Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
FOURTH DIVISION
MUNICIPALITY OF TAYTAY,
PALAWAN AND MAYOR EELYN
RODRI!UE",
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PU#ALTE E$TATE% PU#ALTE
LUM&ER COMPANY, ET' AL'
Defendant-Appellees.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 59623
Members:
COSICO, R.V., Chairman
ABDULWAHID H.!. and
"A#AG A.G. JJ.:
$r%mu&'()e*:
August 21, 2007
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
D E C I S I O N
TAYAG, A.G., J.:
Before this Court is an appealed case filed by the Municipality
of Taytay, Palawan and Mayor Evelyn V. Rodrigue !uestioning the
"rder of #is$issal
%
dated &' (ebruary %))* rendered by the Regional
Trial Court, Branch )+, Puerto Princesa City in Civil Case ,o. -*./
for E0propriation.
The dispositive portion of the said !uestioned "rder reads1 2
345ERE("RE, in view of all the foregoing
pre$ises, the Court hereby resolve to dis$iss this
E0propriation Proceedings for failure to co$ply with the
re!uire$ents set forth by the 6ocal 7overn$ent Code and
,
R%&&% --. ,.-,6
CA-G.R. CV NO. 59623 2 of 10
D E C I S I O N
by the %))8 Rules of Civil Procedure.
9" "R#ERE#.:
-
The pertinent provisions of law for the e0ercise of the power
of e$inent do$ain by the local govern$ents ;as in this case< is
9ection %) of Republic =ct 8%.& which provides that1 2
3= local govern$ent unit $ay, through its chief
e0ecutive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, e0ercise the
power of e$inent do$ain for public use, purpose or welfare
for the benefits of the poor and landless, upon pay$ent of >ust
co$pensation, pursuant to the provisions of the constitution
and pertinent laws? Provided however, that the power of
e$inent do$ain $ay not be e0ercised unless a valid and
definite offer has been previously $ade to the owner and such
offer was not accepted? Provided, further, that the local
govern$ent unit $ay i$$ediately ta@e possession of the
property upon the filing of the e0propriation proceedings and
upon $a@ing a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen
percent ;%+A< of the fair $ar@et value of the property based
on the current ta0 declaration of the property to be
e0propriated? Provided, finally, that the a$ount to be paid for
the e0propriated property shall be deter$ined by the proper
court, based on the fair $ar@et value at the ti$e of the ta@ing
of the property.:
2
R%&&% -. ,6
CA-G.R. CV NO. 59623 3 of 10
D E C I S I O N
,ot satisfied with the said "rder of #is$issal, plaintiffs2
appellants appealed the sa$e to this Court, raising in support
thereof the following alleged =ssign$ent of Errors.
/
I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THIS
CASE WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY HEARING.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT
NO OFFER TO BUY WAS MADE ON THE OWNER
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE EXPRORIATED
HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY DESCRIBED.
IV.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE
SEPARATE INTEREST OF EACH DEFENDANT IN
THE PROPERTY SOUGHT TO BE EXPROPRIATED
WAS NOT CLEARLY SHOWN.
=fter going over the Rollo and the pleadings
sub$itted by the contending parties, this Court finds
3
R%&&% -. 3/
CA-G.R. CV NO. 59623 4 of 10
D E C I S I O N
the instant =ppeal bereft of $erit.
9i$ply stated, the $ain issue to be resolved is whether or
not the trial court erred in dis$issing the Co$plaint for reasons
stated in the !uestioned "rder.
Bn resolving said issue, the trial court ratiocinated as follows1
3#efendants $oved to dis$iss this case on the
ground that the plaintiffs failed to co$ply with the
$andatory re!uire$ent provided in 9ection %) of R= 8%.&
otherwise @nown as the 6ocal 7overn$ent Code which
provides that1
3= local govern$ent unit $ay 000
e0ercise the power of e$inent do$ain 000
Provided however, that the power of e$inent
do$ain $ay not be e0ercised unless a valid
and definite offer has been previously $ade to
the owner and such offer was not accepted.:
They sub$it that the power of 6ocal 7overn$ent
Cnit to e0propriate as provided for under 9ec. %) cannot be
e0ercised unless a valid and definite offer has been
previously $ade to the owner, and such offer was not
accepted. (or the$, it is >urisdictional, and for failure to
co$ply with the above $andatory re!uire$ent, this case
will be dis$issed for lac@ of >urisdiction. Even assu$ing
that it is not, but only a condition sine !uo non, >ust the
sa$e, the present case $ust be dis$issed for being filed
pre$aturely.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 59623 5 of 10
D E C I S I O N
4e find the sa$e to be with $erit.
Dustice Bsagani =. Cru discussed in his
Constitutional 6aw Boo@ ;p. +), %))/ ed.< that where
private property is needed for conversion to so$e public
use, the first thing obviously that the govern$ent should
do is offer to buy it. Bf the owner is willing to sell and the
parties can agree on the price and the other conditions of
the sale, a voluntary transaction can then be concluded and
the transfer effected without the necessity of >udicial
action. E0propriation lies only when it is $ade necessary
by the opposition of the owner to sell or by lac@ of any
agree$ent as to the price ;,oble vs. City of Manila, .8 Phil.
%<.
Contrary to the aver$ent in the co$plaint and
a$ended co$plaint that Pu>alte Estate is an abandoned
property? the title of this case na$ed +&/ far$ers2
beneficiaries, Pu>alte Estate and Pu>alte 6u$ber as
defendants. Bt si$ply $eans that the aforena$ed estate is
not totally abandoned because at present, there are
occupants in so$e other portion of the estate which are
now herein defendants. The residence of each one of the$
are li@ewise stated in the =$ended Co$plaint. Bf plaintiffs
are really interested in $a@ing previous offer before
instituting this case, they can easily do that because all of
the defendants reside within the Municipality of Taytay,
Palawan. The records show however, that there was no
such effort ever $ade.
CA-G.R. CV NO. 59623 6 of 10
D E C I S I O N
(urther$ore, 9ec. %, Rule .8 of the %))8 Rules of
Civil procedure, provides that1
3The right of e$inent do$ain shall be
e0ercised by the filing of a verified co$plaint
which shall state with certainty the right and
purpose of e0propriation, describe the real and
personal property sought to be e0propriated,
and >oin as defendants all persons owning or
clai$ing to own, or occupying, any part
thereof or interest therein, showing, so far as
practicable the separate interest of each
defendant.: ;Cnderscoring supplied<
=fter careful analysis of the records of the case, the
Court finds that both the co$plaint and a$ended
co$plaint failed to co$ply with the re!uire$ents set forth
in the aforesaid provision of the law. The Court is at lost
which part of the total area of %,/&& hectares as alleged in
the co$plaint will be sub>ect for e0propriation because the
four hundred ;'&&< hectares portion of Pu>alte Estate
sought to be e0propriated has not been properly described.
There was no proper identification, no corresponding lot
nu$ber, no technical description or whatsoever ever stated
in the Co$plaint and =$ended Co$plaint. =side fro$
that, the separate interest of each defendant in the property
sought to be e0propriated was not clearly shown.:
'
#espite the e0istence of a legislative grant of the power of
e$inent do$ain in favor of local govern$ent, it is still the duty of
.
R%&&% --. ,5-,6
CA-G.R. CV NO. 59623 7 of 10
D E C I S I O N
the courts to deter$ine whether that power of e$inent do$ain is
being e0ercised in accordance with the delegating law. Bn fact, the
courts have adopted a $ore censorious attitude in resolving
!uestions involving the proper e0ercise of this delegated power by
local bodies as co$pared to instances when it is directly e0ercised
by the national legislative.
+

Bn e0propriation proceedings by local govern$ent units, the
courts have the obligation to deter$ine whether the following
re!uisites have been co$plied with, na$ely?
%. =n ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council
authoriing the local chief e0ecutive, in behalf of the local
govern$ent unit to e0ercise the power of e$inent do$ain or
pursue e0propriation proceedings over a particular private
property.
-. The power of e$inent do$ain is e0ercised for public use,
purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the
landless.
/. There is pay$ent of >ust co$pensation, as re!uired under
9ection ), =rticle BBB of the Constitution, and other pertinent
laws.
'. = valid and definite offer has been previously $ade to the
owner of the property sought to be e0propriated, but said
+
% 9CR= .') ;%).%<? City of Manila vs. Chinese Co$$unity of Manila
CA-G.R. CV NO. 59623 8 of 10
D E C I S I O N
offer was not accepted. ;Cnderscoring supplied for
e$phasis<
.
Bn the present case, the Municipality of Taytay, Palawan thru
its Mayor, the 5onorable Evelyn V. Rodrigue see@s to e0ercise
the power of e$inent do$ain without prior co$pliance of the
fourth re!uisite. The law in this case is clear and une!uivocal to
the effect that before the filing of an e0propriation proceedings, a
valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of
the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not
accepted.
This Court had thoroughly scrutinied the allegations of the
Co$plaint
8
as well as the a$ended Co$plaint
*
in this case but
nowhere did it find any allegation thereon that the fourth re!uisite
$entioned above had been co$plied with. ,either was this
re!uisite ever $entioned $uch less alleged by the plaintiffs2
appellants in any of their pleadings sub$itted before this Court as
well before the trial court. Bn effect, prior to the filing of this case
before the trial court, the plaintiffs should have $ade a valid and
definite offer to the owner or owners of the property sought to be
e0propriated, but said offer was not accepted. (or their failure to
co$ply with this re!uisite, 3the present case $ust be dis$issed
6
He0rs %1 A&ber)% !u'u0)(2 vs. C0)3 %1 M(2*(&u3%2'4 325 !CRA ,3/ 627778
/
Re9%r*s --. ,-39
5
Re9%r*s --. .7-.6
CA-G.R. CV NO. 59623 9 of 10
D E C I S I O N
for being filed pre$aturely:, as correctly pointed out by the trial
court in its "rder.
)
9uch being the case, there appears no further need to discuss
and resolve the other alleged assign$ent of errors raised in this
case.
(inding no reversible error in the assailed "rder, the sa$e
$ust be UPHE!.
"HE#E$%#E, pre$ises considered, the instant appeal is
hereby !&'(&''E! and the "rder of #is$issal dated &' (ebruary
%))* issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch )+, Puerto
Princesa City in civil Case ,o. -*./ is hereby )$$&#(E!.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO G. TAYAG
Ass%90()e :us)09e
WE CONCUR:
RODRIGO B. COSICO
Ass%90()e :us)09e
HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID
Ass%90()e :us)09e
9
R%&&% -. ,5 6Or*er %1 D0sm0ss(&8
CA-G.R. CV NO. 59623 10 of 10
D E C I S I O N
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
$ursu(2) )% Ar)09&e VIII !e9)0%2 ,3 %1 );e C%2s)0)u)0%2 0) 0s
;ereb3 9er)010e* );() );e 9%29&us0%2s 02 );e (b%ve *e90s0%2 <ere
re(9;e* 02 9%2su&)()0%2 be1%re );e 9(se <(s (ss0'2e* )% );e <r0)er
%1 );e %-020%2 %1 );e C%ur).
RODRIGO V. COSICO
Ass%90()e :us)09e
C;(0rm(2 =%ur); D0v0s0%2
AG".>7/