GR 135087; (March, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135087 ; March 14, 2000
HEIRS OF ALBERTO SUGUITAN, petitioner, vs. CITY OF MANDALUYONG, respondent.
FACTS
The City of Mandaluyong sought to expropriate a 414-square meter property owned by Alberto Suguitan for the expansion of the Mandaluyong Medical Center. The Sangguniang Panlungsod authorized the expropriation through Resolution No. 396, S-1994, and after Suguitan refused a purchase offer, the City filed a complaint. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Suguitan’s motion to dismiss, allowed the City to take immediate possession upon deposit, and later issued an Order of Condemnation. Suguitan’s heirs appealed, arguing the expropriation was void.
The petitioners contended that the City’s exercise of eminent domain was invalid because it was based merely on a resolution, not an ordinance as required by Section 19 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). They asserted that a resolution is insufficient to confer the substantive authority to expropriate. The respondent City, upheld by the RTC, argued that a resolution suffices to initiate proceedings, with an ordinance needed only later to appropriate funds for just compensation, citing Article 36 of the Code’s Implementing Rules.
ISSUE
Whether a local government unit may validly exercise its power of eminent domain through a mere resolution, or if a local ordinance is strictly required.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and annulled the RTC’s orders. The power of eminent domain, being in derogation of private property rights, must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law. Section 19 of the Local Government Code explicitly states that a local government unit may exercise eminent domain “through an ordinance.” The Court emphasized that an ordinance is a law with a general and permanent character, while a resolution is merely temporary and administrative. The requirement for an ordinance is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive condition that ensures the exercise of such a grave power is deliberate, intended for public use, and receives the solemn consideration of the sanggunian as a collegial body. The Implementing Rules cannot contravene the clear mandate of the Code itself. Therefore, Resolution No. 396 was insufficient, rendering the expropriation proceedings void from inception. The Court ordered the property returned to the Suguitan heirs, subject to reimbursement for any necessary expenses incurred by the City.