Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Te 1
23/27 CITY OF MANILA V. MELBA TAN TE (RRZ) Philippines P1,000,000.00 cash, representing the just
G.R. No. 169263; September 21, 2011 compensation required to be paid to Te. Te filed a MTD saying
Petitioners: City of Manila that the Ordinance is an invalid expropriation measureTC
Respondents: Melba Tan Te Ruling:
5. RTC Ruling: MTD approved. First, the trial court held that
Emergency Recit: (Sample) while petitioner had deposited with the bank the alleged P1M
Te’s land wa to be expropriated by the City of Manila. The city wanted cash in trust for respondent, petitioner nevertheless did not
to eject the families who were in the property, but at the same time submit any certification from the City Treasurers Office of the
instituted an expropriation case. Te moved to dismiss it for lack of an amount needed to justly compensate respondent for her
ordinance for expropriation. This was granted. A second complaint was property. Second, it emphasized that the provisions of
filed, now with an ordinance. A second MTD was granted saying that Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 are mandatory in
there was a failure to prove the propriety of the expropriation. The character, yet petitioner had failed to show that it exacted
Supreme Court reversed saying that the revisions made in the ROC compliance with them prior to the commencement of this
dispenses the extraordinary MTD. The present rule requires the filing of suit. Lastly, it conceded that respondent had no other real
an answer. property except the subject lot which, considering its total
Doctrine/s: area, should well be considered a small property exempted by
1. CHECK NOTE law from expropriation. In view of the dismissal of the
2. Expropriation is a two-pronged proceeding: first, the complaint, petitioners motion to enter was rendered moot and
determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the academic.
power and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the 6. CA affirmed –no merit
facts which terminates in an order of dismissal or an order of
condemnation affirming the plaintiff's lawful right to take the Issue/s: Was the dismissal of the case premature? YES
property for the public use or purpose described in the
complaint and second, the determination by the court of the
just compensation for the property sought to be expropriated. Held:
3. Expropriation is a two-pronged
Facts: proceeding: first, the determination of the authority of the
1. On March 15, 1998, then Manila City Mayor Lito Atienza plaintiff to exercise the power and the propriety of its exercise
approved Ordinance No. 7951 an expropriation measure in the context of the facts which terminates in an order of
enacted on February 3, 1998 by the city council authorizing dismissal or an order of condemnation affirming the plaintiff's
him to acquire by negotiation or expropriation certain pieces lawful right to take the property for the public use or purpose
of real property along Maria Clara and Governor Forbes described in the complaint and second, the determination by
Streets where low-cost housing units could be built and then the court of the just compensation for the property sought to
awarded to bona fide residents therein. For this purpose, the be expropriated.
mayor was also empowered to access the city’s funds or Expropriation proceedings are governed by Rule 67
utilize funding facilities of other government agencies. The of the Rules of Court. Under the Rules of Court of 1940 and
covered property measures 1,425 square meters, and 1964, where the defendant in an expropriation case conceded
includes the 475-square-meter lot owned by respondent to the plaintiffs right to expropriate (or where the trial court
Melba Tan Te. affirms the existence of such right), the court-appointed
2. Te had acquired the property from the heirs of Emerlinda commissioners would then proceed to determine the just
Dimayuga Reyes in 1996, and back then it was being compensation to be paid. Otherwise, where the defendant
occupied by a number of families whose leasehold rights had had objections to and defenses against the expropriation of
long expired even prior to said sale. In 1998, respondent had his property, he was required to file a single motion to dismiss
sought before the MTC Manila the ejectment of these containing all such objections and defenses.
occupants from the premises. The favorable ruling in that This motion to dismiss was not covered by Rule 15
case evaded execution; hence, the court, despite opposition which governed ordinary motions, and was then the required
of the City of Manila, issued a Writ of Demolition at responsive pleading, taking the place of an answer, where the
respondents instance plaintiffs right to expropriate the defendants property could be
3. In between the issuance of the writ of execution and the order put in issue. Any relevant and material fact could be raised as
of demolition, the City of Manila had instituted an expropriation a defense, such as that which would tend to show that the
case affecting the same property. Respondent had moved for exercise of the power to condemn was unauthorized, or that
the dismissal of that first expropriation case for lack of cause there was cause for not taking defendants property for the
of action, lack of showing of an ordinance authorizing the purpose alleged in the petition, or that the purpose for the
expropriation, and non-compliance with the provisions of taking was not public in character. With that, the hearing of the
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban motion and the presentation of evidence would follow. The
Development and Housing Act of 1992. The RTC granted the rule is based on fundamental constitutional provisions
MTD, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice affecting the exercise of the power of eminent domain, such
4. Petitioner filed this second complaint for expropriation. This as those that seek to protect the individual property owner
time, it attached a copy of Ordinance No. 7951 and alleged from the aggressions of the government.
that pursuant thereto, it had previously offered to purchase the The revisions made in the Rules of Court were to
subject property from respondent for P824,330.00. The offer take effect on July 1, 1997. Thus, with said amendments, the
was contained in a letter sent to respondent by the City Legal present state of Rule 67 dispenses with the filing of an
Officer on May 21, 1999, but respondent allegedly failed to extraordinary motion to dismiss such as that required before
retrieve it despite repeated notices, thereby compelling in response to a complaint for expropriation. The present rule
petitioner to institute the present expropriation proceedings requires the filing of an answer as responsive pleading to the
after depositing in trust with the Land Bank of the complaint.
SCA | Rule 67 | City of Manila v. Te 2