Lagcao v. Labra Facts: Cebu City government sold lot 1029 to petitioners. But when petitioners tried to occupy the lot, squatters were already occupying it. They filed an ejectment case against the squatters. RTC affirmed the MTCC’s decision and issued a writ of execution and order of demolition. But the mayor of Cebu City asked the court to temporarily suspend the demolition to give the city enough time to relocate the squatters. But during the suspension, city council issued ordinance 1843 which authorized the mayor to expropriate petitioners’ lot for socialized housing purposes. Issue: May the city of Cebu validly expropriate petitioners’ lot? Ruling: Sec. 19 of RA 7160 grants the power of eminent domain to local government units. But their exercise of it must not contravene the Constitution or pertinent laws. But in expropriating the petitioners’ lot, no reason was given as to why their lot was singled out. The necessity that impelled the council to choose the lot was also not given. 1843 then deprives petitioners of their property for the convenience of a few without perceptible benefit to the public, thereby violating sec. 1, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution. In addition, RA 7279, which city’s basis for expropriating the lot for purposes of urban land reform and housing, requires that expropriation of privately-owned lands should only be use as a last resort. But city did not show that they exhausted all the other means of acquiring lands. And there was no evidence that the city offered to buy the lot. But compliance with such conditions are mandatory to protect owners of lands from tyrannical violation of due process. Thus, 1843 is invalid because it violates the Constitution, RA 7160, and RA 7279.

Lagcao v. Labra

Download DOCX Report

Upload
123014stephen
View
340
Download
6

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

case digest

Citation preview

Lagcao v. Labra

Facts: Cebu City government sold lot 1029 to petitioners. But when petitioners tried to occupy the lot, squatters were already occupying it. They filed an ejectment case against the squatters. RTC affirmed the MTCC’s decision and issued a writ of execution and order of demolition. But the mayor of Cebu City asked the court to temporarily suspend the demolition to give the city enough time to relocate the squatters. But during the suspension, city council issued ordinance 1843 which authorized the mayor to expropriate petitioners’ lot for socialized housing purposes.

Issue: May the city of Cebu validly expropriate petitioners’ lot?

Ruling: Sec. 19 of RA 7160 grants the power of eminent domain to local government units. But their exercise of it must not contravene the Constitution or pertinent laws. But in expropriating the petitioners’ lot, no reason was given as to why their lot was singled out. The necessity that impelled the council to choose the lot was also not given. 1843 then deprives petitioners of their property for the convenience of a few without perceptible benefit to the public, thereby violating sec. 1, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution. In addition, RA 7279, which city’s basis for expropriating the lot for purposes of urban land reform and housing, requires that expropriation of privately-owned lands should only be use as a last resort. But city did not show that they exhausted all the other means of acquiring lands. And there was no evidence that the city offered to buy the lot. But compliance with such conditions are mandatory to protect owners of lands from tyrannical violation of due process. Thus, 1843 is invalid because it violates the Constitution, RA 7160, and RA 7279.