Moday v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Bunawan passed Resolution No. 43-89, authorizing the Municipal Mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings for a one-hectare portion of Lot No. 6138-Pls-4, owned by Percival Moday, for the site of the Bunawan Farmers Center and government sports facilities. This lot was part of a larger parcel owned by Zotico Moday and Leonora Moday. Procedural History: The Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved Resolution No. 43-89, stating that expropriation was unnecessary as there were still available lots. Subsequently, the Municipality of Bunawan filed a petition for Eminent Domain against Percival Moday and his parents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the municipality's motion to take possession of the property, holding that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval was infirm and that the expropriation was within the municipality's power. The RTC's order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), which found the public purpose clear and noted that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had not declared the resolution invalid. The Petition: Petitioners sought the reversal of the CA decision and resolution, praying for a declaration that Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 is null and void. They contended that the expropriation was politically motivated and that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan correctly disapproved the resolution due to the availability of other municipal properties.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval of Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 rendered the resolution null and void. Whether the Municipality of Bunawan has the authority to expropriate the petitioners' property. Whether the expropriation proceedings were politically motivated and lacked genuine necessity.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the questioned Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval: The Court held that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval of Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 was an infirm action that did not render the resolution null and void. Section 153 of B.P. Blg. 337, the governing law at the time, grants the Sangguniang Panlalawigan the power to declare a municipal resolution invalid only if it is beyond the powers conferred upon the Sangguniang Bayan or the Mayor. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan's reason for disapproval, that expropriation was unnecessary due to available lots, did not fall within this sole ground for invalidation. Therefore, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was without the authority to disapprove the resolution on such grounds, and its action did not annul the resolution. On the Municipality's authority to expropriate: The Court affirmed that the Municipality of Bunawan has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain, as expressly provided in Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337. The Sangguniang Bayan also had the capacity to promulgate Municipal Resolution No. 43-89. Since the Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval was infirm, the resolution remained valid and binding, providing lawful authority for the municipality to petition for the condemnation of the petitioners' property. The Court reiterated that the limitations on eminent domain are public use, just compensation, and due process, all of which were deemed sufficiently addressed or subject to further determination in the expropriation proceedings. On political motivation and necessity: The Court found no evidentiary support for the petitioners' allegations that the expropriation was politically motivated or that there was a lack of genuine necessity due to the availability of other municipal properties. The uncertified sketch plan did not conclusively prove the existence of suitable vacant land owned by the municipality, and the Court of Appeals had also noted the lack of evidence pointing to other available properties. The accusations of political reprisal were likewise unsupported by competent evidence. Consequently, the demand for personal liability of the former mayor for damages was dismissed.
Main Doctrine
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan's power to disapprove a municipal resolution is limited to declaring it invalid if it is beyond the powers conferred upon the Sangguniang Bayan or the Mayor. Disapproval based on other grounds, such as the alleged availability of other lots, is an infirm action and does not render the resolution null and void.