Scribd
Upload
73 views2 pages

Case 25 - Consti

The Municipality of Paranaque filed a complaint for expropriation against V.M. Realty Corporation over two parcels of land totaling around 10,000 square meters to build socialized housing for the homeless. The trial court initially authorized possession of the land, but later dismissed the case. The Supreme Court ruled that for an LGU to exercise eminent domain, it must pass an ordinance as required by law, not just a resolution. A resolution expresses opinion, while an ordinance is an actual law. The municipality's resolution did not meet the statutory requirement for properly exercising eminent domain.

Uploaded by

MeeJee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
73 views2 pages

Case 25 - Consti

The Municipality of Paranaque filed a complaint for expropriation against V.M. Realty Corporation over two parcels of land totaling around 10,000 square meters to build socialized housing for the homeless. The trial court initially authorized possession of the land, but later dismissed the case. The Supreme Court ruled that for an LGU to exercise eminent domain, it must pass an ordinance as required by law, not just a resolution. A resolution expresses opinion, while an ordinance is an actual law. The municipality's resolution did not meet the statutory requirement for properly exercising eminent domain.

Uploaded by

MeeJee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE: 27

MUNICIPALITY OF PARANAQUE VS V.M. REALTY CORP.


G.R. No 127820
July 20, 1998
FACTS:
Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95, Series of 1993, the
Municipality of Paranaque filed on September 20, 1993, a complaint for expropriation
against private respondent V.M. Realty Corporation, over two parcels of land (Lots 2-A-2
and 2-B-1 of Subdivision Plan Psd-17917), with a combined area of about 10,000 square
meters, located at Wakas, San Dionisio, Paranaque, Metro Manila, and covered by
Torrens certificate of Title No. 48700. Allegedly the complaint was filed for the purpose
of alleviating the living conditions of the underprivileged by providing homes for the
homeless through a socialized housing project.
Finding the complaint sufficient in form and substance, the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, issued an order giving it due course. Acting on petitioners motion said court
issued an Order dated February 4, 1994, authorizing petitioner to take possession of the
subject property upon deposit with its clerk of court of an amount equivalent to percent of
its fair market value based on its current tax declaration.
On February 21, 1994, private respondent filed its Answer containing affirmative
defenses and counterclaim. On private respondents motion, its answer was treated as a
motion to dismiss. Thereafter, the trial court issued its August 9, 1994 Resolution
nullifyung its February 4, 1994 order and dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals
affirmed in toto the trial courts decision. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the resolution of the Paranaque Municipal Council No. 93-95 is a
substantial compliance of the statutory requirement of Section 19, R.A. 7160 in the
exercise of the power of eminent domain by the plaintiff-appellant?
RULING:
The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of government,
which may delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, other public entities and public
utilities. An LGU may therefore exercise the power to expropriate private property only
when authorized by Congress and subject to the latters control and restraints imposed
through the law conferring the power or in other legislations. In this case, section 19 of
RA 7160, which delegates to LGUs the power of eminent domain, also lays down the
parameters for its exercise.
Thus the following essential requisites must concur before an LGU ca exercise the
power of eminent domain:

1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief
executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue
expropriation proceedings over a particular private property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or
for the benefit of the poor and the landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of
the constitution, and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property
sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.
A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a
resolution is merel a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a
specific matter. If Congress intended to allow LGUs to exercise eminent domain through
a mere resolution, it would have simply adopted the language of the previous Local
Government Code.

You might also like