Municipality of Meycauayan, Bulacan, and Hon.

Adriano Daez, Municipal Mayor (Petitioner) vs IAC, and Philippine Pipes & Merchandising Corporation (Respondents)

Date: January 29, 1988 Ponente: 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 of the 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.

- 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 vehicles coming 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 for the 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