LAGCAO vs LABRA

GR No. 155746 October 13, 2004

FACTS:

After acquiring the title for Lot 1029 situated in Capitol Hills, Cebu City, petitioners tried
to take possession of it only to discover that it was already occupied by squatters. Petitioners
instituted ejectment proceedings which were ruled in their favour.

However, when the demolition order was about to be implemented, Mayor Alvin Garcia
wrote two letters requesting that the demolition be deferred until the City found a relocation site
for the squatters. The MTCC thereafter ordered a suspension for 120 days. During the
suspension, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed an ordinance which included Lot
1029 as an identified site for socialized housing. Ordinance No. 1843 was right after passed
authorizing the Mayor Garcia to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of Lot
1029.

Petitioners argue that the ordinance passed is unconstitutional and such expropriation is
contrary to the concept of “public use” contemplated in the Constitution.

ISSUE:

WON THE INTENDED EXPROPRIATION BY THE CITY OF CEBU OF THE LAND

OWNED BY PETITIONERS CONTRAVENES THE CONSTITUTION

RULING:

The Court ruled in favour of the petitioners.

The random expropriation of lots to accommodate no more than a few tenants or

squatters is certainly not for the condemnation for public use contemplated by the Constitution.
Under Sec. 9 of RA 7279 which governs the local expropriation of property for urban land
reform and housing, private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized
housing. Sec. 10 of the same law states that expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only
after the other modes of acquisition are exhausted.

Cebu City failed to comply strictly with the given provisions. Moreover, prior to the
passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer to buy
petitioners’ property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160. Thus, the Court found Ordinance No.
1843 to be constitutionally infirm for violating petitioners’ right to due process.