PHILIPPINE COLUMBIAN ASSOCIATION VS PANIS

PHILIPPINE COLUMBIAN ASSOCIATION VS PANIS

FACTS:

This is an appeal by certiorari to review: (1) the decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by herein petitioner, assailing the orders of (a) respondent Judge Domingo D. Panis of the Regional Trial (branch 41) and respondent Judge Ricardo D. Diaz, of the Regional Trial Court (branch 27) and its Resolution dated July 30, 1992, which denied the motion for reconsideration of the decision.

Philippine Columbian Association, petitioner herein, is a non-stock, non-profit domestic corporation and is engaged in the business of providing sports and recreational facilities for its members. Petitioner's office and facilities are located in the District of Paco, Manila, and adjacent thereto, is a parcel of land consisting of 4,842.90 square meters owned by petitioner. Private respondents are the actual occupants of the said parcel of land, while respondents Antonio Gonzales, Jr. and Karlo Butiong were duly-elected councilors of the City of Manila.

In 1982, petitioner instituted ejectment proceedings against herein private respondents before the metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. Judgment was rendered against the said occupants, ordering them to vacate the lot and pay reasonable compensation therefor. This judgment was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals and subsequently by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 85262. . A writ of demolition was later prayed and likewise issued by the same court on May 30, 1990.

On June 28, 1990, the City of Manila filed a complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 90-53531 against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Manila, for the expropriation of the 4,842.90 square meter lot subject of the ejectment proceedings in Civil Case No. 90-53346. Petitioner, in turn, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging, inter alia, that the City of Manila had no power to expropriate private land; that the expropriation is not for public use and welfare; that the expropriation is politically motivated; and, that the deposit of P2 million in the City of Manila representing the provisional value of the land, was insufficient and was made under P.D. 1533, a law declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

In separate orders dated October 5 and 8, 1990, the court issued the writ of possession, and at the same time, denied petitioner's motion to defer compliance and motion for reconsideration. Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Manila, in Civil Case No. 90-53346 issued an order, granting the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by the private respondents. A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied. Petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a petition before the Court of Appeals for both branches. The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on November 31, 1992, denying the petition, and a Resolution on July 30, 1992, denying consideration thereof.

The land subject of this case is the 4,842.90 square meter lot, which was formerly a part of the Fabie Estate. As early as November 11, 1966, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila passed Ordinance No. 5971, seeking to expropriate the Fabie Estate. Through negotiated sales, the City of Manila acquired a total of 18,017.10 square meters of the estate, and thereafter subdivided the land into home lots and distributed the portions to the actual occupants thereof.

The remaining area of 4,842.90 square meters, more or less, was sold in 1977 by its owner, Dolores Fabie-Posadas, to petitioner. Since the time of the sale, the lot has been occupied by private respondents. On 23, 1989, the City Council of Manila, with the approval of the Mayor, passed Ordinance No. 7704 for the expropriation of the 4,842.90 square meter lot.

ISSUE: W/N (1) the City of Manila has no specific power to expropriate private property under the 1987 Constitution; and (2) assuming that it has such power, this was exercised improperly and illegally in violation of the Public use requirement and petitioner's right to due process.

RULING:

(1) The Revised Charter of the City of Manila expressly grants the City of Manila general powers over its territorial jurisdiction, including the power of eminent domain, thus:

General powers. — The city may have a common seal and alter the same at pleasure, and may take, purchase, receive, hold, lease, convey, and dispose of real and personal property for the general interest of the city, condemn private property for public use, contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, and prosecute and defend to final judgment and execution, and exercise all the powers hereinafter conferred (R.A. 409, Sec. 3; Emphasis supplied).

Sec. 100. The City of Manila is authorized to acquire private lands in the city and to subdivide the same into home lots for sale on easy terms for city residents, giving first priority to the bona fidetenants or occupants of said lands, and second priority to laborers and low-salaried employees. For the purpose of this section, the city may raise the necessary funds by appropriations of general funds, by securing loans or by issuing bonds, and, if necessary, may acquire the lands through expropriation proceedings in accordance with law, with the approval of the President.

The City of Manila, acting through its legislative branch, has the express power to acquire private lands in the city and subdivide these lands into home lots for sale to bona fide tenants or occupants thereof, and to laborers and low-salaried employees of the city. That only a few could actually benefit from the expropriation of the property does not diminish its public use character. It is simply not possible to provide all at once land and shelter for all who need them.

(2) Corollary to the expanded notion of public use, expropriation is not anymore confined to vast tracts of land and landed estates (Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals. It is therefore of no moment that the land sought to be expropriated in this case is less than half a hectare only.

Through the years, the public use requirement in eminent domain has evolved into a flexible concept, influenced by changing conditions. Public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including in particular, urban land reform and housing.

The amount of P2 million representing the provisional value of the land is an amount not only fixed by the court, but accepted by both parties.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.