CITY OF MANILA V.

MELBA TAN TE (RRZ) City Legal Officer on May 21, 1999, but respondent allegedly failed to retrieve
G.R. No. 169263; September 21, 2011 it despite repeated notices, thereby compelling petitioner to institute the
Petitioners: City of Manila present expropriation proceedings after depositing in trust with the Land Bank
Respondents: Melba Tan Te of the Philippines P1,000,000.00 cash, representing the just compensation
required to be paid to Te. Te filed a MTD saying that the Ordinance is an
Emergency Recit: (Sample) invalid expropriation measureTC Ruling:
Te’s land wa to be expropriated by the City of Manila. The city wanted to eject the 5. RTC Ruling: MTD approved. First, the trial court held that while petitioner had
families who were in the property, but at the same time instituted an expropriation case. deposited with the bank the alleged P1M cash in trust for respondent,
Te moved to dismiss it for lack of an ordinance for expropriation. This was granted. A petitioner nevertheless did not submit any certification from the City
second complaint was filed, now with an ordinance. A second MTD was granted saying Treasurers Office of the amount needed to justly compensate respondent for
that there was a failure to prove the propriety of the expropriation. The Supreme Court her property. Second, it emphasized that the provisions of Sections 9 and 10
reversed saying that the revisions made in the ROC dispenses the extraordinary MTD. of R.A. No. 7279 are mandatory in character, yet petitioner had failed to show
The present rule requires the filing of an answer. that it exacted compliance with them prior to the commencement of this
Doctrine/s: suit. Lastly, it conceded that respondent had no other real property except the
1. CHECK NOTE subject lot which, considering its total area, should well be considered a small
2. Expropriation is a two-pronged proceeding: first, the determination of the property exempted by law from expropriation. In view of the dismissal of the
authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power and the propriety of its exercise complaint, petitioners motion to enter was rendered moot and academic.
in the context of the facts which terminates in an order of dismissal or an order 6. CA affirmed –no merit
of condemnation affirming the plaintiff's lawful right to take the property for the
public use or purpose described in the complaint and second, the Issue/s: Was the dismissal of the case premature? YES
determination by the court of the just compensation for the property sought to
be expropriated.
3. Held:
Facts: Expropriation is a two-pronged proceeding: first, the determination of
1. On March 15, 1998, then Manila City Mayor Lito Atienza approved Ordinance the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power and the propriety of its
No. 7951 an expropriation measure enacted on February 3, 1998 by the city exercise in the context of the facts which terminates in an order of dismissal
council authorizing him to acquire by negotiation or expropriation certain or an order of condemnation affirming the plaintiff's lawful right to take the
pieces of real property along Maria Clara and Governor Forbes Streets where property for the public use or purpose described in the complaint
low-cost housing units could be built and then awarded to bona fide residents and second, the determination by the court of the just compensation for the
therein. For this purpose, the mayor was also empowered to access the city’s property sought to be expropriated.
funds or utilize funding facilities of other government agencies. The covered Expropriation proceedings are governed by Rule 67 of the Rules of
property measures 1,425 square meters, and includes the 475-square-meter Court. Under the Rules of Court of 1940 and 1964, where the defendant in an
lot owned by respondent Melba Tan Te. expropriation case conceded to the plaintiffs right to expropriate (or where the
2. Te had acquired the property from the heirs of Emerlinda Dimayuga Reyes in trial court affirms the existence of such right), the court-appointed
1996, and back then it was being occupied by a number of families whose commissioners would then proceed to determine the just compensation to be
leasehold rights had long expired even prior to said sale. In 1998, respondent paid. Otherwise, where the defendant had objections to and defenses against
had sought before the MTC Manila the ejectment of these occupants from the the expropriation of his property, he was required to file a single motion to
premises. The favorable ruling in that case evaded execution; hence, the dismiss containing all such objections and defenses.
court, despite opposition of the City of Manila, issued a Writ of Demolition at This motion to dismiss was not covered by Rule 15 which governed
respondents instance ordinary motions, and was then the required responsive pleading, taking the
3. In between the issuance of the writ of execution and the order of demolition, place of an answer, where the plaintiffs right to expropriate the defendants
the City of Manila had instituted an expropriation case affecting the same property could be put in issue. Any relevant and material fact could be raised
property. Respondent had moved for the dismissal of that first expropriation as a defense, such as that which would tend to show that the exercise of the
case for lack of cause of action, lack of showing of an ordinance authorizing power to condemn was unauthorized, or that there was cause for not taking
the expropriation, and non-compliance with the provisions of Republic Act defendants property for the purpose alleged in the petition, or that the purpose
(R.A.) No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing for the taking was not public in character. With that, the hearing of the motion
Act of 1992. The RTC granted the MTD, and dismissed the complaint without and the presentation of evidence would follow. The rule is based on
prejudice fundamental constitutional provisions affecting the exercise of the power of
4. Petitioner filed this second complaint for expropriation. This time, it attached eminent domain, such as those that seek to protect the individual property
a copy of Ordinance No. 7951 and alleged that pursuant thereto, it had owner from the aggressions of the government.
previously offered to purchase the subject property from respondent The revisions made in the Rules of Court were to take effect on July
for P824,330.00. The offer was contained in a letter sent to respondent by the 1, 1997. Thus, with said amendments, the present state of Rule 67 dispenses
 with the filing of an extraordinary motion to dismiss such as that required and which possesses big and correctly located public lands that obviate the
before in response to a complaint for expropriation. The present rule requires need to take private property for public purposes. Neither circumstance
the filing of an answer as responsive pleading to the complaint. applies to the Philippines. We have never been a laissez-faire state. And the
Thus, the trial court in this case should have denied respondents necessities which impel the exertion of sovereign power are all too often found
motion to dismiss and required her to submit in its stead an answer within the in areas of scarce public land or limited government resources.
reglementary period. This, because whether petitioner has observed the
provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 before resorting to Specifically, urban renewal or development and the construction of
expropriation, and whether respondent owns other properties than the one low-cost housing are recognized as a public purpose, not only because of the
sought to be expropriated, and whether she is actually a small property owner expanded concept of public use but also because of specific provisions in the
beyond the reach of petitioners eminent domain powers, are indeed issues in Constitution. x x x The 1987 Constitution [provides]:
the nature of affirmative defenses which require the presentation of
evidence aliunde. Besides, Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will
consider these matters grounds for a motion to dismiss, and an action can be ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people
dismissed only on the grounds authorized by this provision from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote
full employment, a rising standard of living and an improved quality of life for
Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the Petition is all. (Article II, Section 9)
hereby GRANTED. The Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
24 in Civil Case No. 00-99264 dated June 13, 2001, as well as the April 29, The State shall, by law and for the common good, undertake, in
2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71894 affirming said cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program for urban land reform
order, and the August 12, 2005 Resolution therein which denied and housing which will make available at affordable cost decent housing and
reconsideration, are hereby SET ASIDE. The case is hereby REMANDED to basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and
the trial court for further proceedings. Respondent is DIRECTED to file her resettlement areas. x xx In the implementation of such program the State shall
Answer to the complaint within ten (10) days from the finality of this Decision. respect the rights of small property owners. (Article XIII, Section 9)

SO ORDERED. Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of

state concern since it directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the
environment and in sum, the general welfare. The public character of housing
NOTE: Court discussed the new meaning of Public Use: measures does not change because units in housing projects cannot be
The public use requirement for a valid exercise of the power of occupied by all but only by those who satisfy prescribed qualifications. A
eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing beginning has to be made, for it is not possible to provide housing for all who
conditions. need it, all at once.

The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time where Population growth, the migration to urban areas and the
it was felt that a literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement. mushrooming of crowded makeshift dwellings is a worldwide development
Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case particularly in developing countries. So basic and urgent are housing problems
of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not that the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 1987 as the
anymore. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of "International Year of Shelter for the Homeless" "to focus the attention of the
eminent domain comes into play. x x x The constitution in at least two cases, international community on those problems." The General Assembly is
to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation seriously concerned that, despite the efforts of Governments at the national
of lands to be divided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other and local levels and of international organizations, the driving conditions of the
is in the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other majority of the people in slums and squatter areas and rural settlements,
enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present especially in developing countries, continue to deteriorate in both relative and
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the absolute terms
requirement of public use.

The term public use has acquired a more comprehensive coverage.

To the literal import of the term signifying strict use or employment by the
public has been added the broader notion of indirect public benefit or
advantage. x x x

The restrictive view of public use may be appropriate for a nation

which circumscribes the scope of government activities and public concerns