FILSTREAM v CA jurisdiction.

The right to expropriate private property for public use is

expressly granted to it under Sec 19 of the Local Government Code. Sec
FACTS: Subject: Eminent Domain
100 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila further empowers the city
Filstream filed ejectment suit before MTC against occupants on the government to expropriate private property in the pursuit of its urban land
grounds of termination of contact and non-payment of rentals. MTC reform and housing program.
decided in favor of Filstream. This was appealed in RTC and CA and both
(2) No. NO. We take judicial notice of the fact that urban land reform has
upheld existing decision. During the pendency of ejectment proceedings,
become a paramount task in view of the acute shortage of decent housing
City of Manila approved Ordinance 7813 authorizing Mayor Lim to
in urban areas particularly in Metro Manila. Nevertheless, despite the
initiate the acquisition by negotiation, expropriation, purchase, or other
existence of a serious dilemma, local government units are not given an
legal means certain parcels of land that covers properties of Filstream. City
unbridled authority when exercising their power of eminent domain in
of Manila filed complaint for eminent domain to expropriate
pursuit of solutions to these problems. Constitutional provisions on due
Filstream properties. Filstream filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
process and just compensation for the expropriation of private property
eminent domain as well as a motion to quash the writ of possession on the
must be complied with. Other laws have also set down specific rules in the
ground of no valid cause of action, the petition does not satisfy the
exercise of the power of eminent domain, to wit:
requirements of public use and maneuver to circumvent the ejectment
suit, violation of the constitutional guarantee against non-impairment, • Sec 19 of LGC provides that such exercise must be pursuant to the
price offered was too low violating just compensation. RTC denied the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws.
petition and declared the property condemned in favor of City of
• Sec 9 of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA)
Manila.
provides an order of priority in the acquisition of land for socialized
ISSUE:(1) WON City of Manila may exercise right of eminent domain housing, with private lands listed as the last option.
despite the existence of a final and executory judgment ordering private
• Sec 10 of UDHA provides that expropriation shall be resorted to only
respondents to vacate the lots – YES (2) WON expropriation of Filstream’s
when other modes of acquisition such as community mortgage, land
lots were legally and validly undertaken. - NO
swapping, donation to the government, etc. have been exhausted, and,
HELD:(1) YES. Petitioner Filstream anchors its claim by virtue of its where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by small
ownership over the properties and the existence of a final and executory property owners shall be exempted.
judgment against private respondents ordering the latter’s ejectment from
Compliance with the above legislated conditions are deemed mandatory
the premises.
because these are the only safeguards in securing the right of owners of
Private respondents’ claim on the other hand hinges on an alleged private property to DUE PROCESS when their property is expropriated for
supervening event which has rendered the enforcement of petitioner’s public use.
rights moot, that is, the expropriation proceedings undertaken by the City
There is nothing in the records which would indicate that the City of Manila
of Manila over the disputed premises for the benefit of herein private
complied with the above conditions. Filstream’s properties were
respondents. For its part, the City of Manila is merely exercising its power
expropriated and ordered condemned in favor of the City of Manila sans
of eminent domain within its jurisdiction by expropriating petitioner’s
any showing that resort to the acquisition of other lands listed under Sec.
properties for public use.
9 of RA 7279 have proved futile. Evidently, there was a violation of
There is no dispute as to the existence of a final and executory judgment petitioner Filstream’s right to due process.
in favor of petitioner Filstream ordering the ejectment of private
It must be emphasized that the State has a paramount interest in
respondents from the properties subject of this dispute. Thus, petitioner
exercising its power of eminent domain for the general good considering
has every right to assert the execution of this decision as it had already
that the right of the State to expropriate private property as long as it is
became final and executory.
for public use always takes precedence over the interest of private
However, it must also be conceded that the City of Manila has an property owners. However we must not lose sight of the fact that the
undeniable right to exercise its power of eminent domain within its individual rights affected by the exercise of such right are also entitled to
protection, bearing in mind that the exercise of this superior right cannot
override the guarantee of due process extended by the law to owners of
the property to be expropriated.