Ruling versus city in lot's sale upheld

The Court of Appeals upheld a ruling of the Regional Trial Court dismissing an expropriation case filed by the city government against a corporation that owns a lot the city is eyeing for its socialized housing project.

The CA 18th Division headed by Associate Justice Enrico Lanzanas sustained the ruling of the lower court that decided in favor of Aznar Enterprises.

The involved a 2,027 square-meter lot owned by Aznar Enterprises along V. Rama Avenue, barangay Calamba, that the city wanted to expropriate in 1996.

The city government, exercising its power for eminent domain for its socialized housing project, filed expropriation proceedings before the RTC on November 5, 1996 after the owner allegedly turned down its offer to buy the property, which is part of the 4,679 square-meter lot estimated then to have a market value of P5,256,500

But the RTC dismissed the petition for lack of merit, saying that under Section 9 of Republic Act 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act, a private lot is the last in the order of priorities in the acquisition of lands for the socialized housing projects.

In February 6, 1997, the RTC ruled against the city saying it failed to explain why the private lot has to be taken as it is the last in the order of priority and it likewise failed to explain why it is advantageous to the beneficiaries for the city government to expropriate the lot.

After their motion for reconsideration was also denied by the lower court, the city government filed an appeal before the CA citing alleged error committed by the lower court in dismissing its complaint.

The city government claimed the RTC erred in dismissing the case as it did not conduct trial on the merits to determine the facts involved in the suit. It claimed that the rules and the Local Government Code do not require any exhaustion of priorities before the right of eminent domain could be exercised.

In a seven-page decision promulgated last December 12, Lanzanas said the RTC was sound in its decision and has comprehensively explained why the case should be dismissed. - Fred P. Languido