City of Manila vs. Te

CONSTI II TOPIC: Power of Eminent Domain
G.R. NO. 169263

City of Manila vs. Te DATE OF PROMULGATION: Sept. 21, 2011
PONENTE: Peralta, J.
FACTS
On March 15, 1998, then Manila City Mayor Joselito L. Atienza approved Ordinance No. 7951
authorizing him to acquire by negotiation or expropriation certain pieces of real property along Maria
Clara and Governor Forbes Streets where low-cost housing units could be built and then awarded to
bona fide residents therein. The covered property includes the 475-square-meter lot owned by
respondent Melba Tan Te. The City of Manila had instituted an expropriation case affecting the same
property. Respondent had moved for the dismissal of that first expropriation case for lack of cause of
action, lack of showing of an ordinance authorizing the expropriation, and non-compliance with the
provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing
Act of 1992. The trial court found merit in the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
On November 16, 2000, petitioner filed this second Complaint for expropriation before the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24. This time, it attached a copy of Ordinance No. 7951 and alleged that
pursuant thereto, it had previously offered to purchase the subject property from respondent.
Petitioner instituted the present expropriation proceedings after depositing in trust with the Land
Bank of the Philippines ₱1,000,000.00 cash, representing the just compensation required by law to be
paid to respondent.
Respondent did not file an answer and in lieu of that, she submitted a Motion to Dismiss and raised
the following grounds: that Ordinance No. 7951 was an invalid expropriation measure because it
violated the rule against taking private property without just compensation; that petitioner did not
comply with the requirements of Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279; and that she qualified as a small
property owner and, hence, exempt from the operation of R.A. No. 7279, the subject lot being the
only piece of realty that she owned.
ISSUE/S
W/N the dismissal of the case is premature?
RULING
YES. Expropriation is a two-pronged proceeding: first, the determination of the authority of the
plaintiff to exercise the power and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts which
terminates in an order of dismissal or an order of condemnation affirming the plaintiff's lawful right to
take the property for the public use or purpose described in the complaint and second, the
determination by the court of the just compensation for the property sought to be expropriated.
Expropriation proceedings are governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Under the Rules of Court of
1940 and 1964, where the defendant in an expropriation case conceded to the plaintiff’s right to
expropriate (or where the trial court affirms the existence of such right), the court-appointed
commissioners would then proceed to determine the just compensation to be paid. Otherwise, where
the defendant had objections to and defenses against the expropriation of his property, he was
required to file a single motion to dismiss containing all such objections and defenses.
This motion to dismiss was not covered by Rule 15 which governed ordinary motions, and was then
the required responsive pleading, taking the place of an answer, where the plaintiff’s right to
expropriate the defendant’s property could be put in issue. Any relevant and material fact could be
raised as a defense, such as that which would tend to show that the exercise of the power to
condemn was unauthorized, or that there was cause for not taking defendant’s property for the
purpose alleged in the petition, or that the purpose for the taking was not public in character. With
that, the hearing of the motion and the presentation of evidence would follow.
The issues raised by the petitioner are affirmative defenses that should be alleged in an answer, since
they require presentation of evidence aliunde. Section 3 of Rule 67 provides that "if a defendant has
any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection or defense to the
taking of his property," he should include them in his answer. Naturally, these issues will have to be
fully ventilated in a full-blown trial and hearing.
DOCTRINE
Expropriation is a two-pronged proceeding: first, the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to
exercise the power and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts which terminates in an
order of dismissal or an order of condemnation affirming the plaintiff's lawful right to take the
property for the public use or purpose described in the complaint and second, the determination by
the court of the just compensation for the property sought to be expropriated.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

City of Manila vs. Te

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Manila vs. Te

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Manila vs. Te

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTI II TOPIC: Power of Eminent Domain

G.R. NO. 169263

W/N the dismissal of the case is premature?

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

You might also like