GR 107916; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107916 February 20, 1997
PERCIVAL MODAY, ZOTICO MODAY (deceased) and LEONORA MODAY, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE EVANGELINE S. YUIPCO OF BRANCH 6, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AGUSAN DEL SUR AND MUNICIPALITY OF BUNAWAN, respondents.
FACTS
The Sangguniang Bayan of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, passed Resolution No. 43-89 authorizing the expropriation of a portion of land owned by the Modays for a farmers’ center and sports facilities. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved the resolution, stating expropriation was unnecessary as other lots were available. Despite this disapproval, the Municipality filed an expropriation complaint and moved to take possession of the property, which the Regional Trial Court granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding the expropriation could proceed as the provincial board did not declare the resolution invalid.
ISSUE
Whether a municipal resolution authorizing expropriation remains effective and can be implemented despite its disapproval by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, ruling the expropriation was valid. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the provincial board’s review power under the then-governing Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337). The Court held that the power of eminent domain is inherent in sovereignty and can be delegated to local governments. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s power of review over municipal resolutions is not one of approval or disapproval but is limited to declaring them invalid if they are ultra vires or beyond the municipal council’s powers. The provincial board’s disapproval was based on the perceived lack of necessity, a matter of wisdom, not legality. Since the board did not declare the resolution invalid for being beyond the municipal council’s authority, the resolution remained effective. The determination of the necessity for the expropriation is a political question primarily within the municipality’s discretion, subject only to judicial review for grave abuse of discretion, which was not present. Thus, the disapproval did not nullify the resolution, and the expropriation proceedings were properly instituted.