G.R. No.

153974 August 7, 2006

MIGUEL BELUSO, NATIVIA BELUSO, !ERO BELUSO, ANGELITA BELUSO, RAMON BELUSO, "#$
AMAA ANIEL, su%st&tut'$ %( )'* )'&*s *'+*'s'#t'$ %( TERESITA ARROBANG, Petitioners,
vs.
T,E MUNI-I!ALIT. O/ !ANA. 0-A!I12, *'+*'s'#t'$ %( &ts M"(o*, VI-ENTE B. BERME3O, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
AUSTRIA4MARTINE1, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review questioning the Decision 1 of the Court of ppea!s "C# dated $arch %&, %&&% in
C'(.R. SP No. )*&+%, as we!! the Reso!ution 2 dated ,une --, %&&% den.ing petitioners/ $otion for Reconsideration
thereof.
0he facts are as fo!!ows1
Petitioners are owners of parce!s of !and with a tota! area of a2out %&,)%) square 3eters, covered 2. 4ree Patent Nos. *%5+,
*%55, *%5*, *%56, *%57, and *%*&. 3 On Nove32er 6, -77+, the Sangguniang Bayan of the $unicipa!it. of Pana. issued
Reso!ution No. 7+'%7 authori8ing the 3unicipa! govern3ent through the 3a.or to initiate e9propriation proceedings. 4
petition for e9propriation was thereafter fi!ed on pri! -), -77* 2. the $unicipa!it. of Pana. "respondent# 2efore the
Regiona! 0ria! Court "R0C#, Branch -6 of Ro9as Cit., doc:eted as Civi! Case No. ;'57+6. 5
Petitioners fi!ed a $otion to Dis3iss a!!eging that the ta:ing is not for pu2!ic use 2ut on!. for the 2enefit of certain
individua!s< that it is po!itica!!. 3otivated 2ecause petitioners voted against the incu32ent 3a.or and vice'3a.or< and that
so3e of the supposed 2eneficiaries of the !and sought to 2e e9propriated have not actua!!. signed a petition as:ing for the
propert. 2ut their signatures were forged or the. were 3is!ed into signing the sa3e. 6
On ,u!. =-, -77*, the tria! court denied petitioners/ $otion to Dis3iss and dec!ared that the e9propriation in this case is for
>pu2!ic use> and the respondent has the !awfu! right to ta:e the propert. upon pa.3ent of ?ust co3pensation. 7
Petitioners fi!ed an nswer on ugust -%, -77* reasserting the issues the. raised in their $otion to Dis3iss. 8
On Octo2er -, -77*, the tria! court issued an Order appointing three persons as Co33issioners to ascertain the a3ount of
?ust co3pensation for the propert.. 9 Petitioners fi!ed a >$otion to @o!d in 2e.ance the @earing of the Court ppointed
Co33issioners to Deter3ine ,ust Co3pensation and for C!arification of the Court/s Order dated Octo2er -, -77*> which
was denied 2. the tria! court on Nove32er =, -77*. 10 Petitioners/ $otion for Reconsideration was a!so denied on
Dece32er 7, -77*. 11
Petitioners then fi!ed on $arch %, -776 a Petition for Certiorari 2efore the C c!ai3ing that the. were denied due process
when the tria! court dec!ared that the ta:ing was for pu2!ic purpose without receiving evidence on petitioners/ c!ai3 that the
$a.or of Pana. was 3otivated 2. po!itics in e9propriating their propert. and in den.ing their $otion to @o!d in 2e.ance
the @earing of the Court ppointed Co33issioners< and that the tria! court a!so co33itted grave a2use of discretion when
it disregarded the affidavits of persons den.ing that the. signed a petition addressed to the 3unicipa! govern3ent of
Pana.. 12 On ,anuar. -*, %&&-, petitioners fi!ed a $otion to d3it ttached $e3orandu3 and the $e3orandu3 itse!f
where the. argued that 2ased on the Petition for E9propriation fi!ed 2. respondent, such e9propriation was 2ased on!. on a
reso!ution and not on an ordinance contrar. to Sec. -7 of Repu2!ic ct "R..# No. *-5&< there was a!so no va!id and definite
offer to 2u. the propert. as the price offered 2. respondent to the petitioners was ver. !ow. 13
On $arch %&, %&&%, the C rendered its Decision dis3issing the Petition for Certiorari. It he!d that the petitioners were not
denied due process as the. were a2!e to fi!e an answer to the co3p!aint and were a2!e to adduce their defenses therein< and
that the purpose of the ta:ing in this case constitutes >pu2!ic use>. 14 Petitioners fi!ed a $otion for Reconsideration which
was denied on ,une --, %&&%. 15
0hus, the present petition c!ai3ing that1
. RESPONDEN0 IS AI0@OB0, CCDS ND DOES NO0 @;E 0@E CA4BC POAER 0O CEBIRE NF OR
CC O4 0@E SBB,EC0 PROPER0IES 0@ROB(@ E$INEN0 DO$IN, I0 BEIN( EGERCISED BF $ENS O4
$ERE RESOCB0ION, ND NO0 0@ROB(@ N ORDINNCE S REEBIRED BF CA ND PPCICBCE
,BRISPRBDENCE<
B. RESPONDEN0 IS CIDEAISE AI0@OB0, CCDS ND DOES NO0 @;E 0@E CA4BC POAER 0O CEBIRE
NF OR CC O4 0@E SBB,EC0 PROPER0IES 0@ROB(@ E$INEN0 DO$IN, I0S PRE;IOBS O44ER 0O BBF
0@E$ BEIN( NO0 ;CID< and
C. I0 AS SERIOBS ERROR ON 0@E PR0 O4 0@E @ONORBCE COBR0 O4 PPECS NO0 0O DISCBSS,
$BC@ CESS RBCE ON, BO0@ IN I0S EBES0IONED DECISION ND I0S RESOCB0ION PRO$BC(0ED ON --
,BNE %&&% PE0I0IONERS/ R(B$EN0S 0@0 RESPONDEN0 IS AI0@OB0, CCDS ND DOES NO0 @;E 0@E
CA4BC POAER 0O CEBIRE NF OR CC O4 0@E SBB,EC0 PROPER0IES 0@ROB(@ E$INEN0 DO$IN,
I0 BEIN( EGERCISED BF $ENS O4 $ERE RESOCB0ION, ND NO0 0@ROB(@ N ORDINNCE S
REEBIRED BF CA ND PPCICBCE ,BRISPRBDENCE, ND I0S PRE;IOBS O44ER 0O BBF 0@E$ BEIN(
NO0 ;CID, DESPI0E 0@E 4C0 0@0 0@ESE OB,EC0IONS AERE PROPERCF PCEDED IN PE0I0IONERS/
$E$ORNDB$ A@IC@ AS DBCF D$I00ED IN I0S RESOCB0ION PRO$BC(0ED ON %7 ,NBRF %&&-<
and
D. PE0I0IONERS AERE B00ERCF DENIED PROCEDBRC DBE PROCESS O4 CA BF 0@E COBR0 A QUO,
A@EN I0 SI$PCF DECCRED IN I0S ORDER D0ED =- ,BCF -77* 0@0 0@E 0DIN( BF RESPONDEN0 O4
PE0I0IONERS/ PROPER0IES IS PBRPOR0EDCF 4OR PBBCIC PBRPOSE AI0@OB0 RECEI;IN( E;IDENCE ON
0@EIR SSER0ED CCI$ 0@0 RESPONDEN0/S $BNICIPC $FOR AS POCI0ICCCF $O0I;0ED IN
SEEDIN( 0@E EGPROPRI0ION O4 0@EIR PROPER0IES ND NO0 4OR PBBCIC PBRPOSE. 16
Petitioners argue that1 contrar. to Sec. -7 of R.. No. *-5& of the Coca! (overn3ent Code, which provides that a !oca!
govern3ent 3a. e9ercise the power of e3inent do3ain on!. 2. >ordinance,> respondent/s e9propriation in this case is
2ased 3ere!. on a >reso!ution>< whi!e o2?ection on this ground was neither raised 2. petitioners in their $otion to Dis3iss
nor in their nswer, such o2?ection 3a. sti!! 2e considered 2. this Court since the fact upon which it is 2ased is apparent
fro3 the petition for e9propriation itse!f< a defense 3a. 2e favora2!. considered even if not raised in an appropriate
p!eading so !ong as the facts upon which it is 2ased are undisputed< courts have a!so adopted a 3ore censorious attitude in
reso!ving questions invo!ving the proper e9ercise of !oca! 2odies of the de!egated power of e9propriation, as co3pared to
instances when it is direct!. e9ercised 2. the nationa! !egis!ature< respondent fai!ed to give, prior to the petition for
e9propriation, a previous va!id and definite offer to petitioners as the a3ount offered in this case was on!. P-&.&& per square
3eter, when the properties are residentia! in nature and co33and a 3uch higher price< the C fai!ed to discuss and ru!e
upon the argu3ents raised 2. petitioners in their $e3orandu3< attached to the $otion to Dis3iss were affidavits and death
certificates showing that there were peop!e whose na3es were in the supposed petition as:ing respondent for !and, 2ut who
did not actua!!. sign the sa3e, thus showing that the present e9propriation was not for a pu2!ic purpose 2ut was 3ere!.
po!itica!!. 3otivated< considering the conf!icting c!ai3s regarding the purpose for which the properties are 2eing
e9propriated and inas3uch as said issue 3a. not 2e rightfu!!. ru!ed upon 3ere!. on the 2asis of petitioners/ $otion to
Dis3iss and nswer as we!! as respondent/s Petition for E9propriation, what shou!d have 2een done was for the R0C to
conduct hearing where each part. is given a3p!e opportunit. to prove its c!ai3. 17
Respondent for its part contends that its power to acquire private propert. for pu2!ic use upon pa.3ent of ?ust co3pensation
was correct!. uphe!d 2. the tria! court< that the C was correct in finding that the petitioners were not denied due process,
even though no hearing was conducted in the tria! court, as petitioners were sti!! a2!e to adduce their o2?ections and defenses
therein< and that petitioners/ argu3ents have 2een passed upon 2. 2oth the tria! court and the C and were a!! denied for
!ac: of su2stantia! 3erit. 18
Respondent fi!ed a $e3orandu3 quoting at !ength the decision of the C to support its position. 19 Petitioners 3eanwhi!e
opted to have the case reso!ved 2ased on the p!eadings a!read. fi!ed. 20
Ae find the petition to 2e i3pressed with 3erit.
E3inent do3ain, which is the power of a sovereign state to appropriate private propert. to particu!ar uses to pro3ote pu2!ic
we!fare, is essentia!!. !odged in the !egis!ature. 21 Ahi!e such power 3a. 2e va!id!. de!egated to !oca! govern3ent units
"C(Bs#, other pu2!ic entities and pu2!ic uti!ities the e9ercise of such power 2. the de!egated entities is not a2so!ute. 22 In
fact, the scope of de!egated !egis!ative power is narrower than that of the de!egating authorit. and such entities 3a. e9ercise
the power to e9propriate private propert. on!. when authori8ed 2. Congress and su2?ect to its contro! and restraints
i3posed through the !aw conferring the power or in other !egis!ations. 23 Indeed, C(Bs 2. the3se!ves have no inherent
power of e3inent do3ain. 24 0hus, strict!. spea:ing, the power of e3inent do3ain de!egated to an C(B is in rea!it. not
e3inent 2ut >inferior> since it 3ust confor3 to the !i3its i3posed 2. the de!egation and thus parta:es on!. of a share in
e3inent do3ain. 25 0he nationa! !egis!ature is sti!! the principa! of the C(Bs and the !atter cannot go against the principa!/s
wi!! or 3odif. the sa3e. 26
0he e9ercise of the power of e3inent do3ain necessari!. invo!ves a derogation of a funda3enta! right. 27 It great!. affects
a !andowner/s right to private propert. which is a constitutiona!!. protected right necessar. for the preservation and
enhance3ent of persona! dignit. and is inti3ate!. connected with the rights to !ife and !i2ert.. 280hus, whether such power
is e9ercised direct!. 2. the State or 2. its authori8ed agents, the e9ercise of such power 3ust undergo painsta:ing
scrutin.. 29
Indeed, despite the e9istence of !egis!ative grant in favor of !oca! govern3ents, it is sti!! the dut. of the courts to deter3ine
whether the power of e3inent do3ain is 2eing e9ercised in accordance with the de!egating !aw.
Sec. -7 of R.. No. *-5&, which de!egates to C(Bs the power of e3inent do3ain e9press!. provides1
SEC. -7. Eminent Domain. ' !oca! govern3ent unit 3a., through its chief e9ecutive and acting pursuant to an ordinance,
e9ercise the power of e3inent do3ain for pu2!ic use, or purpose, or we!fare for the 2enefit of the poor and the !and!ess,
upon pa.3ent of ?ust co3pensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent !aws1 Provided, however,
0hat the power of e3inent do3ain 3a. not 2e e9ercised un!ess a va!id and definite offer has 2een previous!. 3ade to the
owner, and such offer was not accepted1 Provided, further, 0hat the !oca! govern3ent unit 3a. i33ediate!. ta:e possession
of the propert. upon the fi!ing of the e9propriation proceedings and upon 3a:ing a deposit with the proper court of at !east
fifteen percent "-+H# of the fair 3ar:et va!ue of the propert. 2ased on the current ta9 dec!aration of the propert. to 2e
e9propriated1 Provided, fina!!., 0hat, the a3ount to 2e paid for the e9propriated propert. sha!! 2e deter3ined 2. the proper
court, 2ased on the fair 3ar:et va!ue at the ti3e of the ta:ing of the propert..
It is c!ear therefore that severa! requisites 3ust concur 2efore an C(B can e9ercise the power of e3inent do3ain, to wit1
-. n ordinance is enacted 2. the !oca! !egis!ative counci! authori8ing the !oca! chief e9ecutive, in 2eha!f of the !oca!
govern3ent unit, to e9ercise the power of e3inent do3ain or pursue e9propriation proceedings over a particu!ar private
propert..
%. 0he power of e3inent do3ain is e9ercised for pu2!ic use, purpose or we!fare, or for the 2enefit of the poor and the
!and!ess.
=. 0here is pa.3ent of ?ust co3pensation, as required under Section 7, rtic!e III of the Constitution, and other pertinent
!aws.
). va!id and definite offer has 2een previous!. 3ade to the owner of the propert. sought to 2e e9propriated, 2ut said offer
was not accepted. 30
0he Court in no uncertain ter3s have pronounced that a !oca! govern3ent unit cannot authori8e an e9propriation of private
propert. through a 3ere reso!ution of its !aw3a:ing 2od.. 31 R.. No. *-5& otherwise :nown as the Coca! (overn3ent
Code e9press!. requires an ordinance for the purpose and a reso!ution that 3ere!. e9presses the senti3ent of the 3unicipa!
counci! wi!! not suffice. 32
reso!ution wi!! not suffice for an C(B to 2e a2!e to e9propriate private propert.< and the reason for this is sett!ed1
9 9 9 3unicipa! ordinance is different fro3 a reso!ution. n ordinance is a !aw, 2ut a reso!ution is 3ere!. a dec!aration of
the senti3ent or opinion of a !aw3a:ing 2od. on a specific 3atter. n ordinance possesses a genera! and per3anent
character, 2ut a reso!ution is te3porar. in nature. dditiona!!., the two are enacted different!. '' a third reading is necessar.
for an ordinance, 2ut not for a reso!ution, un!ess decided otherwise 2. a 3a?orit. of a!! theSanggunian 3e32ers.
If Congress intended to a!!ow C(Bs to e9ercise e3inent do3ain through a 3ere reso!ution, it wou!d have si3p!. adopted
the !anguage of the previous Coca! (overn3ent Code. But Congress did not. In a c!ear divergence fro3 the previous Coca!
(overn3ent Code, Sec. -7 of R.. INo.J *-5& categorica!!. requires that the !oca! chief e9ecutive act pursuant to an
ordinance. 9 9 9 33
s respondent/s e9propriation in this case was 2ased 3ere!. on a reso!ution, such e9propriation is c!ear!. defective. Ahi!e
the Court is aware of the constitutiona! po!ic. pro3oting !oca! autono3., the court cannot grant ?udicia! sanction to an
C(B/s e9ercise of its de!egated power of e3inent do3ain in contravention of the ver. !aw giving it such power. 34
0he Court notes that petitioners fai!ed to raise this point at the ear!iest opportunit.. Sti!!, we are not prec!uded fro3
considering the sa3e. 0his Court wi!! not hesitate to consider 3atters even those raised for the first ti3e on appea! in c!ear!.
3eritorious situations, 35 such as in this case.
0hus, the Court finds it unnecessar. to reso!ve the other issues raised 2. petitioners.
It is we!! to 3ention however that despite our ru!ing in this case respondent is not 2arred fro3 instituting si3i!ar
proceedings in the future, provided that it co3p!ies with a!! !ega! require3ents. 36
5,ERE/ORE, the petition is GRANTE. 0he decision of the Court of ppea!s in C'(.R. SP No. )*&+%
isREVERSE and SET ASIE. 0he Co3p!aint in Civi! ction No. ;'57+6 is ISMISSE without pre?udice.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALI-IA AUSTRIA4MARTINE1
ssociate ,ustice