Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals

The exercise of the power of eminent domain by a local government unit pursuant to the Local Government Code is not subject to the prior approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform for the conversion of agricultural lands, as the statutory provisions on land conversion apply to voluntary applications by landowners or beneficiaries, not to compulsory acquisition for public use.

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur passed a resolution authorizing the expropriation of lands adjacent to the provincial capitol. The stated purposes were to establish a pilot farm for non-food agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial employees. Two expropriation complaints were filed against private respondents Ernesto and Efren San Joaquin. The trial court denied the respondents' motion to dismiss and authorized the Province to take possession of the properties upon deposit of a provisional sum. The respondents then sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which ordered the suspension of the expropriation until the Province obtained DAR approval to convert the land classification from agricultural to non-agricultural.

• Nature of the Action: The Province of Camarines Sur initiated expropriation proceedings against private respondents Ernesto and Efren San Joaquin to acquire their agricultural lands for a public purpose.
• Authorization and Purpose: The expropriation was authorized by Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988. The intended public uses were: (1) a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops, and (2) a housing project for provincial government employees.
• Trial Court Proceedings: The RTC denied the San Joaquins' motion to dismiss (which was based on inadequacy of the price offered) and granted the Province's motion for a writ of possession upon deposit of a provisional amount.
• Court of Appeals Intervention: The San Joaquins filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA. The CA did not invalidate the expropriation resolution or dismiss the complaints. Instead, it suspended the proceedings, ruling that the Province must first comply with Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) and secure DAR approval for the conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use.
• Solicitor General's Position: Before the CA, the Solicitor General agreed that no presidential approval was needed for the expropriation but argued that DAR approval for land conversion was required.

• Scope of Delegated Power: Petitioner Province of Camarines Sur argued that its authority to expropriate under Sections 4 and 7 of B.P. Blg. 337 (Local Government Code) is not restricted by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657).
• Public Purpose: Petitioner maintained that the expropriation was for a valid public purpose—the establishment of a pilot development center and a housing project—both of which contribute to the general welfare and prosperity of the community.
• No Statutory Requirement: Petitioner contended that neither the Local Government Code nor the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local governments to the prior approval of the DAR.

• DAR Approval Required: Respondents (through the Court of Appeals and the Solicitor General's comment) argued that Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, which governs the conversion of agricultural lands, must be complied with. They asserted that the Province must first secure DAR approval to reclassify the property before proceeding with expropriation.
• Limited Delegated Power: The Solicitor General emphasized that local government units exercise the power of eminent domain only by delegation, implying that such power is inherently limited and subject to other statutory controls like agrarian reform laws.

• Primary Jurisdiction/Statutory Compliance: Whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by a local government unit under the Local Government Code requires the prior approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform for the conversion of land use pursuant to Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
• Public Purpose: Whether the expropriation for a pilot farm and housing project constitutes a valid public purpose or public use.

• Primary Jurisdiction/Statutory Compliance: The expropriation does not require prior DAR approval. Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 applies to voluntary applications for conversion by landowners or beneficiaries after an award has been made, not to the compulsory exercise of eminent domain by the government. The delegated power of eminent domain under the Local Government Code is complete within its limits and cannot be constricted by implication from a later, general statute. To hold otherwise would unduly hamper government infrastructure projects by subjecting all expropriations of agricultural land to DAR conversion proceedings.
• Public Purpose: The expropriation serves a valid public purpose. The modern interpretation of "public use" encompasses public advantage, convenience, or benefit that contributes to the general welfare. A pilot development center and a government housing project directly benefit the community and satisfy this constitutional requirement.

• Public Purpose in Eminent Domain — The concept of "public use" has evolved from a literal requirement of actual use by the general public (e.g., roads) to a broader notion of public advantage, convenience, or benefit that contributes to the general welfare and prosperity of the community. A housing project and an agricultural research center qualify as public purposes.
• Delegated Power of Eminent Domain — Local government units exercise the power of eminent domain only through legislative delegation. While the delegating legislature may impose conditions, those conditions must be clearly expressed. The power, once delegated, is complete within its statutory limits and cannot be broadened or constricted by implication from other statutes.
• Sovereign Immunity from General Statutes — Restrictive statutes, no matter how broad, do not bind the sovereign (or its political subdivisions exercising sovereign powers) unless the sovereign is specially mentioned as subject thereto. The government's power of eminent domain is not implicitly curtailed by general agrarian reform legislation.

• "Modernly, there has been a shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of 'public purpose' or 'public use' for which the power of eminent domain may be exercised. The old concept was that the condemned property must actually be used by the general public... Under the new concept, 'public use' means public advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community..."
• "To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc, without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform... In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use."
• "Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that shall determine whether the use of the property sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same being an expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such legislative determination and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use."

• Heirs of Juancho Ardano v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983) — Upheld the expropriation of land covered by agrarian reform for a tourist resort complex, implicitly viewing the power of expropriation as superior to land distribution under the agrarian reform program.
• Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987) — Established that a housing project satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution, as housing is a basic human need affecting public welfare.
• Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987) — Declared as unconstitutional presidential decrees that fixed just compensation based on tax declarations, reinforcing that just compensation must be judicially determined.
• Municipality of Talisay v. Ramirez, 183 SCRA 528 (1990) — Affirmed that the rules for determining just compensation in expropriation are those in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.

• Section 9, B.P. Blg. 337 (Local Government Code) — Provides that a local government unit, through its head and acting pursuant to a resolution of its sanggunian, may exercise the right of eminent domain for public use or purpose. The Court found no requirement in this provision for DAR approval.
• Section 65, R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) — Governs the conversion of lands after the lapse of five years from award when the land ceases to be economically feasible for agriculture. The Court interpreted this provision as applying to voluntary applications by beneficiaries or landowners, not to compulsory government expropriation.

• Justice Isagani A. Cruz
• Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino
• Justice Josue N. Bellosillo