pubcorp.doc cases 5 , 40-47.doc

8/12/2019 pubcorp.doc cases 5 , 40-47.doc

1/9

CASE 5

LEAGUE OF CITIES v COMELEC

G.R. 178056, AUGUST 24, 2010

FACTS:

During the 11th Congress, 57 bills seeking the conversion of municipalities into component cities were filed

before the ouse of !epresentatives" owever, Congress acted onl# on $$ bills" %t did not act on bills converting &'other municipalities into cities" During the 1&th Congress, !"A" (o" )**) became effective revising Section '5* of

the +ocal overnment Code" %t increased the income re-uirement to -ualif# for conversion into a cit# from .&*

million annual income to .1** million locall#/generated income" %n the 1$th Congress, 10 of the &' municipalities

filed, through their respective sponsors, individual cit#hood bills" Each of the cit#hood bills contained a commonprovision eempting the particular municipalit# from the 1** million income re-uirement imposed b# !"A" (o"

)**)"

ISSUE:

Are the cit#hood laws converting 10 municipalities into cities constitutional2

RULING:

3A44S &',&*1*6//(o" he SC 3voting 7/06 granted the motions for reconsideration of the +eague of Citiesof the .hilippines 3+C.6, et al" and reinstated its (ovember 1, &** decision declaring unconstitutional the

Cit#hood +aws or !epublic Acts 3!As6 converting 10 municipalities into cities" 84ndeniabl#, the 0/0 vote did notoverrule the prior ma9orit# en banc Decision of 1 (ovember &**, as well as the prior ma9orit# en banc !esolution

of $1 :arch &**) den#ing reconsideration" he tie/vote on the second motion for reconsideration is not the same asa tie/vote on the main decision where there is no prior decision,; the Court said" %n the latest resolution, the Court

reiterated its (ovember 1, &** ruling that the Cit#hood +aws violate sec" 1*, Art" < of the Constitution whichepressl# provides that 8no cit#=shall be created=ecept in accordance with the criteria established in the local

government code"; %t stressed that while all the criteria for the creation of cities must be embodied eclusivel# in the

+ocal overnment Code, the assailed Cit#hood +aws provided an eemption from the increased income re-uirementfor the creation of cities under sec" '5* of the +C" 8he unconstitutionalit# of the Cit#hood +aws lies in the fact

that Congress provided an eemption contrar# to the epress language of the Constitution="Congress eceeded and

abused its law/making power, rendering the challenged Cit#hood +aws void for being violative of the Constitution,;the Court held" he Court further held that 8limiting the eemption onl# to the 10 municipalities violates the

re-uirement that the classification must appl# to all similarl# situated" :unicipalities with the same income as the 10respondent municipalities cannot convert into cities, while the 10 respondent municipalities can" Clearl#, as worded

the eemption provision found in the Cit#hood +aws, even if it were written in Section '5* of the +ocal overnmentCode, would still be unconstitutional for violation of the e-ual protection clause"; 3! (o" 170)51, +eague of Cities

of the .hilippines v" Comelec> ! (o" 177')), +eague of Cities of the .hilippines v" Comelec> ! (o" 17*50,+eague of Cities of the .hilippines v" Comelec, August &', &*1*6


2/9

CASE '*LAGCAO,vs. LABRA

G.R. No. 155746, October13,2004

FACTS:

he .rovince of Cebu donated &1* lots to the Cit# of Cebu" ?ut then, in late 1)05, the &1* lots,including +ot1*&), reverted to the .rovince of Cebu" Conse-uentl#, the province tried to annul the sale of +ot 1*&) b# the Cit# ofCebu to the petitioners" his prompted the latter to sue the province for specific performance and damages in the then

Court of @irst %nstance" he court a -uo ruled in favor of petitioners and ordered the .rovince of Cebu to eecute thefinal deed of sale in favor of petitioners" he Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court" After ac-uiring

title, petitioners tried to take possession of the lot onl# to discover that it was alread# occupied b# s-uatters" hus

petitioners instituted e9ectment proceedings against the s-uatters" he :unicipal rial Court in Cities 3:CC6

ordering the s-uatters to vacate the lot" n appeal, the !C affirmed the :CCBs decision and issued a writ ofeecution and order of demolition" owever, when the demolition order was about to be implemented, Cebu Cit#

:a#or Alvin arcia wrote two letters to the :CC, re-uesting the deferment of the demolition on the ground thatthe Cit# was still looking for a relocation site for the s-uatters" Acting on the ma#orBs re-uest, the :CC issued two

orders suspending the demolition" 4nfortunatel# for petitioners,during the suspension period, the Sangguniang.anlungsod 3S.6 of Cebu Cit# passed a resolution which identified +ot 1*&) as a socialied housing site pursuant to

!A 7&7)".etitioners filed with the !C an action for declaration of nullit# of rdinance (o"1'$ for beingunconstitutional"

"ISSUE:

( the rdinance (o" 1'$ is unconstitutional as it sanctions the epropriation of their propert# for the

purpose of selling it to the s-uatters, an endeavor contrar# to the concept of 8public use; contemplated in theConstitution"

RULING:

4nder Section ' of !A 710*, otherwise known as the +ocal overnment Code of 1))1, local legislative power

shall be eercised b# the Sangguniang .anlungsod of the cit#" he legislative acts of the Sangguniang .anlungsod in

the eercise of its lawmaking authorit# are denominated ordinances"+ocal government units have no inherent powerof eminent domain and can eercise it onl# when epressl# authoried b# the legislature" ?# virtue of !A 710*,

Congress conferred upon local government units the power to epropriate" rdinance (o" 1'$ which authoried the

epropriation of petitionersB lot was enacted b# the S. of Cebu Cit# to provide socialied housing for the homelessand low/income residents of theCit#" owever, while we recognie that housing is one of the most serious social

problems of the countr#, local government units do not possess unbridled authorit# to eercise their power ofeminent domain in seeking solutions to this problem" here are two legal provisions which limit the eercise of this

power 316 no person shall be deprived of life, libert#, or propert# without due process of law, nor shall an# person bedenied the e-ual protection of the laws> and 3&6 private propert# shall not be taken for public use without 9ust

compensation" hus, the eercise b# local government units of the power of eminent domain is not absolute" %n fact,Section 1) of !A 710* itself eplicitl# states that such eercise must compl# with the provisions of the Constitution

and pertinent laws"


3/9

CASE '1

JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION, INC., vs. MUNICIPALITY (now CITY) OF

PASIG, METRO MANILA,

G.R. No. 152230 August 9, 2005

FACTS:

he :unicipalit# of .asig needed an access road from E" !" Santos Street, a municipal road near the .asig

.ublic :arket, to ?aranga# Sto" omas ?ukid, .asig" he residents in the area needed the road for water and

electrical outlets" he municipalit# then decided to ac-uire 51 s-uare meters out of the 1,7)1/s-uare meter propert#of the Ching Cuancos which is abutting E" !" Santos Street" he Sangguniang ?a#an of .asig approved an rdinance

authoriing the municipal ma#or to initiate epropriation proceedings to ac-uire the said propert# and appropriate thefund therefor" he ordinance stated that the propert# owners were notified of the municipalit#Bs intent to purchase the

propert# for public use as an access road but the# re9ected the offer" he municipalit# filed a complaint, against theChing Cuancos for the epropriation of the propert# under Section 1) of the +ocal overnment Code" he plaintiff

alleged therein that it notified the defendants, b# letter, of its intention to construct an access road on a portion of thepropert# but the# refused to sell the same portion" he plaintiff deposited with the !C 15F of the market value of

the propert# based on the latest ta declaration covering the propert#" n plaintiffBs motion, the !C issued a writ ofpossession over the propert# sought to be epropriated" he plaintiff caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens

at the dorsal portion of C (o" ./)&57) under the name of the Gesus %s +ord Christian School @oundation,%ncorporated 3G%+CS@%6 which had purchased the propert#" .laintiff constructed therein a cemented road with called

Dama#an Street" G%+CS@% filed a motion for leave to intervene as defendant/in/intervention, which motion the !Cgranted" During trial, !olando ogonon, the plaintiffBs messenger, testified on direct eamination that on @ebruar#

&$, 1))$, he served a letter of Engr" Gose !e#es, the echnical Assistant to the :a#or on %nfrastructure, to +orenoChing Cuanco at his store" he plaintiff offered in evidence a photocop# of the letter of Engr" Gose !e#es addressed

to +oreno Ching Cuanco to prove that the plaintiff made a definite and valid offer to ac-uire the propert# to the co/owners" owever, the !C re9ected the same letter for being a mere photocop#"

ISSUES:

1" ( the respondent complied with the re-uirement, under Section 1) of the +ocal overnment Code,

of a valid and definite offer to ac-uire the propert# prior to the filing of the complaint&" ( propert# which is alread# intended to be used for public purposes ma# still be epropriated b# the

respondent

RULING:

1" (, he respondent was burdened to prove the mandator# re-uirement of a valid and definite offer 3Art $5%!! of +C6 to the owner of the propert# before filing its complaint and the re9ection thereof b# the latter" %t is

incumbent upon the condemnor to ehaust all reasonable efforts to obtain the land it desires b# agreement" @ailure toprove compliance with the mandator# re-uirement will result in the dismissal of the complaint" An offer is a

unilateral proposition which one part# makes to the other for the celebration of a contract" %t creates a power ofacceptance permitting the offeree, b# accepting the offer, to transform the offerorBs promise into a contractual

obligation" he offer must be complete, indicating with sufficient clearness the kind of contract intended anddefinitel# stating the essential conditions of the proposed contract" An offer would re-uire, among other things, a

clear certaint# on both the ob9ect and the cause or consideration of the envisioned contract" he respondent failed toprove that before it filed its complaint, it made a written definite and valid offer to ac-uire the propert# for public use

as an access road" / Even if the letter was, indeed, received b# the co/owners, the letter is not a valid and definiteoffer to purchase a specific portion of the propert# for a price certain" %t is merel# an invitation for onl# one of the

co/owners, +oreno Ching Cuanco, to a conference to discuss the pro9ect and the price that ma# be mutuall#

acceptable to both parties"

&" HES, Court re9ected the contention of the petitioner that its propert# can no longer be epropriated b# the

respondent because it is intended for the construction of a place for religious worship and a school for its members"

Jug!e"t# $et%t%o" gr&"te.


4/9

CASE '& BRGY MATICTIC S. JUDGE ELBINIASAND SPS SERAPIO

G.R. No. '(48769 , )ebru&r* 27, 1987

FACTS:

?arrio :atictic filed with C@% ?ulacan an action for in9unction against the Sps Serapio to en9oin thelatter f r o m p l a c i n g o b s t r u c t i o n s a n d c l o s i n g t h e t h e .oblacion/omana/Can#akan barrio roadand to allow plaintiff barrio to remove the obstructions and repair the barrio road so as to enable convenient

pa ss age thr ou gh it " +a ter , ?a rr io :a tict ic fi led :D on the g r o u n d t h a t a n e p r o p r i a t i o np r o c e e d i n g , n o t a n i n 9 u n c t i o n , i s t h e b e t t e r r e m e d #" G u d g e e r a l d e granted the motion"/

owever, a complaint for Eminent Domain involving the same prope rt# was file d b# the :unic ipal it#

of (oragara# with the same court" he defendants filed :D alleging lack of sub9ect/matter 9urisdiction, lack

of cause of act ion and pla int iff mun ici pal it#Bs lac k of capacit# to sue" heir principal contention is that thepl ai nt iff munici pal it#, in th e abs enc e of an ap pr ova l from the ffice of the .resident, ma# not properl# file

the sub9ect epropriation case"/he munic ipal it# later file d an amended compl aint alleging that it hadobtained authorit# from the ffice of the .resident to institute epropriation proceedings" Defendants filed their

:D anew, arguing on plaintiffIs lack of cause of action and asserting that a subse-uent authoriation would n o tc u r e t h e 9 u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t a t t a c h i ng t o t he p l a i n t i f f I s complaint when the sub9ect case

was initiall# filed"/he court ordered the plaintiff municipalit# to submit plans of the land to be epropriated, dul#approved b# the ?ureau of +ands" @or failure to compl# with thisorder, the case was dismissed for failure

to prosecute"/4pon appeal, CA ordered C@% ?ulacan to proceed with the epropriation case pursuant to !ule07 "$ of th e !ules of Court" At this point however, the (oragara# ma#or displa#ed reluctance to prosecute the

case" %nfact, he re-uested the :unicipal Council to withdraw the epropriation proceedings" he :unicipalCounc i l ,however , r e fused to accede to the w ishes of thema#or " /?rg# :at ic t i c , chagr ined

and confronted b# theat t i tude of i ts ma#or , f i led a :otion for %ntervent ion grounded on i tsav erm en t th at th e res ul t of th e epropria tion case wil l great l# af fect the socia l and economic

devel opmen t of the area" his motio n was noted b# C@% ?ulacanBs Gudge Elbinias"/ithou t taki ng an#further action o n the motion for i n t e r v e n t i o n , G u d g e E l b i n i a s i s s u e d a n o r d e r

dismissing, without pre9udice, the epropriation case,o n t h e s i n g u l a r r e a s o n t h a t a t t h et i m e t h e epropriation case was initi all # f il ed there was no s h o w i ng o f a n # pri or

.residential approval J a re-uisite that should have been first complied with, pursuant to Section &&'5 of

the !evised Administrative Code" .lainti ff municipalit #Bs :@! was denied" %t no longer appealed"/?aranga# :atictic filed this petition for certiorari and ma n d a mu s, p ra #i n g fo r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a wr i t

o f mandamus to com pel the low er cou rt to all ow and admit the petitionerIs complaint in intervention"

ISSUE:

( mandamus lies"3 ( t h e c o m p l a i n t i n i n t e r v e n t i o n s h o u l d b e admitted62

RULING:

(, . r o p e r p a r t # t o a p p e a l o r s e e k a r e v i e w o f t h e di sm is sa l of the e pr op ri at ion

pr oce ed ing s would be the :unicipalit# of (oragara#" ?arrio :atictic, which is a different political entit#, andalthough a part and p a r c e l o f t h e a f o r e s a i d m u n i c i p a l i t # , h a s n o l e g a l p e r s o n a l i t # t o

- u e s t i o n t h e a f o r e s t a t e d o r d e r s b e c a u s e b # i t s e l f , i t m a # n o t c o n t i n u et h e e pro pri at io n cas e" Sin ce t he mu ni ci pali t# di d no t a p p e a l , t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e

e pr op ri at i on ca se became final and there is no more proceeding wherein ? a ra n ga # :a t ic ti c ma #p o s s i b l # i n t e r v e n e " h e di smi ss al of th e e pr op ri at ion cas e ha s no les s the i n h e r e n t e f f e c t o f

a l s o d i s m i s s i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n w h i c h i s b u t t h e u n a v o i d a b l econse-uence" (othing is lost to the petitioner" %f at all petitioner can rightfull# establish that it is allowed b# law to

institute a separate and independent action of its own, then there would be no necessit# for it to intervene inthe case initiated b# the :unicipalit# of (oragara# which is now appar entl # no longer inte reste d in

continuing the epropriation proceedings" he dismissal of the epropriation case was without

p r e 9 u d i c e " h e muni ci pa li t# of (or agara #, ?u lac an can re vi ve its action" here is no need for theproposed intervention of ? a r r i o : a t i c t i c " h a t i t m a # d o i s t o u rg e t h e municipalit# to file its case

anew" %f the ?aranga# has obtai ned authorit # for itsel f to pursu e the ac tion of emine nt d omain , th en t he

more reason there is to refuse its intervention" .etition denied for lack of merit"


5/9

CASE '$

DE LA PA! MASI"IP S CITY OF PASIG

G.R. No. 136349 J&"u&r* 23, 2006

FACTS:

.etitioner +ourdes Dela .a :asikip is the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of ',5&1 s-uaremeters located at .ag/Asa, Caniogan, .asig Cit#, :etro :anila" he then :unicipalit# of .asig, now Cit# of

.asig, respondent, notified petitioner of its intention to epropriatea 1,5** s-uare meter portion of her propert# to beused for the sports development and recreational activitiesof the residents of ?aranga# Caniogan" his was pursuant

to rdinance (o" '&, Series of 1))$ enacted b# the then Sangguniang ?a#anof .asig"Again, respondent wroteanother letter to petitioner, but this time the purpose was allegedl# in line with the program of the :unicipal

overnmentto provide land opportunities to deserving poor sectors of our communit#" .etitioner sent a repl# torespondent stating that the intended epropriation of her propert# is unconstitutional, invalid, and oppressive, as the

area of her lot is neither sufficient nor suitable to provide land opportunities to deserving poor sectors of ourcommunit#" !espondent filed with the trial court a complaint for epropriation and petitioner filed a :otion to

Dismissthe complaint alleging that plaintiff has no cause of action for the eercise of the power of eminent domainconsidering that 316 there is no genuine necessit# for the taking of the propert# sought to be epropriated> and 3&6

plaintiff has arbitraril# and capriciousl# chosen the propert# sought to be epropriated" he trial court issued an

rder den#ing the :otion to Dismiss, on the ground that there is a genuine necessit# to epropriate the propert# forthe sports and recreational activities of the residents of .asig" he Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trialcourt" ence, this petition"

ISSUE

hether or not there is a genuine necessit# for the taking of the propert# of petitioner"

RULING:

he Supreme Court held that respondent Cit# of .asig has failed to establish that there is a genuine necessit# to

epropriate petitionerBs propert#" he records show that the Certification issued b# the Caniogan ?aranga# Councilthe basis for the passage of rdinance (o" '& s" 1))$ authoriing the epropriation, indicates that the intended

beneficiar# is the :elendres Compound omeowners Association,a private, nonprofit organiation, not the residentsof Caniogan" %t can be gleaned that the members of the said Association are desirous of having their own private

pla#ground and recreational facilit#" .etitionerBs lot is the nearest vacant space available" he purpose is, therefore,

not clearl# and categoricall# public" he necessit# has not been shown, especiall# considering that there eists analternative facilit# for sports development and communit# recreation in the area, which is the !ainforest .ark,

available to all residents of .asig Cit#, including those of Caniogan" herefore, the petition for review was ranted"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petitionerhttp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=14.5872222222,121.061111111&spn=0.1,0.1&q=14.5872222222,121.061111111%20(Pasig)&t=hhttp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=14.5872222222,121.061111111&spn=0.1,0.1&q=14.5872222222,121.061111111%20(Pasig)&t=hhttp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=14.5833333333,121.0&spn=1.0,1.0&q=14.5833333333,121.0%20(Metro%20Manila)&t=hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangguniang_Bayanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangguniang_Bayanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(legal)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(legal)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_associationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_associationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petitionerhttp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=14.5872222222,121.061111111&spn=0.1,0.1&q=14.5872222222,121.061111111%20(Pasig)&t=hhttp://maps.google.com/maps?ll=14.5833333333,121.0&spn=1.0,1.0&q=14.5833333333,121.0%20(Metro%20Manila)&t=hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domainhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangguniang_Bayanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_governmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(legal)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_(legal)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association


6/9

CASE ''

EP!A vs. DULAY

G.R. No. '(59603 A+r% 29, 1987

FACTS:

he four parcels of land which are the sub9ect of this case is where the :actan Eport .rocessing KoneAuthorit# in Cebu 3E.KA6 is to be constructed" .rivate respondent San Antonio Development Corporation 3San

Antonio, for brevit#6, in which these lands are registered under, claimed that the lands were epropriated to thegovernment without them reaching the agreement as to the compensation" !espondent Gudge Dula# then issued an

order for the appointment of the commissioners to determine the 9ust compensation" %t was later found out that thepa#ment of the government to San Antonio would be .15 per s-uare meter, which was ob9ected to b# the latter

contending that under .D 15$$, the basis of 9ust compensation shall be fair and according to the fair market value

declared b# the owner of the propert# sought to be epropriated, or b# the assessor, whichever is lower" Suchob9ection and the subse-uent :otion for !econsideration were denied and hearing was set for the reception of the

commissionerBs report" E.KA then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus en9oining the respondent from

further hearing the case"

ISSUE:

hether or (ot the eclusive and mandator# mode of determining 9ust compensation in .D 15$$ is

unconstitutional"

RULING:

he Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determination of 9ust compensation in .D 15$$ is unconstitutional"

he method of ascertaining 9ust compensation constitutes impermissible encroachment to 9udicial prerogatives" %ttends to render the courts inutile in a matter in which under the Constitution is reserved to it for financial

determination" he valuation in the decree ma# onl# serve as guiding principle or one of the factors in determining

9ust compensation, but it ma# not substitute the courtBs own 9udgment as to what amount should be awarded and howto arrive at such amount" he determination of 9ust compensation is a 9udicial function" he eecutive department orthe legislature ma# make the initial determination but when a part# claims a violation of the guarantee in the ?ill of

!ights that the private part# ma# not be taken for public use without 9ust compensation, no statute, decree, or

eecutive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the courtBs findings" :uch less can thecourts be precluded from looking into the 9ustness of the decreed compensation"

CASE '5


7/9

PROINCE OF CAMARINES SUR vs. CA

G.R. 103125 -&* 17, 1993

FACTS:

n December &&, 1), the Sangguniang .anlalawigan of the .rovince of Camarines Sur passed a !esolution

authoriing the .rovincial overnor to purchase or epropriate propert# contiguous to the provincial Capitol site, inorder to establish a pilot farm for non/food and non/traditional agricultural crops and a housing pro9ect for provincialgovernment emplo#ees .ursuant to the !esolution, the .rovince of Camarines Sur, through its overnor, filed two

separate cases for epropriation against Ernesto (" San Goa-uin and Efren (" San Goa-uin, at the !egional rialCourt, .ili, Camarines Sur" he San Goa-uins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inade-uac# of the

price offered for their propert#" %n an order, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and authoried the .rovince

of Camarines Sur to take possession of the propert# upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court the amount

provisionall# fied b# the trial court to answer for damages that private respondents ma# suffer in the event that theepropriation cases do not prosper" San Goa-uins filed a motion for relief from the order, authoriing the .rovince

of Camarines Sur to take possession of their propert# and a motion to admit an amended motion to dismiss" ?othmotions were denied in the order dated @ebuar# &0, 1))*" %n teir petition before the Court of Appeals, the San

Goa-uins asked 3a6 that !esolution of the Sangguniang .anlalawigan be declared null and void> 3b6 that thecomplaints for epropriation be dismissed> and 3c6 that the order den#ing the motion to dismiss and allowing the

.rovince of Camarines Sur to take possession of the propert# sub9ect of the epropriation and the order dated@ebruar# &0, 1))*, den#ing the motion to admit the amended motion to dismiss, be set aside" he# also asked that an

order be issued to restrain the trial court from enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter to issue a writ ofin9unction"

Asked b# the Court of Appeals to give his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor eneral stated that under Section )of the +ocal overnment Code 3?"." ?lg" $$76, there was no need for the approval b# the ffice of the .resident of

the eercise b# the Sangguniang .anlalawigan of the right of eminent domain" owever, the Solicitor eneralepressed the view that the .rovince of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian

!eform of the plan to epropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing pro9ect"he Court of Appeals set aside

the order of the trial court, allowing the .rovince of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondentsI landsand the order den#ing the admission of the amended motion to dismiss" %t also ordered the trial court to suspend the

epropriation proceedings until after the .rovince of Camarines Sur shall have submitted the re-uisite approval of

the Department of Agrarian !eform to convert the classification of the propert# of the private respondents from

agricultural to non/agricultural land"

ISSUE:

( the .rovince of Cam Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian !eform of the planto epropriate the lands of the San Goa-uins"

RULING:

o sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer epropriate

agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc", without first appl#ing forconversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian !eform, because all of these pro9ects wouldnaturall# involve a change in the land use" %n effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian !eform to

scrutinie whether the epropriation is for a public purpose or public use"

CASE '0


8/9

MUNICIPALITY OF PARANA#UE vs. .M. REALTY

G.R. No. 127820. Ju* 20, 1998

FACTS:

4nder a cit# council resolution, the :unicipalit# of .araLa-ue filed on September &*, 1))$, a Complaint forepropriation against .rivate !espondent M":" !ealt# Corporation over two parcels of land of 1*,*** s-uare meters"he cit# previousl# negotiated for the sale of the propert# but M: didnBt accept"he trial court issued an rder dated

@ebruar# ', 1))', authoriing petitioner to take possession of the sub9ect propert# upon deposit with its clerk of courtof an amount e-uivalent to 15 percent of its fair market value based on its current ta declaration"

According to the respondent, the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant to aresolution and not to an ordinance as re-uired b# !A 710* 3the +ocal overnment Code6> and 3b6 the cause of action,

if an#, was barred b# a prior 9udgment or res 9udicata" .etitioner claimed that res 9udicata was not applicable"

he trial court dismissed the case" he petitionerBs :@! was denied" he CA affirmed"

ISSUES:

1" ( a resolution dul# approved b# the municipal council has the same force and effect of an ordinance and

will not deprive an epropriation case of a valid cause of action"

&" ( the principle of res 9udicata as a ground for dismissal of case is not applicable when public

RULING:

(o to 1st Hes to &nd" .etition dismissed"

CASE '7


9/9

CHAE! vs. PEA$AMARI

G.R. No. 133250, Noe!ber 11, 2003

FACTS:

his petition asked the Court to legitimie a government contract that conve#ed toa private entit# 157"'

hectares of reclaimed public lands along !oas ?oulevard in :etro :anila at the negotiated price of .1,&** pers-uare meter" owever,published reports place the market price of land near that area at that time at a high of.)*,*** per s-uare meter" he difference in price is a staggering .1'*"10billion, e-uivalent to the budget of the

entire Gudiciar# for seventeen #ears and more than three times the :arcos Swiss deposits that this Court forfeited infavor of the government" .ublic Estates Authorit# 3.EA6, under the GMA, obligated itself to conve# title and

possession over the .ropert#, consisting of approimatel# ne :illion @ive undred Sevent# Eight housand @our

undred @ort# ne 31,57,''16 S-uare :eters for a total consideration of ne ?illion Eight undred (inet# @our

:illion ne undred went# (ine housand wo undred 3.1,)',1&),&**"**6 .esos, or a price of ne housandwo undred 3.1,&**"**6 .esos per s-uare meter"

ISSUE:

hether or not stipulations in the Amended GMA for the transfer to A:A!% of lands,reclaimed or to be

reclaimed on portions of :anila ?a#, violate the Constitution2

RULING:

Submerged lands, like the waters 3sea or ba#6 above them, are part of the StateBsinalienable natural resources"Submerged lands are propert# of public dominion,absolutel# inalienable and outside the commerce of man" his is

also true withrespect to foreshore lands" An# sale of submerged or foreshore lands is void beingcontrar# to theConstitution as it violates Section &, Article

pubcorp.doc cases 5 , 40-47.doc

Documents

Transcript of pubcorp.doc cases 5 , 40-47.doc