REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH 7
ILIGAN CITY

ILIGAN CITY
Plaintiff,
-versus- CIVIL CASE No. 98765
For: COMPLAINT FOR
EXPROPRIATION
(EMINENT DOMAIN)

MR. XANDER FORD

Defendant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

ANSWER

The Defendant, unto the Honorable Court, respectfully alleges:

ADMISSIONS

(1) Defendant ADMITS par. 1 of the Complaint;

(2) Defendant ADMITS par. 2 of the Complaint;

(3) Defendant PARTIALLY ADMITS the allegations set-forth in par. 5

of the Complaint, specifically the location and technical description of a parcel of
land identified therein;

(4) Defendant ADMITS the allegation in par. 6 of the Complaint;

(5) Defendant ADMITS the allegation in par. 7 of the Complaint;

1
 DENIALS

(6) Defendant DENIES par. 3 of the Complaint for want of knowledge

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof;

(7) Defendant DENIES par. 4 of the Complaint for want of knowledge

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity thereof;

(8) Defendant PARTIALLY DENIES the allegations in par. 5 of the

compliant, particularly the purpose of the construction project and the necessity
of acquiring a parcel of land for want of sufficient knowledge to form a belief as
to the truth or falsity thereof;

(9) Defendant DENIES the allegation in par. 8 of the Complaint for

want of sufficient knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity
thereof;

DEFENSES

(10) The plaintiff, Iligan City, does not have the sufficient legal authority
to institute this particular Expropriation Case against the parcel of land owned
by the defendant;

(a) While it is admitted that under Section 19 of RA 7160

Congress delegates to the Local Government Units the power
of imminent domain, such law also lays down the limitations
in the exercise of such awesome power;

(b) Among others, it is a requisite that an Ordinance, not a

mere resolution, must be enacted by the local legislative
council authorizing the Local Chief Executive, in behalf of the

2
LGU, to exercise the power of imminent domain or pursue
expropriation proceedings over a particular private property;

(c) However, the authority replied upon by the plaintiff from

the local legislative council is only a mere resolution not an
ordinance. Resolution No. 143, that the plaintiff attached to the
complaint, which allegedly authorized the City Mayor to
institute an expropraition proceeding against the property of
the defendant does not satisfy the requirements laid down by
Section 19 of the local government code and by jurisprudence;

(d) In the case of Beluso v. Municipality of Panay, Capiz, GR

No. 153974, August 7, 2006, where the Mayor was authorized
by the Sanggunian to institute an expropriation proceeding
through a Resolution, the Court held in no uncertain terms that
an LGU cannot authorize an expropriation of private property
through a mere resolution of the law making body. In that
case, the Court further ruled:

"As respondents expropriation in this case was based merely on a

resolution, such expropriation is clearly defective. While the Court is
aware of the constitutional policy promoting local autonomy, the
court cannot grant judicial sanction to an LGUs exercise of its
delegated power of eminent domain in contravention of the very law
giving it such power"

(d) The City Ordinance No. 06-4950 attached to the

Complaint cannot cure the defective authority of the City to
institute this particular expropriation case as nowhere in the
said resolution that the City Mayor is expressly granted
authority to initiate this case. The said Ordinance merely

3
 declared some areas within the City to be designated as
Freedom Parks;

CONCLUSION

The defendant respectfully submits to the wisdom of the Honorable

Court its contention that the plaintiff, Iligan City, is not properly clothed
with sufficient legal authority to institute this particular expropriation case
against herein defendant.

It is further submitted that the absence of an ordinance from the local

legislative body which should expressly authorize the local chief executive
to institute an expropriation case against herein defendant is a fatal defect
which should cause the dismissal of this case.

COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

The defendant incorporate by reference all the foregoing allegations

and further allege, that:

(a) Plaintiffs unfounded and reckless suit has compelled Defendant to

engage counsel for a professional fee of 100,000.00. Moreover, in
consequence of this unjust suit, defendant incurred, and will incur suit-
related expenses at no less than 30,000.00; all of which defendant seeks
recompense from plaintiffs by way of damages.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises seriously considered, it is prayed that the instant

complaint be dismissed and the Plaintiff be ordered to pay the defendant.

4
 Defendant likewise pray for such other equitable and just relief under
these premises.

Iligan City, 3rd day of October, 2017.

RONALD C. LARA
Counsel for the Defendant
Until December 2019
PTR No. 123456 / 01-15-19 / Iligan City
IBP No. 654321 / 01-13-19 / Iligan City
Attorneys Roll No. 789456 2006
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020571 June 5, 2016

VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, XANDER FORD, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in

accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am the defendant in the above-stated case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Answer;

3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are
true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of
copies of documents and records in my possession;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving

the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or agency;

5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or

proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding

has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court
of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report
that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

5
 XANDER FORD
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of August 2017 at Iligan
City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his Employee Identification Card no.
12345 issued on January 2013 at Iligan City.

AMER HASSAN YUSOP

NOTARY PUBLIC
Until December 2019
PTR No. 123456 / 01-15-19 / Iligan City
IBP No. 654321 / 01-13-19 / Iligan City
Attorneys Roll No. 789456 2006
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020571 June 5, 2016

Doc No.:
Book No.:
Page No.:
Series of 2017

Copy furnish:

ATTY. SITTIE AIYNEE M. BANGON

Counsel for Plaintiff
Until December 31, 2017
PTR NO. 6788675/04-03-00/Iligan City
IBP NO. 9874561/06-02-00/Iligan City
Roll No. 478090