The Supreme Court has affirmed that local government units must strictly comply with all legal requirements when exercising their power of eminent domain to expropriate private lands for socialized housing. This decision reinforces the protection of private property rights against unwarranted government intervention, emphasizing the need for local governments to exhaust all other land acquisition options and to provide concrete evidence justifying the necessity and legality of expropriation.

Can Manila Take Private Land for the Landless? When Eminent Domain Needs Proof

The City of Manila sought to expropriate parcels of land owned by Alejandro Roces Prieto and others for its Land-For-The-Landless Program, authorized by Ordinance No. 8070. After negotiations failed, the City filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to exercise its power of eminent domain. The RTC initially denied the issuance of a writ of possession but eventually granted the expropriation, concluding that all requisites for the local government’s exercise of eminent domain had been met. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with constitutional and statutory limitations when exercising eminent domain. The CA found that the City failed to demonstrate that an on-site development program was the most practical option, did not exhaust other modes of land acquisition, and did not prove that the intended beneficiaries were truly “underprivileged and homeless.” The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, reinforcing that local governments must adhere strictly to the conditions and restrictions set forth in the Constitution and pertinent laws when exercising the power of eminent domain.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by underscoring the fundamental nature of property rights and the stringent scrutiny required when exercising the power of eminent domain. Citing previous jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that this power, which allows the government to take private property for public use, is a derogation of a fundamental right. The Supreme Court in Lagcao v. Judge Labra held:

“The exercise of the power of eminent domain drastically affects a landowner’s right to private property, which is as much a constitutionally-protected right necessary for the preservation and enhancement of personal dignity and intimately connected with the rights to life and liberty.”

This principle is particularly relevant when the power is exercised by a local government, which only possesses a delegated power of eminent domain. The Court emphasized that the delegated power is not absolute and must conform to the limits imposed by the national legislature.

Section 19 of the Local Government Code (LGC) outlines the conditions under which a local government unit (LGU) can exercise eminent domain. These include:

• An ordinance authorizing the local chief executive to exercise the power.
• The power is exercised for public use, purpose, or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and landless.
• Payment of just compensation.
• A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted.

In addition to the LGC, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7279, also known as the Urban Development Housing Act of 1992, provides further guidelines for expropriating properties for urban land reform and housing. The Supreme Court highlighted Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279, which establish priorities in land acquisition and modes of land acquisition, respectively. These provisions read:

SEC 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. – Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order:

(a) Those owned by the Government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

(b) Alienable lands of the public domain;

(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands;

(d) Those within the declared Areas or Priority Development, Zonal Improvement Program sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired;

(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and

(f) Privately-owned lands.

Section 10 emphasizes that expropriation should only be a last resort.

SEC. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. – The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include, among others, community mortgage, land swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the Government, joint-venture agreement, negotiated purchase, and expropriation: Provided, however, That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted

The Court found that the RTC had taken a simplistic approach, failing to scrutinize whether the City had complied with these requirements. The RTC’s conclusion that the expropriation was for a public purpose based solely on the City’s land-for-the-landless program was deemed insufficient. The Supreme Court emphasized that courts must judiciously examine whether a local government’s exercise of eminent domain aligns with the delegating law. General assertions are inadequate, especially given the significant impact on constitutionally protected rights.

The Court also relied on its decision in Estate or Heirs of the Late Ex-Justice Jose B.L. Reyes v. City of Manila, to emphasize that the limitations under R.A. No. 7279 are strict and compliance is mandatory. The Supreme Court in Estate or Heirs of the Late Ex-Justice Jose B.L. Reyes v. City of Manila held:

Compliance with these conditions is mandatory because these are the only safeguards of oftentimes helpless owners of private property against what may be a tyrannical violation of due process when their property is forcibly taken from them allegedly for public use.

The Court found no evidence in the records that the City of Manila had complied with Section 19 of the LGC or Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279. While the City claimed it had conducted a study and observed the order of priority in land acquisition, it presented no concrete evidence to support this. There was no showing that the City had attempted to acquire government-owned lands or other prioritized lands before resorting to expropriation. Furthermore, the City failed to demonstrate that the subject properties met the criteria for on-site development, which involves upgrading blighted areas. The Court emphasized that unsupported generalizations do not suffice.

The Court also noted the lack of evidence showing that the prospective beneficiaries were truly “underprivileged and homeless,” as required by Section 8 of R.A. No. 7279. Testimony indicated that these beneficiaries had the financial means to purchase the properties themselves, further undermining the justification for expropriation. Even more, the Supreme Court stated:

Condemnation of private lands in an irrational or piecemeal fashion or the random expropriation of small lots to accommodate no more than a few tenants or squatters is certainly not the condemnation for public use contemplated by the Constitution. Such act would clearly deprive a citizen of his or her property for the convenience of a few without perceptible benefit to the public.

Finally, the Court found that the City failed to exhaust other modes of land acquisition under Section 10 of R.A. No. 7279, particularly negotiated purchase. After the landowners rejected the City’s initial offer, the City immediately filed the expropriation suit without attempting to renegotiate. The Court emphasized that the government must make reasonable efforts to reach an agreement with the property owner before resorting to expropriation. As the Supreme Court held in City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation:

The government must exhaust all reasonable efforts to obtain by agreement the land it desires. Its failure to comply will warrant the dismissal of the complaint.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the City of Manila complied with all legal requirements when exercising its power of eminent domain to expropriate private lands for its Land-For-The-Landless Program. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the City did not meet these requirements.
What is eminent domain?	Eminent domain is the right of the government to take private property for public use, even if the owner does not want to sell it. This power is subject to constitutional limitations, including the payment of just compensation.
What is R.A. No. 7279?	R.A. No. 7279, also known as the Urban Development Housing Act of 1992, governs the local expropriation of properties for purposes of urban land reform and housing. It sets forth specific priorities and procedures that local government units must follow.
What priorities does R.A. No. 7279 establish for land acquisition?	R.A. No. 7279 prioritizes government-owned lands, alienable lands of the public domain, unregistered or abandoned lands, and other specified sites before allowing the acquisition of privately-owned lands. It emphasizes that expropriation should be a last resort.
What does “just compensation” mean in the context of eminent domain?	Just compensation refers to the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from a private owner. It aims to place the owner in as good a position financially as they would have been had the property not been taken.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against the City of Manila in this case?	The Court ruled against the City because it found that the City failed to comply with several requirements under the Local Government Code and R.A. No. 7279. Specifically, the City did not adequately demonstrate that other land acquisition options were exhausted, failed to prove that the beneficiaries were truly underprivileged, and did not show that the properties were suitable for on-site development.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the protection of private property rights and clarifies the limitations on local governments’ power of eminent domain. It emphasizes the need for strict compliance with all legal requirements to prevent abuse of this power.
What should a local government do before resorting to expropriation?	A local government should first explore all other modes of land acquisition, such as negotiated purchase, land swapping, and community mortgage. It should also conduct thorough studies to ensure that the project meets the requirements of public use and that the beneficiaries are qualified under relevant laws.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of socialized housing and the power of local governments to address housing problems, it emphasizes that this power is not unlimited. The decision serves as a reminder that the exercise of eminent domain must be balanced with the protection of private property rights and strict adherence to legal requirements, ensuring fairness and due process for all parties involved.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: CITY OF MANILA VS. ALEJANDRO ROCES PRIETO, G.R. No. 221366, July 08, 2019