GR 152230; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152230. August 9, 2005
JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION, INC., Petitioner, vs. MUNICIPALITY (now CITY) OF PASIG, Respondent.
FACTS
The Municipality of Pasig initiated expropriation proceedings to acquire a 51-square meter portion of a property to construct a three-meter-wide access road, Damayan Street, connecting E.R. Santos Street to Barangay Sto. Tomas Bukid. The ordinance authorizing the expropriation stated the owners were notified but rejected the offer. The municipality filed a complaint and deposited the required sum, after which the trial court issued a writ of possession, and the road was constructed. During the proceedings, it was revealed the original owners had sold the entire property to Jesus Is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc. (JILCSFI), which was allowed to intervene. JILCSFI contested the expropriation, arguing it was not for public use but for a particular class, the chosen portion was not the least burdensome, and the municipality failed to prove a prior valid offer to purchase.
ISSUE
Whether the expropriation by the Municipality of Pasig complied with the substantive and procedural requisites for the valid exercise of eminent domain under the Local Government Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the expropriation. On the substantive requirement of public use, the Court ruled that constructing an access road for fire safety and utility access for residents indisputably constitutes public use, benefiting the general welfare and public safety. The fact that it primarily served a specific community did not negate its public character. On procedural compliance, the Court found the municipality satisfied the requirement of a prior valid offer. While the original letter to the owner was a photocopy and thus inadmissible, JILCSFI’s Answer-in-Intervention failed to specifically deny under oath the allegation that an offer was made. Under the Rules of Court, such an allegation is deemed admitted. The Court also held that JILCSFI failed to present clear evidence that the chosen property was not the least burdensome or that viable alternatives existed. The expropriation was undertaken for a public purpose, followed the prescribed procedure, and involved just compensation, with the deposit constituting a provisional compliance. The trial court’s determination of necessity, being a factual issue, was upheld.