorari and prohibition were proper remedies to assail the resolution pre-implementation.
- Whether the validity of an expropriation authorization can be challenged before actual taking of possession.
Certiorari Is Inapplicable to Legislative Acts
Under Rule 65, certiorari issues only against acts “without or in excess of jurisdiction” by judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, where no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy exists. A city council’s resolution is a legislative act expressing policy sentiment, not a judicial or quasi-judicial act. It cannot be assailed by certiorari. Moreover, Section 19 of the Local Government Code mandates that expropriation must be initiated “pursuant to an ordinance,” not a resolution. Resolution No. 552 lacked the force required to commence expropriation proceedings and thus gave no cause of action.
Prohibition Is Unavailable Before Filing of Expropriation Complaint
Prohibition prevents tribunals or officers from exceeding jurisdiction in ongoing proceedings. No expropriation proceeding existed until the City filed a verified complaint under Rule
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 156684)
Facts
- Petitioners Spouses Antonio and Fe Yusay owned a single parcel of land (1,044 sqm) in Barangay Mauway, Mandaluyong City, half used as their residence and half rented to nine families.
- The land was allegedly their only property and sole source of income.
- On October 2, 1997, the Mandaluyong City Council adopted Resolution No. 552, Series of 1997, authorizing Mayor Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. to initiate expropriation proceedings for conversion into low-cost housing for the less privileged.
Resolution No. 552, Series of 1997
- Declared the City’s intent to expropriate the Yusays’ land to benefit financially hard-up families and implement social justice.
- Stated that negotiations to purchase the land had failed and expropriation would serve the public interest.
- Was adopted by a majority vote of the Sangguniang Panglungsod and attested by the Acting Sanggunian Secretary.
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the RTC (Branch 214, Mandaluyong) seeking annulment of Resolution No. 552 as unconstitutional and confiscatory.
- January 31, 2001: RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit, holding that certiorari and prohibition do not lie against legislative acts and the petition was premature.
- February 19, 2002: On reconsideration, RTC set aside its earlier decision and declared Resolution No. 552 null and void for lack of due process and public purpose.
- October 18, 2002: Court of Appeals reversed the R