City of Manila v. Te
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7951 authorizing the acquisition of real properties for low-cost housing. Respondent Melba Tan Te owned a 475-square-meter lot included in the ordinance, which was occupied by families whose leasehold rights had expired. Respondent had initiated ejectment proceedings against these occupants, and a Writ of Demolition was issued. Subsequently, the City of Manila filed an expropriation case for the same property, which was dismissed without prejudice. Procedural History: The City of Manila filed a second Complaint for expropriation, attaching Ordinance No. 7951 and alleging an offer to purchase the property for ₱824,330.00, which respondent allegedly failed to retrieve. The City deposited ₱1,000,000.00 as just compensation. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the ordinance was invalid, the City failed to comply with Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992), and she was a small property owner exempt from the law. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding that the City failed to submit a certification from the City Treasurer regarding the amount needed for just compensation, did not show compliance with R.A. No. 7279, and that respondent qualified as a small property owner. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's dismissal. The Petition: The City of Manila assailed the CA's decision, arguing that the dismissal was premature and denied it an opportunity to prove compliance with R.A. No. 7279 and that respondent owned other properties. The City contended that these issues should be resolved in a full trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the expropriation complaint based on a motion to dismiss. Whether the respondent's objections and defenses, including non-compliance with R.A. No. 7279, are proper grounds for a motion to dismiss in an expropriation case under the amended Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Whether the City of Manila complied with the requirements of Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 prior to filing the expropriation case. Whether the respondent qualifies as a small property owner exempt from expropriation under R.A. No. 7279.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the orders of the RTC and CA, and remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings, directing the respondent to file her Answer within ten (10) days from the finality of the decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Motion to Dismiss: The Court held that under the amended Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, objections and defenses to the taking of property in an expropriation case must be raised in an Answer, not in a Motion to Dismiss. Issues such as compliance with R.A. No. 7279 and the respondent's status as a small property owner are affirmative defenses that require the presentation of evidence. Dismissing the complaint on these grounds via a motion to dismiss constitutes a denial of due process. The trial court should have denied the motion to dismiss and required the respondent to file an Answer. On the objections and defenses raised in the Motion to Dismiss: The Court reiterated that whether the petitioner complied with Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 prior to filing the expropriation suit is a matter that requires presentation of evidence and cannot be determined at the motion to dismiss stage. The amended Rule 67 mandates that such defenses be raised in the Answer. The petitioner's claim of having offered to purchase the property and deposited just compensation are matters to be proven during the trial. On the requirements of R.A. No. 7279: The Court reiterated that the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. No. 7279 are mandatory. However, whether the petitioner complied with these provisions prior to filing the expropriation suit is a matter that requires presentation of evidence and cannot be determined at the motion to dismiss stage. The amended Rule 67 mandates that such defenses be raised in the Answer. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim of having offered to purchase the property and deposited just compensation are matters to be proven during the trial. On the status of the respondent as a small property owner: The Court found that the respondent's claim of being a small property owner, and thus exempt from expropriation under R.A. No. 7279, is an affirmative defense that necessitates the presentation of evidence. This includes proving that the subject lot is the only real property she owns. Such factual determination cannot be made solely on the basis of a motion to dismiss. Therefore, this issue should have been raised and litigated in the Answer.
Main Doctrine
In expropriation cases governed by the amended Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, objections and defenses to the taking of property must be raised in an Answer, not in a Motion to Dismiss, as these issues require presentation of evidence aliunde. Dismissing a complaint based on such grounds in a motion to dismiss is a denial of due process.