BELUSO VS.

MUNICIPALITY OF PANAY
FACTS:
Petitioners are owners of parcels of land. On November 8, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Panay
issued a resolution authorizing the municipal government through the mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings.
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the taking is not for public use but only for the benefit of certain
individuals and that some of the supposed beneficiaries of the land sought to be expropriated have not actually signed a
petition asking for the property but their signatures were forged or they were misled into signing the same. Petitioners also
contended that the Municipality exercises eminent domain through a mere resolution, therefore it contravenes with the
mandate of the law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the expropriation through a resolution was valid.
HELD:
NO. The Court ruled that an ordinance not a mere resolution is necessary for expropriation. Eminent domain, which is the
power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular uses to promote public welfare, is essentially
lodged in the legislature. While such power may be validly delegated to local government units (LGUs), other public
entities and public utilities the exercise of such power by the delegated entities is not absolute. Indeed, despite the
existence of legislative grant in favor of local governments, it is still the duty of the courts to determine whether the power
of eminent domain is being exercised in accordance with the delegating law. R.A. No. 7160 otherwise known as the Local
Government Code expressly requires an ordinance for the purpose and a resolution that merely expresses the sentiment
of the municipal council will not suffice.
EUSEBIO VS. LUIS
FACTS:
Respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of land. Said parcels of land were taken by the City of Pasig sometime
in 1980 and used as a municipal road. Subsequently, the Sanggunian of Pasig City passed Resolution No. 15 authorizing
payments to respondents for said parcel of land. Respondents counsel sent a demand letter dated August 26, 1996 to
Mayor Eusebio, demanding the amount of P5,000.00 per square meter, or a total of P7,930,000.00, as just compensation
for respondents property. In response, Mayor Eusebio wrote a letter dated September 9, 1996 informing respondents that
the City of Pasig cannot pay them more than the amount set by the Appraisal Committee. Hence, respondents filed a
complaint for reconveyance.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents are entitled to regain possession of their property taken by the city government in the 1980s
and, in the event that said property can no longer be returned, how should just compensation to respondents be
determined.
HELD: It is settled that non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowners to recover possession of
their expropriated lot. It is settled jurisprudence that where property was taken without the benefit of expropriation
proceedings, and its owner files an action for recovery of possession thereof before the commencement of expropriation
proceedings, it is the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling.
However, in taking respondents property without the benefit of expropriation proceedings and without payment of just
compensation, the City of Pasig clearly acted in utter disregard of respondents proprietary rights. Such pecuniary loss
entitles him to adequate compensation in the form of actual or compensatory damages, which in this case should be the
legal interest (6%) on the value of the land at the time of taking, from said point up to the full payment. This is based on
the principle that interest "runs as a matter of law and follows from the right of the landowner to be placed in as good
position as money can accomplish, as of the date of the taking.

LANDBANK VS. SPOUSES ROSA

G.R. NO. 174647, DEC. 5, 2012
FACTS;
Respondents spouses Rosa and Pedro Costo are the registered owners of a parcel of land located at Catamlangan, Pilar,
Sorsogon. After the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, respondents voluntarily offered the said property to the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). However,
respondents rejected the valuation. This impelled petitioner to deposit the offer in the form of cash and bonds in favor of
respondents as provisional compensation for the acquired property. Thereafter, respondents sought the determination of
just compensation with the Provincial Adjudication Board of the DAR. The CA adjudged in favor of the respondents.
Hence, an appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the valuation of the property made by PARAD was valid.
HELD: YES.
In determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider the following factors: (1) the acquisition cost of the land;
(2) the current value of the properties; (3) its nature, actual use, and income; (4) the sworn valuation by the owner; (5) the
tax declarations; (6) the assessment made by government assessors; (7) the social and economic benefits contributed by
the farmers and the farmworkers, and by the government to the property; and (8) the non-payment of taxes or loans
secured from any government financing institution on the said land, any. The Court has likewise ruled that in appraising
just compensation. The courts must consider, in addition, all the facts regarding the condition of the landholding and its
24
surroundings, as well as the improvements and the capabilities of the landholding. Thus, the computation should be
sustained.