Masikip v City of Pasig

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/10/2019 Masikip v City of Pasig

    1/1

    Appellant Lourdes Dela Paz Masikip owns a parcel of land, which the City of Pasig sought to expropriate, through its power of eminent, a portion thereof for thesports development and recreational activitiesof the residents of Barangay Caniogan. Respondent City of Pasig alleged the expropriation was in line with the program of the Municipal Government to provide land opportunities to deserving poorsectors of our community, found in Ordinance No. 42 s. 1993.Not satisfied with the reasoning and necessity, Appellant protested and filed a complaint for expropriation but was dismissed by the trial court and Court of Appeals.

    Issue: W/N the City of Pasig can expropriate the appellants property through theexercise the eminent domain

    Held:The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of the government. It delegates the exercise thereof to local government units, other public entities and public utility corporations, subject only to Constitutional limitations. Local governments have no inherent power of eminent domain and may exercise it only when expressly authorized by statute. [Sec. 19 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160)]. Moreover, the very foundation of the rightto exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that necessity must be ofa public character. Thus, the ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany and not follow the taking of the land.

    In the case at bar, the records show that the Certification issued by the Caniog

    an Barangay Council the basis for the authorizing the expropriation, indicates that the intended beneficiary is the Melendres Compound Homeowners Association, aprivate, nonprofit organization, not the residents of Caniogan. It can be gleaned that the members of the said Association are desirous of having their own private playground and recreational facility. Petitioners lot is the nearest vacantspace available. The purpose is, therefore, not clearly and categorically public. Hence, the genuine necessity and public character is missing making the expropriation illegal.