Reyes vs City of Manila Digest

Consti Case NO. 102 G.R. No. 132431

February 13, 2004

ESTATE OR HEIRS OF THE LATE EX-JUSTICE JOSE B. L. REYES vs. CITY OF MANILA G.R. No. 137146

February 13, 2004

ESTATE OF HEIRS OF THE LATE EX-JUSTICE JOSE B.L. REYES and ESTATE OR HEIRS OF THE LATE DR. EDMUNDO REYES vs. COURT OF APPEALS et. al. FACTS The case is a petition for review and certiorari filed by the heirs of J.B.L. Reyes against respondent Court of Appeals and City of Manila et.al. The case esteemed from the decision of the C.A. for the issuance of protective custody in favor of respondent on the contested 11 parcels of land owned by the petitioner situated at Sta. Cruz District, Manila with a total land area of 13, 940 square meters and covered by TCT no. 24359 issued by the Register of Deeds, Manila. The land in question was initially occupied and leased by different tenants, among them are respondents Abiog, Maglonso and members of Sampaguita Bisig ng Magkakabitbahay, Incorporated (SBMI). On May 9, 1994, petitioners obtained a favorable judgments against Abiog pursuant to the decision rendered by the MTC Manila, Branch 3 in Civil Case No 142851-CV and against Maglonso in Civil Case No. 144205-CV on May 4, 1995. While the case is under adjudication, the respondents City of Manila intervenes and file a complaint for imminent domain (expropriation) on April 25, 1995 based on its approved Ordinance No 7818 enacted on November 29, 1993 authorizing the City Mayor of Manila to expropriate certain parcels of land with an aggregate area of 9,930 square meters, more or less. It argued that the purpose of expropriation is for a socialize housing project of the city which would otherwise benefit its underprivileged and homeless citizens. However, petitioner turned down the offer on various reasons among them, the failure of both to arrive at an amicable offer for the settlement of the case. ISSUE Whether the CA has jurisdiction to issue the protective order despite the finality of order rendered by the trial court? Whether respondent City deprived petitioners of their property without due process of law? Whether the respondent City of Manila complied with the legal requirements for expropriation provided under Section 9 and 10 of R.A. 7279? HELD RA 7279 Sections 9 states the order of priority in the acquisition of property subject of any expropriation intended for public purpose. Section 10 thereof, made a significant pronouncement that “the expropriation may be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted: xxx

underscoring supplied”. Before respondent City can exercise its power of eminent domain, the same must be sanctioned and must not violate any law. Reiterating the provision of R.A. 7279, it would bear stressing that private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. Compliance with these conditions is mandatory because these are the only safeguards of oftentimes helpless owners of private property against violation of due process when their property is forcibly taken from them for public use. The state in its paramount interest of promoting public good and general welfare cannot simply ignore the rights of its citizens and such must take precedence over the interest of private property owners. Individual rights affected by the exercise of such right are also entitled to protection, bearing in mind that the exercise of this superior right cannot override the guarantee of due process extended by the law to owners of the property to be expropriated. Due to the fatal infirmity in the City’s exercise of the power of eminent domain, its complaint for expropriation was turned down by the court. Petitions granted and decision of C.A. was reversed and set aside.