GR 132431; (February, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132431 & 137146. February 13, 2004.
ESTATE OR HEIRS OF THE LATE EX-JUSTICE JOSE B. L. REYES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are co-owners of parcels of land in Manila occupied by tenants, including respondents Dr. Rosario Abiog, Angelina Maglonso, and members of Sampaguita Bisig ng Magkakapitbahay, Inc. (SBMI). Petitioners filed and won ejectment cases against Abiog and Maglonso, with the judgments becoming final and executory in 1998. During the pendency of these ejectment cases, respondent City of Manila filed a complaint for expropriation of the same properties based on Ordinance No. 7818. The ordinance stated the purpose was to distribute the land to occupant-lessees of at least ten years. The City made a written offer to purchase, which petitioners rejected.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the City of Manila’s expropriation of the properties for the purpose of distributing them to tenant-occupants constitutes a valid exercise of eminent domain for public use.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the expropriation was invalid. The power of eminent domain requires that the taking be for public use. The Court found that the City’s stated purpose under Ordinance No. 7818—to transfer the property titles to specific private individuals (the tenants)—was not a public use but a private one. The public benefit was merely incidental to the primary benefit conferred upon a select group of private persons. The Court distinguished this from a genuine social housing program where the government retains ownership or the property is destined for public purpose. Here, the direct and immediate beneficiary was a determinate group of private tenants, which does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of public use. Consequently, the complaint for expropriation was properly dismissed by the trial court, and the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ordering condemnation. The ancillary petitions concerning the temporary restraining orders issued by the Court of Appeals were rendered moot by this disposition.