Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Parañaque Vs VM Realty

    Uploaded by

    nhizza dawn Daligdig
    Parañaque vs VM Realty

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Parañaque Vs VM Realty

    Uploaded by

    nhizza dawn Daligdig
    18 views2 pages
    Parañaque vs VM Realty

    Original Title

    Parañaque vs VM Realty

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Parañaque vs VM Realty

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    18 views2 pages

    Parañaque Vs VM Realty

    Uploaded by

    nhizza dawn Daligdig
    Parañaque vs VM Realty

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Parañaque vs. V.M.

    Realty Corporation

    Facts:

    The Municipality of Parañaque filed on September 20, 1993, a Complaint for expropriation,
    pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95, Series of 1993, against private respondent
    V.M. Realty Corporation over two parcels of land located at Wakas, San Dionisio, Parañaque,
    Metro Manila. 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.

    Private respondent filed its Answer containing affirmative defenses and a counterclaim, alleging
    in the main that (a) the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant
    to a resolution and not to an ordinance as required by RA 7160 (the Local Government Code);
    and (b) the cause of action, if any, was barred by a prior judgment or res judicata.

    It turned out that the plaintiff had earlier filed a complaint for expropriation involving the same
    parcels of land which was docketed as Civil Case No. 17939. Said case was ealier dismissed with
    prejudice. The order of dismissal was not appealed, hence, the same became final. The RTC then
    dismissed the second complaint, which the CA affirmed upon appeal.

    Issues:

    1. WON the local government of Paranaque can validly exercise the power of eminent domain
    pursuant to a resolution and not an ordinance

    2. WON principle of res judicata is applicable to the present case

    Ruling:

    1. No. A local government unit (LGU), like the Municipality of Parañaque, cannot authorize an
    expropriation of private property through a mere resolution of its lawmaking body. The following
    essential requisites must concur before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain:

    a. 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.

    b. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit
    of the poor and the landless.

    c. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of the
    Constitution, and other pertinent laws.

    d. 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.

    In the case at bar, the local chief executive sought to exercise the power of eminent domain
    pursuant to a resolution of the municipal council. Thus, there was no compliance with the first
    requisite that the mayor be authorized through an ordinance because a resolution is different
    from an ordinance. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment
    or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and
    permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature.

    2. No. Although all the requisites for the application of res judicata are present in this case, the
    Court still holds that the principle of res judicata cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to
    expropriate private property. The very nature of eminent domain, as an inherent power of the
    State, dictates that the right to exercise the power be absolute and unfettered even by a prior
    judgment or res judicata.

    The State or its authorized agent may still subsequently exercise its right to expropriate the same
    property once all legal requirements are complied with. To rule otherwise will not only improperly
    diminish the power of eminent domain, but also clearly defeat social justice.

    You might also like