40) Diosdado Lagcao, Doroteo Lagcao, and Ursula Lagcao vs. Judge Generosa Ordinance No.

Ordinance No. 1843 which authorized the expropriation of petitioners' lot was enacted
Labra, and City of Cebu by the SP of Cebu City to provide socialized housing for the homeless and low-income
G.R. No. 155746 | 2004-10-13 | CORONA, J. residents of the City. However, while we recognize that housing is one of the most
serious social problems of the country, LGUs do not possess unbridled authority to
FACTS: exercise their power of eminent domain in seeking solutions to this problem.
 In 1964, the Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of
these lots was Lot 1029 in Capitol Hills, Cebu City, with an area of 4k sqm. There are two legal provisions which limit the exercise of this power: (1) no person
 In 1965, the Lagcaos purchased Lot 1029 on installment basis. But then, in shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
late 1965, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029, reverted to the Province of Cebu. person be denied the equal protection of the laws; and (2) private property shall not be
 The province of Cebu tried to annul the sale of Lot 1029 by the City of Cebu taken for public use without just compensation. Thus, the exercise by local government
to the Lagcaos, which prompted them to sue the province for specific units of the power of eminent domain is not absolute. In fact, Section 19 of RA 7160
performance and damages in the CFI. itself explicitly states that such exercise must comply with the provisions of the
 CFI ruled in favor of the Lagcaos and ordered to execute the final deed of sale Constitution and pertinent laws. 
in favor of the Lagcaos. CA affirmed.
 After acquiring title, Lagcaos tried to take possession of the lot only to The exercise of the power of eminent domain drastically affects a landowner's right to
discover that it was already occupied by squatters. Thus, they instituted private property, which is as much a constitutionally-protected right necessary for the
ejectment proceedings against the squatters. MTCC ordered squatters to preservation and enhancement of personal dignity and intimately connected with the
vacate the MTCC ordered squatters to vacate. RTC affirmed and issued an rights to life and liberty. Whether directly exercised by the State or by its authorized
order of demolition. agents, the exercise of eminent domain is necessarily in derogation of private rights.
 When the demolition order was about to be implemented, Cebu City Mayor For this reason, the need for a painstaking scrutiny cannot be overemphasized.
Alvin Garcia wrote two letters to the MTCC, requesting the deferment of the
demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site The foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity and that
for the squatters. MTCC issued suspension for demolition. necessity must be of public character. Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily
 During suspension, Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) of Cebu City passed a choose which private property should be expropriated. In this case, there was no
resolution which identified Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to showing at all why petitioners' property was singled out for expropriation by the city
RA 7279. ordinance or what necessity impelled the particular choice or selection. Ordinance No.
1843 stated no reason for the choice of petitioners' property as the site of a socialized
 In 2000, Ordinance No. 1843 was enacted by the SP of Cebu City authorizing
housing project.
the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the
acquisition of Lot 1029 which was still registered in the name of Lagcaos for
Condemnation of private lands in an irrational or piecemeal fashion or the random
the benefit of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual
expropriation of small lots to accommodate no more than a few tenants or squatters is
occupants.
certainly not the condemnation for public use contemplated by the Constitution. This is
 The Lagcaos filed with RTC an action for declaration of nullity of Ordinance
depriving a citizen of his property for the convenience of a few without perceptible
No. 1843 for being unconstitutional – dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
benefit to the public.
ISSUE: Whether or not the exercise of eminent domain was valid. - NO
In Estate or Heirs of the Late Ex-Justice Jose B.L. Reyes et al. vs. City of Manila, the
Court ruled that there are strict limitations provided in R.A. 7279 2on the exercise of the
HELD:
power of eminent domain by local government units, especially with respect to (1) the
Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it
only when expressly authorized by the legislature. By virtue of RA 7160 1, Congress 2
SEC 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. - Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the
conferred upon local government units the power to expropriate.
following order:
(a) Those owned by the Government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
1 (b) Alienable lands of the public domain;
SEC. 19. Eminent Domain. - A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant
to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit (c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands;
of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the (d) Those within the declared Areas or Priority Development, Zonal Improvement Program sites, and Slum
Constitution and pertinent laws… Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired;
(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS which have not yet been acquired; and 
(f) Privately-owned lands.
order of priority in acquiring land for socialized housing and (2) the resort to
expropriation proceedings as a means to acquiring it. Private lands rank last in the
order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. In the same vein, expropriation
proceedings may be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition are exhausted.
Compliance with these conditions is mandatory because these are the only safeguards
of oftentimes helpless owners of private property against what may be a tyrannical
violation of due process when their property is forcibly taken from them allegedly for
public use.

The Court found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied
strictly with Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate
petitioners' property without any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in Section 9 of
RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in
Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted. 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. We therefore find
Ordinance No. 1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners'
right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, petitioners had already obtained a
favorable judgment of eviction against the illegal occupants of their property. The
judgment in this ejectment case had, in fact, already attained finality, with a writ of
execution and an order of demolition. But Mayor Garcia requested the trial court to
suspend the demolition on the pretext that the City was still searching for a relocation
site for the squatters. However, instead of looking for a relocation site during the
suspension period, the city council suddenly enacted Ordinance No. 1843 for the
expropriation of petitioners' lot. It was trickery and bad faith, pure and simple.

Where on-site development is found more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries, the priorities
mentioned in this section shall not apply. The local government units shall give budgetary priority to on-site
development of government lands. (Emphasis supplied).

SEC. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. - The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include,
among others, community mortgage, land swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation
to the Government, joint venture agreement, negotiated purchase, and expropriation: Provided, however,
That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted: Provided
further, That where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by small property owners shall be
exempted for purposes of this Act: xxx. (Emphasis supplied).