Understanding the Limits of Eminent Domain: When Local Governments Overstep

G.R. No. 107916, February 20, 1997

Imagine owning a piece of land that your family has cherished for generations. Suddenly, the local government decides they need it for a new public project and initiates expropriation proceedings. Can they simply take your property, even if you disagree? The Philippine Supreme Court case of Moday v. Court of Appeals addresses this critical question, clarifying the extent of a local government’s power of eminent domain and the safeguards in place to protect private property rights. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the balance between public needs and individual property ownership.

The Power of Eminent Domain: A Double-Edged Sword

Eminent domain, also known as expropriation, is the inherent right of the State to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. This power is enshrined in the Philippine Constitution and delegated to local government units (LGUs) under specific conditions. The purpose is to enable the government to pursue projects that benefit the public, such as infrastructure development, public utilities, or social welfare programs.

However, this power is not absolute. The Constitution and relevant laws impose limitations to protect property owners from arbitrary or abusive takings. These limitations include:

• Public Use: The property must be taken for a genuine public purpose.
• Just Compensation: The property owner must receive fair market value for the taken property.
• Due Process: The expropriation proceedings must follow legal procedures and respect the property owner’s rights.

Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, the Local Government Code (in force at the time of the case), explicitly grants LGUs the power of eminent domain: “A local government unit may, through its head and acting pursuant to a resolution of its sanggunian, exercise the right of eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings for public use or purpose.”

Crucially, this power is subject to review by higher authorities, such as the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board). However, the scope of this review is limited, as detailed in Section 153 of B.P. Blg. 337:

“Sec. 153. Sangguniang Panlalawigan Review. — (1) Within thirty days after receiving copies of approved ordinances, resolutions and executive orders promulgated by the municipal mayor, the sangguniang panlalawigan shall examine the documents…(2) If the sangguniang panlalawigan shall find that any municipal ordinance, resolution or executive order is beyond the power conferred upon the sangguniang bayan or the mayor, it shall declare such ordinance, resolution or executive order invalid… The action of the sangguniang panlalawigan shall be final.”

This section clearly stipulates that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan can only invalidate a municipal resolution if it exceeds the powers granted to the municipality. It cannot disapprove a resolution based on other considerations, such as its necessity or wisdom.

Moday v. Court of Appeals: A Battle Over Land in Bunawan

The Moday case originated in the Municipality of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur. The Sangguniang Bayan (Municipal Council) passed Resolution No. 43-89, authorizing the mayor to expropriate a one-hectare portion of Percival Moday’s land for a farmers’ center and sports facilities. This resolution was then submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for approval.

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved the resolution, stating that expropriation was unnecessary because other available lots existed in Bunawan. Despite this disapproval, the Municipality of Bunawan filed a Petition for Eminent Domain against Moday in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted the municipality’s motion to take possession of the land, a decision later upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA).

The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where the central issue was whether the municipality could expropriate private property based on a municipal resolution disapproved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

Here’s a breakdown of the case’s procedural journey:

1. Sangguniang Bayan of Bunawan passed Resolution No. 43-89 authorizing expropriation.
2. Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved the resolution.
3. Municipality filed a Petition for Eminent Domain in the RTC.
4. RTC granted the municipality’s motion to take possession.
5. Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.
6. Supreme Court reviewed the case.

The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the CA’s decision, ruling in favor of the Municipality of Bunawan. The Court emphasized the limited scope of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s review power. According to the Supreme Court:

“The Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s disapproval of Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 is an infirm action which does not render said resolution null and void. The law, as expressed in Section 153 of B.P. Blg. 337, grants the Sangguniang Panlalawigan the power to declare a municipal resolution invalid on the sole ground that it is beyond the power of the Sangguniang Bayan or the Mayor to issue.”

The Court further stated that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan could not disapprove the resolution simply because it believed expropriation was unnecessary. The municipality had the power to exercise eminent domain, and the resolution was within its legal authority.

Regarding the petitioner’s claim of political oppression, the Court found no sufficient evidence to support the allegation that the expropriation was motivated by personal animosity. The Court reiterated the limitations on eminent domain, stating: “The limitations on the power of eminent domain are that the use must be public, compensation must be made and due process of law must be observed.”

Practical Implications and Key Takeaways

The Moday case provides valuable lessons for property owners and local governments alike. It clarifies the boundaries of eminent domain power and the limited scope of review by higher authorities. This ruling underscores that LGUs can exercise eminent domain if they follow the legal requirements, even if a higher body disagrees with the necessity of the taking.

For property owners, this case highlights the importance of understanding their rights and challenging expropriation proceedings if the legal requirements are not met. This includes ensuring that the taking is for a legitimate public purpose, that just compensation is paid, and that due process is followed.

For LGUs, the case serves as a reminder to adhere strictly to the legal requirements for exercising eminent domain. They must ensure that the taking is for a valid public purpose and that they provide just compensation to the property owner.

Key Lessons:

• LGUs have the power of eminent domain, but it is not absolute.
• The Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s review power is limited to determining if the municipality exceeded its legal authority.
• Property owners have the right to challenge expropriation proceedings if legal requirements are not met.

Hypothetical Example:

Imagine a municipality wants to build a new public market. It identifies a privately-owned lot as the ideal location. The Sangguniang Bayan passes a resolution authorizing the expropriation of the lot. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproves the resolution, stating that the municipality should instead use a vacant lot it already owns. Based on the Moday ruling, the municipality can still proceed with the expropriation if it can demonstrate that the taking is for a public purpose, offers just compensation, and follows due process. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s disapproval based solely on the availability of another lot is not a valid ground to invalidate the municipal resolution.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is eminent domain?

A: Eminent domain is the right of the government to take private property for public use, even if the owner doesn’t want to sell it. The government must pay “just compensation” for the property.

Q: What is “just compensation”?

A: Just compensation is the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking, plus any consequential damages the owner may suffer as a result of the expropriation.

Q: Can the government take my property for any reason?

A: No. The taking must be for a “public use,” meaning it must benefit the public in some way. This could include building roads, schools, hospitals, or other public facilities.

Q: What can I do if the government wants to expropriate my property?

A: You have the right to challenge the expropriation in court. You can argue that the taking is not for a public use, that the compensation offered is not just, or that the government is not following proper procedures.

Q: What is the role of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in expropriation cases?

A: The Sangguniang Panlalawigan reviews municipal resolutions authorizing expropriation. However, its power is limited to determining if the municipality exceeded its legal authority. It cannot disapprove a resolution simply because it disagrees with the necessity of the taking.

Q: Does this ruling mean the government can always take private property?

A: No. The government must still comply with all legal requirements, including demonstrating a public purpose, paying just compensation, and following due process. The Moday case simply clarifies the limited scope of review by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

ASG Law specializes in Real Estate Law and Local Government Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.