The Supreme Court ruled that a challenge to a city resolution authorizing expropriation is premature if no expropriation ordinance exists. This means property owners cannot legally contest a city’s intent to expropriate their land based solely on a resolution. An actual ordinance, which carries the force of law, is necessary before a legal challenge can be mounted. This decision clarifies the steps a local government must take before initiating expropriation proceedings, protecting property owners from premature legal battles while allowing local governments to plan for public projects.

Eminent Domain in Mandaluyong: Can a Resolution Trigger a Legal Showdown?

Spouses Antonio and Fe Yusay owned a piece of land in Mandaluyong City, part of which they resided on and the rest of which they leased. In 1997, the City Council of Mandaluyong, seeking to develop low-cost housing for less privileged residents, passed Resolution No. 552. This resolution authorized the City Mayor to take the necessary legal steps to expropriate the Yusays’ land. The Yusays, alarmed by this resolution, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing the resolution was unconstitutional and confiscatory. This legal challenge brought into focus the critical question of when a property owner can legally contest a local government’s intention to expropriate their land.

The heart of the legal matter rested on whether the resolution itself was a sufficient basis for a legal challenge. The Supreme Court delved into the nature of resolutions versus ordinances within the framework of the Local Government Code. It emphasized that a resolution merely expresses the sentiment or opinion of the local legislative body. It does not carry the force of law in the same way an ordinance does. Building on this principle, the Court highlighted the specific requirements outlined in Section 19 of the Local Government Code regarding the exercise of eminent domain:

Section 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 Supreme Court, citing Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation, underscored the distinction between a resolution and an ordinance. It reaffirmed that an ordinance is a law of permanent character, whereas a resolution is a declaration of sentiment or opinion, temporary in nature. To further illustrate, a third reading is necessary for enacting an ordinance, a requirement not generally applicable to resolutions. This crucial distinction is vital because the power of eminent domain, a significant intrusion on private property rights, can only be triggered by an ordinance, not a mere resolution.

In the case at hand, the City of Mandaluyong had only passed a resolution, not an ordinance, authorizing the expropriation. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the Yusays’ petition for certiorari and prohibition was premature. The Court noted that the City’s action had not yet reached the stage where it could be legally challenged. The decision underscores the procedural safeguards in place to protect property owners from unwarranted or premature exercises of eminent domain.

Analyzing the remedies sought by the Yusays, the Court found that neither certiorari nor prohibition were appropriate in this case. Certiorari is a remedy against judicial or quasi-judicial actions undertaken without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. The Sangguniang Panglungsod (City Council), in passing the resolution, was acting in a legislative capacity, not a judicial or quasi-judicial one. Furthermore, the Court did not find any grave abuse of discretion in the passage of the resolution, which merely expressed the City Council’s intent.

Prohibition, another special civil action, seeks to prevent a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person from acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Since the City Council was not exercising judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions, prohibition was also deemed inappropriate. In essence, the Court held that the Yusays’ legal challenge was an attempt to prevent an action that had not yet occurred and might never occur, as the City could have chosen not to pursue an expropriation ordinance.

This decision reinforces the principle that property rights, while fundamental, are not absolute and can be subject to the State’s power of eminent domain under specific conditions and procedures. The ruling clarifies that the mere expression of intent to expropriate, through a resolution, does not constitute an actual taking or a sufficient basis for legal action. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the Local Government Code, specifically the enactment of an ordinance, before initiating expropriation proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides a clear framework for understanding the limitations on challenging expropriation proceedings. The Court balances the protection of property rights with the legitimate exercise of local government powers for public welfare. The decision highlights the critical distinction between preliminary expressions of intent and concrete actions that directly affect property rights.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a city resolution authorizing expropriation, without an actual expropriation ordinance, could be legally challenged by property owners.
What is the difference between a resolution and an ordinance?	An ordinance is a law of permanent character, requiring a third reading for enactment, while a resolution is a temporary expression of sentiment or opinion by a lawmaking body.
What does the Local Government Code say about eminent domain?	The Local Government Code (Section 19) specifies that a local government unit can exercise eminent domain only through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against the Yusays?	The Supreme Court ruled against the Yusays because the City of Mandaluyong had only passed a resolution, not an ordinance, authorizing the expropriation, making the Yusays’ legal challenge premature.
What legal remedies did the Yusays seek, and why were they deemed inappropriate?	The Yusays sought certiorari and prohibition, which the Court deemed inappropriate because the City Council’s action was legislative, not judicial or quasi-judicial, and no grave abuse of discretion was found.
What are the requirements for a local government to exercise eminent domain?	The essential requisites include an ordinance authorizing the local chief executive to pursue expropriation, exercise of power for public use or welfare, payment of just compensation, and a valid offer to the owner that was not accepted.
What does the ruling mean for property owners facing potential expropriation?	Property owners cannot legally challenge a city’s intent to expropriate their land based solely on a resolution; an actual ordinance is necessary for a legal challenge.
What is the significance of the Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation case?	This case, cited by the Supreme Court, reinforces that a local government must act pursuant to an ordinance, not just a resolution, to exercise the power of eminent domain.

In conclusion, this case clarifies the legal boundaries within which local governments can exercise their power of eminent domain, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements to protect property rights. It serves as a reminder that while the State can take private property for public use, it must do so within the confines of the law, particularly requiring an ordinance before an expropriation case can be initiated.

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: Spouses Antonio and Fe Yusay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156684, April 06, 2011