Scribd
Upload
222 views2 pages

G.R. No. 156684

The petitioners owned land in Mandaluyong City that they used as their residence and rented out portions to generate income. The city council passed a resolution authorizing the mayor to take legal steps to expropriate the land for low-cost housing. The petitioners challenged the resolution as unconstitutional. The court ruled the challenge was premature as expropriation requires a formal authorizing ordinance, not just a resolution, and no expropriation proceedings had begun against the petitioners' property.

Uploaded by

Dindee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
222 views2 pages

G.R. No. 156684

The petitioners owned land in Mandaluyong City that they used as their residence and rented out portions to generate income. The city council passed a resolution authorizing the mayor to take legal steps to expropriate the land for low-cost housing. The petitioners challenged the resolution as unconstitutional. The court ruled the challenge was premature as expropriation requires a formal authorizing ordinance, not just a resolution, and no expropriation proceedings had begun against the petitioners' property.

Uploaded by

Dindee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

G.R. No.

156684               April 6, 2011

SPOUSES ANTONIO and FE YUSAY, Petitioners,


vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CITY MAYOR and CITY COUNCIL OF MANDALUYONG
CITY, Respondents.

Facts: The petitioners owned a parcel of land with an area of 1,044 square meters
situated between Nueve de Febrero Street and Fernandez Street in Barangay
Mauway, Mandaluyong City. Half of their land they used as their residence, and
the rest they rented out to nine other families. Allegedly, the land was their only
property and only source of income.

On October 2, 1997, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Mandaluyong City


adopted Resolution No. 552, Series of 1997, to authorize then City Mayor
Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. to take the necessary legal steps for the expropriation of
the land of the petitioners for the purpose of developing it for low cost housing
for the less privileged but deserving city inhabitants. The petitioners became
alarmed and filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, praying for the
annulment of Resolution No. 552 due to its being unconstitutional, confiscatory,
improper, and without force and effect.

The City countered that Resolution No. 552 was a mere authorization given to
the City Mayor to initiate the legal steps towards expropriation, which included
making a definite offer to purchase the property of the petitioners; hence, the suit
of the petitioners was premature.

Issue: Whether or not the validity of Resolution No. 552 can be assailed before its implementation.

HELD: No. The absence of an ordinance authorizing the same is equivalent to lack of cause of action.
In view of the absence of the proper expropriation ordinance authorizing and providing for
the expropriation, the petition for certiorari filed in the RTC was dismissible for lack of cause
of action. As of then, it was premature for the petitioners to mount any judicial challenge, for
the power of eminent domain could be exercised by the City only through the filing of a
verified complaint in the proper court. Before the City as the expropriating authority filed
such verified complaint, no expropriation proceeding could be said to exist. Until then, the
petitioners as the owners could not also be deprived of their property under the power of
eminent domain. Republic Act No. 7160 (The Local Government Code) requires cities to pass
an ordinance, not adopt a resolution, for the purpose of initiating an expropriation
proceedings

You might also like