Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    Case 25 - Consti

    Uploaded by

    MeeJee
    The Municipality of Paranaque filed a complaint for expropriation against V.M. Realty Corporation over two parcels of land totaling around 10,000 square meters to build socialized housing for the homeless. The trial court initially authorized possession of the land, but later dismissed the case. The Supreme Court ruled that for an LGU to exercise eminent domain, it must pass an ordinance as required by law, not just a resolution. A resolution expresses opinion, while an ordinance is an actual law. The municipality's resolution did not meet the statutory requirement for properly exercising eminent domain.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 25 - Consti

    Uploaded by

    MeeJee
    44 views2 pages
    The Municipality of Paranaque filed a complaint for expropriation against V.M. Realty Corporation over two parcels of land totaling around 10,000 square meters to build socialized housing for the homeless. The trial court initially authorized possession of the land, but later dismissed the case. The Supreme Court ruled that for an LGU to exercise eminent domain, it must pass an ordinance as required by law, not just a resolution. A resolution expresses opinion, while an ordinance is an actual law. The municipality's resolution did not meet the statutory requirement for properly exercising eminent domain.

    Original Description:

    Philippine Consti

    Original Title

    Case 25- Consti

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Municipality of Paranaque filed a complaint for expropriation against V.M. Realty Corporation over two parcels of land totaling around 10,000 square meters to build socialized housing for the homeless. The trial court initially authorized possession of the land, but later dismissed the case. The Supreme Court ruled that for an LGU to exercise eminent domain, it must pass an ordinance as required by law, not just a resolution. A resolution expresses opinion, while an ordinance is an actual law. The municipality's resolution did not meet the statutory requirement for properly exercising eminent domain.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    44 views2 pages

    Case 25 - Consti

    Uploaded by

    MeeJee
    The Municipality of Paranaque filed a complaint for expropriation against V.M. Realty Corporation over two parcels of land totaling around 10,000 square meters to build socialized housing for the homeless. The trial court initially authorized possession of the land, but later dismissed the case. The Supreme Court ruled that for an LGU to exercise eminent domain, it must pass an ordinance as required by law, not just a resolution. A resolution expresses opinion, while an ordinance is an actual law. The municipality's resolution did not meet the statutory requirement for properly exercising eminent domain.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE: 27

    MUNICIPALITY OF PARANAQUE VS V.M. REALTY CORP.


    G.R. No 127820
    July 20, 1998
    FACTS:
    Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95, Series of 1993, the
    Municipality of Paranaque filed on September 20, 1993, a complaint for expropriation
    against private respondent V.M. Realty Corporation, over two parcels of land (Lots 2-A-2
    and 2-B-1 of Subdivision Plan Psd-17917), with a combined area of about 10,000 square
    meters, located at Wakas, San Dionisio, Paranaque, Metro Manila, and covered by
    Torrens certificate of Title No. 48700. Allegedly the complaint was filed for the purpose
    of alleviating the living conditions of the underprivileged by providing homes for the
    homeless through a socialized housing project.
    Finding the complaint sufficient in form and substance, the Regional Trial Court of
    Makati, issued an order giving it due course. Acting on petitioners motion said court
    issued an Order dated February 4, 1994, authorizing petitioner to take possession of the
    subject property upon deposit with its clerk of court of an amount equivalent to percent of
    its fair market value based on its current tax declaration.
    On February 21, 1994, private respondent filed its Answer containing affirmative
    defenses and counterclaim. On private respondents motion, its answer was treated as a
    motion to dismiss. Thereafter, the trial court issued its August 9, 1994 Resolution
    nullifyung its February 4, 1994 order and dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals
    affirmed in toto the trial courts decision. Hence this petition.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the resolution of the Paranaque Municipal Council No. 93-95 is a
    substantial compliance of the statutory requirement of Section 19, R.A. 7160 in the
    exercise of the power of eminent domain by the plaintiff-appellant?
    RULING:
    The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of government,
    which may delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, other public entities and public
    utilities. An LGU may therefore exercise the power to expropriate private property only
    when authorized by Congress and subject to the latters control and restraints imposed
    through the law conferring the power or in other legislations. In this case, section 19 of
    RA 7160, which delegates to LGUs the power of eminent domain, also lays down the
    parameters for its exercise.
    Thus the following essential requisites must concur before an LGU ca exercise the
    power of eminent domain:

    1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief
    executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue
    expropriation proceedings over a particular private property.
    2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or
    for the benefit of the poor and the landless.
    3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of
    the constitution, and other pertinent laws.
    4. 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.
    A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a
    resolution is merel a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a
    specific matter. If Congress intended to allow LGUs to exercise eminent domain through
    a mere resolution, it would have simply adopted the language of the previous Local
    Government Code.

    You might also like