G.R. No. L-48685
September 30, 1987
Facts
The NHA (National Housing Authority) filed a complaint for expropriation of parcels of land covering approximately (25) hectares, including the lots of petitioners. The land sought to be expropriated were valued by the NHA at one peso (P1.00) per square meter adopting the market value fixed by the provincial assessor in accordance with presidential decrees prescribing the valuation of property in expropriation proceedings. Together with the complaint was a motion for immediate possession of the properties. The NHA deposited the amount with the PNB, representing the total MV of the subject property, pursuant to PD 1224 which defines “the policy on the expropriation of private property for socialized housing upon payment of just compensation.” Thereafter, respondent judge issued a writ of possession. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition.
Petitioners contended that they were deprived of their property without due process of law. Furthermore, they prayed that PD No. 1224 be declared unconstitutional on the grounds that (1) violates the due process clause, (2) allows the taking of property regardless of the size of the are to be expropriated, (3) social housing is not for public purpose, (4) allows taking of property upon payment of unjust and unfair valuations arbitrarily fixed by government assessors, and (5) deprives the Court of their judicial discretion to determine “just compensation.”
Issues
- Whether or not P.D. No 1224 constitutes a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain?
- Whether or not there is a violation of due process?
Held
First Issue
PD 1224 does not constitute a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain because of the lack of just compensation.
1. Socialized Housing is within the purview of public use.
The _“public use” _requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain provides whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play.
“Socialized housing” is defined as, “the construction of dwelling units for the middle and lower class members of our society, including the construction of the supporting infrastructure and other facilities” It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. Hence, socialized housing satisfies the requirement of public use.
2. Size of the property
Expropriation is not conned to landed estates (J.M. Tuason Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration). The propriety of exercising the power of eminent domain under Article XIII, section 4 of our Constitution cannot be determined on a purely quantitative or area basis. The said case of JM Tuason case departed from the Guido case which held that the test to be applied for a valid expropriation of private lands was the area of the land and not the number of people who stood to be benefited.
In this case, the State acting through the NHA is vested with broad discretion to designate the particular property/properties to be taken for socialized housing purposes and how much thereof may be expropriated. The right to the use, enjoyment and disposal of private property is tempered by and has to yield to the demands of the common good.
3. Unconstitutional – Just Compensation
In Ignacio v. Guerrero, the provisions on just compensation of PD 1224 have been declared unconstitutional for encroaching upon the prerogative of the judiciary. The provisions on just compensation found in PD 1224, 1259 and 1313 are the same provisions found in Presidential Decree Nos. 76, 464, 794 and 1533 which were declared unconstitutional in Dulay case for being encroachments on judicial prerogatives. In the said case, the basic unfairness of the decrees is readily apparent. Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking. It means a fair and equivalent for the loss sustained. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.
Hence, the right to eminent domain cannot be exercised because of the lack of just compensation.
Second Issue
Violation of Due Process
Respondent Judge ordered the issuance of a writ of possession without notice and without hearing. The constitutionality of this procedure has also been ruled upon in the Dulay case, viz : “It is violative of due process to deny to the owner the opportunity to prove that the valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to basic concepts of justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of minor bureaucrat or clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgment of a court promulgated only after expert commissioners have actually viewed the property, after evidence and arguments pro and con have been presented, and after all factors and considerations essential to a fair and just determination have been judiciously evaluated.”
It is imperative that before a writ of possession is issued by the Court :
#There must be a Complaint for expropriation sufficient inform and in substance;
- A provisional determination of just compensation for the properties sought to be expropriated must be made by the trial court on the basis of judicial (not legislative or executive) discretion; and
- The deposit requirement under Section 2, Rule 67 must be complied with.
Decision
The case be remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings to determine the compensation the petitioners are entitled to be paid.