Masikip vs.

City of Pasig, 479 SCRA 391 (2006)

Sandoval Gutierrez, J.

FACTS:
1. Lourdes Dela Paz Masikip is the registered owner of a parcel of land, which the City of Pasig sought to
expropriate a portion thereof for the sports development and recreational activities of
the residents of Barangay Caniogan. This was in January 1994. Masikip refused.

2. On March 23, 1994, City of Pasig sought again to expropriate said portion of land for the alleged
purpose that it was in line with the program of the Municipal Government to provide land
opportunities to deserving poor sectors of our community.

3. Petitioner protested, so City of Pasig filed with the trial court a complaint for expropriation. The
Motion to Dismiss filed by Masikip was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that there was
genuine necessity to expropriate the property. Case was brought to the Court of Appeals, which
dismissed petition for lack of merit.

4. Masikip filed a motion to dismiss on the complaint on the following grounds: ( PLEASE SEE pages 395-
397)

ISSUE:

WON there was genuine necessity to expropriate the property
Decision:
Former decisions of the COA are Reversed. The complaint for expropriation of Masikips land was
Dismissed.

Ratio Decidendii:

1. Power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has
been previously made to the owner and such offer was not accepted;

2. LGU may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of expropriation proceedings
and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least 15% fair market value of the property based
on the current tax declaration; and

3. Amount to be paid for expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on
the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property

4. There is already an established sports development and recreational activity center at Rainforest Park
in Pasig City. There is no genuine necessity to justify the expropriation. The records show that the
Certification issued by the Caniogan Barangay Council which became the basis for the passage of
Ordinance No. 4, authorizing the expropriation, indicates that the intended beneficiary is the
Melendres Compound Homeowners Association, a private, non-profit organization, not the residents of
Caniogan.
THERE ARE TWO MAIN ISSUES REGARDING THIS CASE:
1. PROCEDURAL HOW THE COURT REACHED ITS DECISION ( LACK OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW)
2. SUBSTANTIAL THE PURPOSE FOR THE EXPROPRIATION OF LAND ( IT WAS FOUND OUT THAT IT
WAS NOT FOR PUBLIC USE)