GR 221366; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 221366 July 8, 2019
CITY OF MANILA, Petitioner vs. ALEJANDRO ROCES PRIETO, ET AL., Respondents
FACTS
The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 8070 to acquire parcels of land owned by the respondents for its “Land-For-The-Landless Program.” After an unsuccessful negotiated sale, the City filed a complaint for expropriation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the complaint, issuing a writ of possession and an order of expropriation. The RTC found that the City complied with the requisites for eminent domain, including a valid ordinance for public purpose and a prior offer to purchase. It also held that the City could bypass the order of priority for land acquisition under the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA), accepting the City’s claim that on-site development was more practicable.
The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC’s decision, dismissing the expropriation complaint. It found that the City failed to justify its non-compliance with the mandatory sequence of land acquisition under Section 9 of the UDHA, which prioritizes government-owned and alienable lands before privately-owned properties. The CA also ruled that the City did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the subject lands were “blighted” and thus suitable for on-site development as defined by law.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the expropriation complaint for the City of Manila’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Republic Act No. 7279 , the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that the exercise of eminent domain by local government units for socialized housing is governed not only by the Local Government Code but, more specifically, by the comprehensive framework of the UDHA. The UDHA imposes strict conditions to protect property owners and ensure expropriation is a last resort.
First, the City failed to follow the mandatory order of priority in land acquisition under Section 9 of the UDHA. The law explicitly states that privately-owned lands shall be acquired only after exhausting the following: government-owned lands, alienable public lands, and unregistered or abandoned lands. The City presented no competent evidence to prove it had exhausted these prior sources before targeting the respondents’ private properties. Its bare assertion of practicality for on-site development was insufficient to override this statutory sequence.
Second, the City did not establish that the subject properties were “blighted lands” as legally defined under the UDHA, a prerequisite for an on-site development program. The records lacked any factual basis, such as an official inventory or findings, to classify the areas as dilapidated or unsanitary. Consequently, the expropriation for on-site development lacked legal footing. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with these substantive requirements is essential to justify the taking of private property. The City’s non-compliance rendered the expropriation invalid.