AI-generated
Updated 3rd February 2025
Heirs of Alberto Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong
The Supreme Court ruled that a local government unit (LGU) must enact an ordinance—not merely pass a resolution—to validly exercise eminent domain under the Local Government Code. The City of Mandaluyong’s attempt to expropriate private property for a medical center expansion using a resolution was declared invalid.

Primary Holding

A local government cannot initiate expropriation proceedings without a valid ordinance authorizing it; a resolution is insufficient under Section 19 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code).

Background

The City of Mandaluyong sought to expropriate Alberto Suguitan’s property for expanding the Mandaluyong Medical Center using a 1994 resolution. Suguitan challenged this, arguing it violated procedural requirements under the Local Government Code.

History

  • 1994: Sangguniang Panlungsod passed Resolution No. 396 authorizing expropriation.

  • 1995: Expropriation complaint filed (RTC Pasig, SCA No. 875); Suguitan’s motion to dismiss denied.

  • 1995: Writ of possession granted after Mandaluyong deposited 15% of the property’s value.

  • 1998: RTC issued an Order of Condemnation.

  • 2000: Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s decision.

Facts

  • 1. The City of Mandaluyong used Resolution No. 396 (1994) to authorize expropriation of Suguitan’s property under TCT No. 56264.
  • 2. The city failed to negotiate a sale with Suguitan before filing the expropriation case.
  • 3. The RTC allowed immediate possession upon deposit of 15% of the property’s value.

Arguments of the Petitioners

  • 1. Expropriation required an ordinance, not a resolution, under Section 19 of RA 7160.
  • 2. No public necessity justified the taking.
  • 3. The city lacked a budget to pay just compensation.
  • 4. Alleged ulterior motive: Mayor Benjamin Abalos sought the property for personal use.

Arguments of the Respondents

  • 1. Expropriation required an ordinance, not a resolution, under Section 19 of RA 7160.
  • 2. No public necessity justified the taking.
  • 3. The city lacked a budget to pay just compensation.
  • 4. Alleged ulterior motive: Mayor Benjamin Abalos sought the property for personal use.

Issues

  • 1. Does Section 19 of RA 7160 require an ordinance (not a resolution) to authorize eminent domain?
  • 2. Was the expropriation validly initiated via a resolution?
  • 3. Was there a genuine public necessity for the taking?

Ruling

  • 1. The Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s decision.
  • 2. Eminent domain by LGUs requires an ordinance under RA 7160. Resolutions lack permanence and generality.
  • 3. The IRR’s provision allowing resolutions conflicts with the law and is invalid.
  • 4. Mandaluyong may re-initiate expropriation with a proper ordinance.

Doctrines

  • 1. Strict Construction of Eminent Domain: Powers must be narrowly interpreted to protect property rights.
  • 2. Legislative Nature of Eminent Domain: While delegated to LGUs, compliance with statutory requirements (e.g., ordinances) is mandatory.

Key Excerpts

  • 1. “The statutory power of taking property from the owner without his consent is one of the most delicate exercises of governmental authority. It is to be watched with jealous scrutiny.”
  • 2. “[An] ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body.”

Precedents Cited

  • 1. “The statutory power of taking property from the owner without his consent is one of the most delicate exercises of governmental authority. It is to be watched with jealous scrutiny.”
  • 2. “[An] ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body.”

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

  • 1. 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 9: Private property shall not be taken without just compensation.
  • 2. RA 7160 (Local Government Code), Sec. 19: Requires LGUs to enact an ordinance to exercise eminent domain.
  • 3. Rule 67, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: Governs expropriation proceedings.