Moday vs. Court of Appeals

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan may declare a municipal resolution invalid only on the sole ground that it is beyond the power of the Sangguniang Bayan or the Mayor to issue; disapproval on any other ground is infirm and does not render the resolution null and void.

The Municipality of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, sought to acquire a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6138-Pls-4, owned by the Moday family, for the construction of a Bunawan Farmers Center and government sports facilities. The Sangguniang Bayan passed Resolution No. 43-89 authorizing the Municipal Mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur disapproved the resolution, stating that expropriation was unnecessary because other available lots existed in Bunawan. Despite this disapproval, the municipality proceeded with condemnation proceedings.

• Original Filing: Petition for Eminent Domain filed by the Municipality of Bunawan against Percival Moday before the RTC of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, Branch 6 (Special Civil Case No. 719); later amended to include Zotico and Leonora Moday as party defendants.
• Lower Court Decision: RTC Order dated July 2, 1991 granted the municipality's Motion to Take or Enter Upon Possession, holding that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's failure to declare the resolution invalid left it effective; motion for reconsideration denied on October 31, 1991.
• Appeal: Petition for Certiorari filed with the CA (CA G.R. SP No. 26712) alleging grave abuse of discretion; CA dismissed the petition on July 15, 1992, and denied reconsideration on October 22, 1992.
• SC Action: Petition for Review filed on November 23, 1992; SC issued a Temporary Restraining Order on December 8, 1993.

The petitioners, Percival Moday and his parents Zotico and Leonora Moday, owned a 5.6610-hectare parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-3132, situated along the National Highway in Bunawan, Agusan del Sur. On July 23, 1989, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bunawan passed Resolution No. 43-89, authorizing the Municipal Mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings over a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6138-Pls-4, owned by Percival Moday, for the site of a Bunawan Farmers Center and other government sports facilities. The resolution was approved by then Municipal Mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo and transmitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur for review. On September 11, 1989, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved the resolution and returned it with the comment that expropriation was unnecessary considering that there were still available lots in Bunawan for the establishment of the government center.

Despite the disapproval, the Municipality of Bunawan filed a Petition for Eminent Domain against Percival Moday before the RTC of Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur. The complaint was later amended to include Zotico and Leonora Moday as party defendants. On March 6, 1991, the municipality filed a Motion to Take or Enter Upon the Possession of the Subject Matter, stating that it had deposited P632.39 with the municipal treasurer as the provisional value of the land, in accordance with Section 2, Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court. Over the petitioners' opposition, the RTC granted the motion on July 2, 1991, holding that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's failure to declare the resolution invalid left it effective and that the exercise of eminent domain was not among the acts requiring Sangguniang Panlalawigan approval under Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 337. The RTC ordered the Sheriff to place the municipality in possession of the property and set a hearing for the determination of just compensation. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on October 31, 1991.

Petitioners elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition on July 15, 1992, holding that the public purpose for the expropriation was clear from Resolution No. 43-89 and that since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan did not declare the resolution invalid, expropriation could proceed. The CA also stated that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's reason for disapproval could be baseless because it failed to point out which and where the available lots were. Reconsideration was denied on October 22, 1992. Meanwhile, the Municipality of Bunawan had erected three buildings on the subject property: the Association of Barangay Councils (ABC) Hall, the Municipal Motorpool, both wooden structures, and the Bunawan Municipal Gymnasium, a concrete structure.

Petitioners filed the instant petition for review on November 23, 1992, seeking reversal of the CA decision and a declaration that Resolution No. 43-89 was null and void. They contended that the expropriation was politically motivated, alleging that Percival Moday had incurred the ire of then Mayor Bustillo when he refused to support the latter's candidacy in previous elections, and that the municipality owned a vacant seven-hectare property adjacent to their land, evidenced by a sketch plan. The SC issued a Temporary Restraining Order on December 8, 1993, enjoining the RTC from enforcing its July 2, 1991 Order and the municipality from using, occupying, or further constructing buildings on the land. On March 15, 1995, the SC cited incumbent Mayor Bustillo for contempt for violating the restraining order by constructing "blocktiendas" on the property; he paid the fine and manifested that he lost in the May 8, 1995 election. The incumbent Mayor Leonardo Barrios filed a Manifestation and Motion to Resolve for the Municipality of Bunawan on June 11, 1996.

• The CA erred in upholding the legality of the condemnation proceedings initiated by the municipality.
• The expropriation was politically motivated; Resolution No. 43-89 was correctly disapproved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan because there were other municipal properties available for the purpose.
• Then Mayor Anuncio C. Bustillo should be ordered to pay damages for insisting on the enforcement of a void municipal resolution.
• The municipality owns a vacant seven-hectare property adjacent to petitioners' land, as evidenced by a sketch plan, making the expropriation of their property unnecessary.

• The public purpose for the expropriation is clear from Resolution No. 43-89.
• The Sangguniang Panlalawigan did not declare Resolution No. 43-89 invalid; therefore, expropriation of petitioners' property could proceed.
• The Sangguniang Panlalawigan's reason for disapproving the resolution could be baseless because it failed to point out which and where the available lots were.
• The municipality has the power to exercise eminent domain under B.P. Blg. 337, and the exercise of this power is not among the acts requiring Sangguniang Panlalawigan approval under Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 337.

• Validity of Sangguniang Panlalawigan Disapproval: Whether the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval of Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 rendered the resolution null and void, thereby depriving the Municipality of Bunawan of authority to expropriate petitioners' property.
• Political Oppression and Bad Faith: Whether the expropriation was politically motivated and constituted an abuse of the power of eminent domain, entitling petitioners to damages.

• Validity of Sangguniang Panlalawigan Disapproval: No. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval of Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 is an infirm action that does not render the resolution null and void. Under Section 153 of B.P. Blg. 337, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan may declare a municipal resolution invalid only on the sole ground that it is beyond the power of the Sangguniang Bayan or the Mayor to issue. Since the Municipality of Bunawan clearly has the power to exercise eminent domain and its Sangguniang Bayan the capacity to promulgate the resolution under Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, the disapproval was without authority. Resolution No. 43-89 is valid and binding and could be used as lawful authority to petition for condemnation.

• Political Oppression and Bad Faith: No. The SC found no evidentiary support for petitioners' allegations of political reprisal and bad faith. The uncertified photocopy of the sketch plan does not conclusively prove that the municipality owns vacant land adjacent to petitioners' property suited for the expropriation. The accusations of political reprisal are unsupported by competent evidence. Consequently, petitioners' demand that the former municipal mayor be personally liable for damages is without basis.

• Validity of Sangguniang Panlalawigan Disapproval: Eminent domain is a fundamental State power inseparable from sovereignty. It is the government's right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose. Inherently possessed by the national legislature, the power of eminent domain may be validly delegated to local governments, other public entities, and public utilities. For the taking of private property by the government to be valid, the taking must be for public use and there must be just compensation. The Municipality of Bunawan's power to exercise eminent domain is expressly provided for in Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, which states that 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. 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 SC, citing Velazco vs. Blas, held that the only ground upon which a provincial board may declare any municipal resolution invalid is when such resolution is beyond the powers conferred upon the council or president making the same. Absolutely no other ground is recognized by law. A strictly legal question is before the provincial board in its consideration of a municipal resolution. If a provincial board passes these limits, it usurps the legislative functions of the municipal council or president. Thus, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was without authority to disapprove Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 because the Municipality of Bunawan clearly has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain and its Sangguniang Bayan the capacity to promulgate the resolution under Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337. Resolution No. 43-89 is valid and binding and could be used as lawful authority to petition for the condemnation of petitioners' property.

• Political Oppression and Bad Faith: 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. The SC has taken cognizance of issues such as the adequacy of compensation, necessity of the taking, and the public use character or purpose of the taking, and has ruled that the necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a public character. Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be taken. However, after a careful study of the records, the SC found no evidentiary support for petitioners' allegations. The uncertified photocopy of the sketch plan does not conclusively prove that the municipality owns vacant land adjacent to petitioners' property suited to the purpose of the expropriation. The CA similarly held that the pleadings and documents on record have not pointed out any of the municipality's other available properties for the same purpose. The accusations of political reprisal are likewise unsupported by competent evidence. Consequently, petitioners' demand that the former municipal mayor be personally liable for damages is without basis.

• Eminent Domain — The power of the State to appropriate private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. It is a fundamental State power inseparable from sovereignty, inherently possessed by the national legislature but may be validly delegated to local governments, other public entities, and public utilities. In this case, the SC affirmed that the Municipality of Bunawan validly exercised this power under Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337.

• Requisites of Valid Taking — For the taking of private property by the government to be valid: (1) the taking must be for public use; and (2) there must be just compensation. The SC applied these requisites and found them satisfied.

• Scope of Sangguniang Panlalawigan Review Power — The Sangguniang Panlalawigan may declare a municipal resolution invalid only on the sole ground that it is beyond the power of the Sangguniang Bayan or the Mayor to issue. No other ground is recognized by law. If the provincial board disapproves on any other ground, it usurps the legislative functions of the municipal council or president, and its action is infirm.

• Necessity of Expropriation — The necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a public character. Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be taken. However, the burden is on the party challenging the expropriation to present competent evidence that the taking is unnecessary or politically motivated.

• "The only ground upon which a provincial board may declare any municipal resolution, ordinance, or order invalid is when such resolution, ordinance, or order is 'beyond the powers conferred upon the council or president making the same.' Absolutely no other ground is recognized by the law. A strictly legal question is before the provincial board in its consideration of a municipal resolution, ordinance, or order. The provincial (board's) disapproval of any resolution, ordinance, or order must be premised specifically upon the fact that such resolution, ordinance, or order is outside the scope of the legal powers conferred by law. If a provincial board passes these limits, it usurps the legislative functions of the municipal council or president."

• "The Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval of Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 is an infirm action which does not render said resolution null and void."

• "Eminent domain, the power which the Municipality of Bunawan exercised in the instant case, is a fundamental State power that is inseparable from sovereignty. It is government's right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose."

• "The necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a public character. Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be taken."

• Velazco vs. Blas, G.R. No. L-30456, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 540 — Controlling precedent. The SC cited this case for the rule that the only ground upon which a provincial board may declare a municipal resolution invalid is when such resolution is beyond the powers conferred upon the council or president making the same. The SC held that its pronouncements in Velazco, although pertaining to a similar provision of law but different factual milieu, are applicable to the case at bar.

• Gabriel vs. Provincial Board of Pampanga, 50 Phil. 686 — Cited in Velazco. Supports the rule limiting the provincial board's power to declare municipal resolutions invalid solely on the ground of ultra vires.

• Cariño vs. Jamoralne, 56 Phil. 188 — Cited in Velazco. Reinforces the principle that the provincial board's disapproval must be premised specifically on the fact that the resolution is outside the scope of legal powers conferred by law.

• Manantan vs. Municipality of Luna, 82 Phil. 844 — Cited in Velazco. Further supports the consistent course of executive authority on the limited grounds for provincial board disapproval.

• City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila, 40 Phil. 349 — Cited for the rule that the necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and of a public character.

• Municipality of Meycauayan vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-72126, January 29, 1988, 157 SCRA 640 — Cited as among cases where the SC took cognizance of issues such as adequacy of compensation, necessity of the taking, and public use character of the purpose of the taking.

• Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, G.R. No. 103125, May 11, 1993, 222 SCRA 173 — Cited for the rule that the power of eminent domain may be validly delegated to local governments, other public entities, and public utilities.

• Section 9, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (Local Government Code of 1983) — Provides that 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. The SC applied this provision to affirm the Municipality of Bunawan's authority to expropriate petitioners' property.

• Section 153, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 — Provides that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan may declare a municipal ordinance, resolution, or executive order invalid if it finds that the same is beyond the power conferred upon the Sangguniang Bayan or the Mayor. The SC applied this provision to hold that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval of Resolution No. 43-89 was infirm because it was not based on the sole legal ground of ultra vires.

• Section 19, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 — Enumerates certain acts of the Sangguniang Bayan requiring approval of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan: (1) permanent closure of a public road, street, alley, park, or square; and (2) donation of municipal funds or property. The RTC cited this provision to support its holding that the exercise of eminent domain is not among the acts requiring Sangguniang Panlalawigan approval.

• Article III, Section 9, 1987 Constitution — Provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The SC cited this provision in discussing the requisites for a valid taking.

• Section 2, Rule 67, Revised Rules of Court — Governs the entry of the plaintiff upon the property sought to be condemned upon deposit of the provisional value. The municipality invoked this provision in its Motion to Take or Enter Upon Possession.

• Justice Regalado (Chairman)
• Justice Puno
• Justice Mendoza
• Justice Torres, Jr.

N/A