The Supreme Court has definitively ruled that a local government’s resolution to expropriate property does not automatically halt ejectment proceedings. For expropriation to have legal effect, a formal expropriation proceeding must be instituted in court. This decision protects property owners from indefinite delays caused by mere intentions to expropriate, ensuring that their rights are not curtailed without due process and just compensation.

Intention vs. Action: Can a Resolution Halt an Ejectment?

This case originated from an unlawful detainer complaint filed by Alexander Catolos against Danilo Antonio and other petitioners who were occupying his land in Antipolo, Rizal. Catolos claimed he permitted the petitioners to occupy his property on the condition they would vacate upon his request. When he eventually asked them to leave, they refused, leading to the lawsuit.

The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) initially ruled in favor of Catolos, ordering the petitioners to vacate the property. Subsequently, the Sangguniang Bayan of Antipolo passed resolutions expressing their intent to expropriate the land for public purposes and socialized housing. These resolutions were presented to the MTC in an attempt to halt the demolition of the petitioners’ homes. However, the MTC denied the motion to stay execution, leading the petitioners to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether these resolutions for expropriation by the local government could suspend the writ of execution and demolition in the ongoing ejectment case. In resolving this, the Court emphasized the fundamental requirements for the exercise of eminent domain by local government units. It underscored that resolutions expressing an intention to expropriate do not carry the same legal weight as a formal ordinance authorizing expropriation proceedings.

The Supreme Court cited Section 19 of the Local Government Code (LGC) which outlines the process for local government units to exercise the power of eminent domain. This provision explicitly states that a local government unit may exercise the power of eminent domain through its chief executive, acting pursuant to an ordinance. Additionally, the power must be exercised for public use or welfare, just compensation must be paid, and a valid offer must be made to the owner and rejected. The absence of an ordinance, as opposed to a mere resolution, was a critical factor in the Court’s decision.

SEC. 19. Eminent Domain. — A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws…

The Court reinforced that a resolution is simply a declaration of sentiment or opinion and lacks the force and permanence of an ordinance, which is a law. It cited precedents like Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation and Heirs of Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, which establish that a local government unit cannot authorize expropriation through a mere resolution.

Moreover, the Court discussed that even if a valid ordinance existed, the requirements of Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act or UDHA) regarding the acquisition of land for socialized housing were not met. The UDHA specifies a priority order for land acquisition and mandates that expropriation should only be a last resort after other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. In this case, there was no indication that these other modes were adequately explored before the resolutions for expropriation were passed.

Building on this, the Supreme Court addressed the petitioners’ argument that Commonwealth Act No. 538 should have automatically suspended the ejectment proceedings. The Court clarified that Commonwealth Act No. 538 applies only when actual expropriation proceedings have been initiated. The Court also noted that the petitioners, who admitted they were not paying rent, could not avail themselves of the benefits under Commonwealth Act No. 538, which requires tenants to be current on their rental payments to qualify for suspension of ejectment proceedings.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether resolutions by a local government expressing intent to expropriate land could halt ongoing ejectment proceedings against occupants of that land.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that resolutions alone are insufficient to halt ejectment proceedings; formal expropriation proceedings must be initiated in court.
What is an ordinance?	An ordinance is a law enacted by a local government unit, possessing a general and permanent character. It requires a third reading for enactment, unlike a resolution.
Why is an ordinance required for expropriation?	An ordinance is required because the power of eminent domain involves taking private property, a fundamental right that requires a clear and formal legal basis.
What is Commonwealth Act No. 538?	Commonwealth Act No. 538 is a law that provides for the suspension of ejectment proceedings when the government intends to acquire land through purchase or expropriation. However, tenants must be current on their rent payments to benefit from this suspension.
What is the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA)?	The UDHA, or Republic Act No. 7279, governs the acquisition of land for urban land reform and housing. It establishes priorities in land acquisition and requires that expropriation be a last resort after other modes have been exhausted.
Can tenants who don’t pay rent benefit from suspension of ejectment?	No, only tenants who are current on their rental payments can invoke the benefits under Commonwealth Act No. 538 to suspend ejectment proceedings.
Does this ruling affect socialized housing efforts?	While the ruling upholds the necessity of formal expropriation, it does not prevent socialized housing. It simply ensures that property rights are protected through due process during expropriation efforts.

This case highlights the critical distinction between an intention to expropriate and the formal legal process required to do so. While the government has the power of eminent domain, this power must be exercised in accordance with the law, respecting the rights of property owners. In the absence of formal expropriation proceedings, the property owner’s right to possess and use their land remains protected, ensuring fairness and due process under the law.

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: Danilo Antonio, et al. vs. Hon. Isagani A. Geronimo, et al., G.R. No. 124779, November 29, 2005