Realtors v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Philippine Realtors, Inc. obtained an ejectment judgment against defendants in Civil Case No. 69191 of the Municipal Court of Manila concerning a 2.5-hectare parcel of land. Writs of execution and demolition were issued. Defendants filed Civil Case No. 41400 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, obtaining a restraining order against the ejectment and demolition. This case was dismissed, and the restraining order dissolved, leading to the issuance of alias writs of ejectment and execution. The CFI revived the restraining order pending finality of dismissal. Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their appeal, and their subsequent petition for review with the Supreme Court was also dismissed. Procedural History: Upon remand to the Municipal Court, alias writs of execution and demolition orders were issued. However, the Land Tenure Administration (LTA), representing the Republic of the Philippines, filed Civil Case No. 54648 in the CFI of Manila for the expropriation of the same land, intending to subdivide it for resale to tenants and occupants. The CFI issued an order restraining the ejectment and demolition. The complaint alleged the land was formerly part of Hacienda Tuazon, occupied by over forty tenant-families for more than ten years, and the expropriation was pursuant to government policy under Republic Acts Nos. 1400, 1162, and 3516. The Petition: The present petition seeks to determine if the land is expropriable under Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution.
Issue(s)
Whether the 2.5-hectare parcel of land, formerly part of a larger landed estate but now partitioned, can be expropriated for resale to its tenants and occupants under Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in issuing an order restraining the ejectment and demolition proceedings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the order of the Court of First Instance in Civil Case No. 54648, prohibited the CFI from proceeding with the condemnation case, and ordered its dismissal. No costs were awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On the expropriability of the land: The Court reiterated its long-standing rulings that the condemnation of land in the manner sought is inappropriate and impermissible. The expropriation of "estates" or landed properties under the Constitution pertains to the nature and size of the land at the time of expropriation, not its historical status as part of a larger estate. A partitioned portion of a former landed estate, especially one of a relatively small area like 2.5 hectares, does not automatically qualify as a "landed estate" within the meaning of the Constitution for purposes of expropriation and resale to tenants. The Court emphasized that the Legislature cannot, by fiat, declare a small parcel of land to be a landed estate simply because it was once part of one, nor solely because it is in the City of Manila and occupied by many tenants. The area or extension of the land is a crucial factor in determining if it constitutes a landed estate for expropriation purposes. On the restraining order: The restraining order issued by the Court of First Instance was deemed erroneous because the underlying expropriation case was found to be legally impermissible. Since the land was not subject to expropriation under the constitutional provision cited, the LTA had no legal basis to restrain the execution of the ejectment judgment obtained by Philippine Realtors, Inc. The Court found no reason to depart from its established precedents that govern the expropriation of landed properties in relation to smaller urban lands.
Main Doctrine
The expropriation of a portion of a former landed estate, after its partition, is not permissible under the constitutional provision allowing expropriation of land for resale to tenants, as the size and nature of the land at the time of expropriation, not its past status, are determinative.