USA College of Law

IQUIÑA 1-F

Case Name 1. Municipality of Paranaque vs VM Realty Corporation

Topic Eminent Domain

Case No. | Date 127820 | July 20, 1998

Ponente Panganiban, J.
Doctrine LGU cannot exercise the power to expropriate private property pursuant to a ​resolution​. The
requirement, as per the Local Government Code, to exercise the power is an ​ordinance​.

RELEVANT FACTS
● Municipality of Paranaque filed a complaint for expropriation against VM Realty over two parcels of land
in order to provide homes for the homeless through a housing project.
● VM Realty alleged that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant to a
resolution and not to an ordinance as required by RA 7160 (the Local Government Code);
● They also alleged that the cause of action, if any, was barred by a prior judgment or res judicata.
● Petitioner cited Article 36, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules, which requires only a resolution to authorize
an LGU to exercise eminent domain.
ISSUE: ​1) W/N a resolution by the municipal council has the same effect as an ordinance and will not deprive an
expropriation case of a valid cause of action.
2) W/N the principle of res judicata as a ground for dismissal of the case is applicable

RULING: 1) NO. ​Resolution and ordinance are not synonymous. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a
declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body. An LGU may only exercise the power to expropriate private
property only when authorized by Congress and subject to its control and restraints, This can be found in ​Sec 19 of RA
7160​. While the petitioner relied on Article 36, Rule VI of the Implementing Rules, the Court disagreed stating that Section
19 of RA 7160, the law itself, prevails over the former. Strictly speaking, the power of eminent domain delegated to an LGU
is not eminent but “inferior” domain, since it must conform to the limits imposed by Congress.

2) NO. ​Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State. Its scope is plenary, and dictates that it is absolute and unfettered
even by a prior judgment or res judicata. Eminent domain, the highest and most exact idea of property, remains in the
government, and they have the right to the possession of the property whenever the public interest requires it. The Court’s
ruling that petitioner cannot exercise its delegated power of eminent domain through a mere resolution will not bar it from
reinstituting similar proceedings once all requirements are properly complied with.

RULING
Petition denied.
NOTES: ​Requisites before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain: ​SEC 19, RA 7160
1) An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU.
2) Eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.
3) There is payment of just compensation
4) A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property to be expropriated, but was not accepted.