8/13/2019 049 Meycauayan v IAC
1/2
Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan, and Hon. Adriano Daez,
Municipal Mayor (Petitioner) vs
IAC, and Philippine Pipes & Merchandising Corporation
(Respondents)
Date:January 29, 1988Ponente:Gutierrez, Jr., J.
Short Version:Facts: The municipality tried to expropriate the
land of Philippine Pipes to be used as a public road. The
corporation filed an opposition with the provincial governor,
who then created a committee. The provincial
board annulled the action of the municipality based on the
recommendation of the committee. A few years
later, the municipality again tried to expropriate the land, and
this time, the provincial board approved the
expropriation. The municipality then filed a petition for
expropriation with the CFI against Philippine Pipes.Held: The land
should not be expropriated. The municipality has not shown any
genuine need to expropriate
the land. In fact, based on the records, there were other roads
in the area which could be used to achieve
the goal of the municipality to ease the traffic in certain
roads.
Facts:- In 1975, Philippine Pipes and Merchandising Corporation
filed with the Office of the Municipal Mayor of
Meycauayan an application for a permit to fence a parcel of
land. The fencing was allegedly to enable the
storage of the respondent's heavy equipment.- The Municipal
Council of Meycauayan passed a Resolution manifesting the intention
to expropriate the
corporation's parcel of land. An opposition to the Resolution
was filed by the corporation with the Office ofthe Provincial
Governor, which, in turn, created a special committee of four
members to investigate the
matter.- The Special Committee recommended that the Provincial
Board of Bulacan annul the Resolution because
there was no genuine necessity for Meycauayan to expropriate the
property for use as a public road. Thus,
the Provincial Board annulled the Resolution.- On October 21,
1983, the Municipal Council of Meycauayan passed another Resolution
for the purpose of
expropriating anew the corporation's land. The Provincial Board
approved the Resolution.- The municipality filed with the RTC of
Malolos a special civil action for expropriation. Upon deposit
of
P24,025.00 (the market value of the land) with the PNB, the
trial court issued a writ of possession in favor of
the municipality.- On August 27, 1984, the trial court issued an
order declaring the taking of the property as lawful and
appointing the Provincial Assessor as court commissioner to
ascertain the just compensation for the property.- Philippine Pipes
went to the IAC on petition for review. The appellate court
affirmed the trial court's decision.
However, upon motion for reconsideration, the decision was
reversed, with the IAC holding that there is no
genuine necessity to expropriate the land for use as a public
road as there were several other roads for the
same purpose and another more appropriate lot for the proposed
public road.
8/13/2019 049 Meycauayan v IAC
2/2
- After its motion for reconsideration was denied, the
municipality went to the SC on petition for review on
certiorari.
Issue/Reasoning:Issue: Whether the land should be
expropriated(No. There is no genuine need to do so.)- The
jurisdiction of the SC in cases brought the CA (then the IAC) is
limited to the review of errors of law.
The SC can only review the findings of the CA under certain
exceptions such as: (1) when the conclusion is a
finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (3) when there is
grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; and (5) when
the court, in making its finding, went
beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of the parties.- None of the exceptions are present in
this case. On the contrary, the IAC's decision is supported by
substantial evidence.- The municipality's purpose in
expropriating the property is to convert it into a public road
which would
provide a connecting link between Malhacan Road and Bulac Road
to ease the traffic in the area of vehiclescoming from MacArthur
Highway. The records, however, reveal that there are other
connecting links between
the aforementioned roads. The petitioner itself admits that
there are four such cross roads in existence. The
IAC stated that with the proposed road, there would be seven.-
The municipality objects to the IAC's findings contending that they
were based on the committee report
previous made. However, there is no evidence which shows a
change in the factual circumstances. There is
no showing that some of the other available roads have been
closed or that the private roads in the
subdivision may not be used for municipal purposes.- There is no
question to the right of the State to take private property for
public use upon payment of just
compensation. What is questioned is the existence of a genuine
necessity therefor.- City of Manila v Chinese Community of Manila:
Condemnation of private property is justified only if it is forthe
public good and there is a genuine necessity of a public character.
Consequently, the courts have the
power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right
of eminent domain and to determine whether
there is a genuine necessity therefor.- De Knecht v Bautista,
citing J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v Land Tenure Administration:
With due recognition...
of the power of Congress to designate the particular property to
be taken... in the exercise of the power of
expropriation, it is still a judicial question whether in the
exercise of such competence, the party adversely
affected is the victim of partiality and prejudice. That the
equal protection clause will not allow.- There is no showing in the
why the more appropriate lot for the proposed road which was
offered for sale
has not been the subject of the municipality's attempt to
expropriate.
Dispositive:Petition dismissed.
-Elvin
