Expropriation Requires an Ordinance, Not Just a Resolution: Yusay v. Court of Appeals

The power of eminent domain allows the government to take private property for public use, but only if it strictly follows the law. In Spouses Yusay v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 156684, April 6, 2011), the Supreme Court clarified a crucial procedural requirement: a local government unit (LGU) cannot begin expropriation proceedings based on a mere resolution. It must first enact an ordinance. This decision protects property owners from premature or unlawful takings and reminds LGUs of the limits of their delegated power.

The Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Spouses Antonio and Fe Yusay, owned a 1,044-square-meter parcel of land in Mandaluyong City. They used half as their residence and rented out the rest to nine families. In 1997, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Mandaluyong adopted Resolution No. 552, authorizing then-Mayor Benjamin Abalos to take legal steps to expropriate the property for a low-cost housing project.

Alarmed, the Yusays filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), seeking to annul the resolution. The RTC initially dismissed the petition, but later reversed itself and declared the resolution null and void. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, upholding the resolution. The Yusays then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether the Yusays could challenge Resolution No. 552 through certiorari and prohibition, and whether the resolution itself was a valid basis for expropriation.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition but ruled in favor of the Yusays on the substantive issue. The Court held that certiorari and prohibition were not the proper remedies because the Sangguniang Panglungsod was acting in a legislative capacity, not a judicial or quasi-judicial one.

More importantly, the Court ruled that Resolution No. 552 was insufficient to authorize expropriation. Under Section 19 of the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), an LGU may exercise eminent domain "through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance." A resolution, which merely expresses the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body, cannot substitute for an ordinance, which is a law of general and permanent character.

The Court cited Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation, which laid down the essential requisites for an LGU to exercise eminent domain:

1. An ordinance must be enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the chief executive to pursue expropriation.
2. The power must be exercised for public use, purpose, or welfare.
3. Just compensation must be paid.
4. A valid and definite offer must have been made to the owner and rejected.

Because Mandaluyong City relied only on a resolution, the Court found that the expropriation lacked a valid basis. However, since the Yusays filed the wrong legal remedy, the Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of their petition.

Why This Matters

This case underscores a key principle: the power of eminent domain is a derogation of a fundamental private right. Therefore, the law requires strict compliance. LGUs cannot shortcut the process by passing a simple resolution. Property owners faced with a potential taking should know their rights and the proper legal avenues to challenge government action.

Practical Takeaways

• An ordinance is mandatory. Under RA 7160, an LGU must pass an ordinance before exercising eminent domain. A resolution is not enough.
• Know the proper remedy. Certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 are not available to challenge legislative acts like resolutions. Property owners should explore other remedies, such as filing a case for declaration of nullity.
• Expropriation is not immediate. The LGU must first make a valid and definite offer to purchase the property, which the owner must reject before the government can file an expropriation complaint.
• Just compensation is guaranteed. Even when expropriation is valid, the owner has the right to be paid the fair market value of the property at the time of taking, as determined by the court.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.