|Vargas Case Digests|

CITY OF MANDALUYONG V. AGUILAR

Facts and Controversy

The City of Mandaluyong wanted to expropriate 3 adjoining parcels of land with an aggregate area of 1,
847 square meters. The respondents constructed residential houses which they leased out to tenants. On the
vacant portions, the other families constructed residential structures that they occupied.

In 1983, the classification of the lots was classified by Resolution No. 125 of the BHUDCC (Board of the Housing
and Urban Development Coordination Council) as a priority development area for urban land reform. The
tenants and occupants of the lots were offered to purchase the land from the owners, but they refused. The
Sangguniang Panlungsod authorized Mayor Abalos of the City of Mandaluyong to initiate action for
expropriation of the subject lots and to construct a medium rise condominium. He offered P3k per sq. m.
Respondents did not answer letter. Thus, the City of Mandaluyong prayed for expropriation and fixing of just
compensation at P3k per sq. m.

Response of the respondents: denied receiving the copy of offer to purchase. Alleged that the expropriation
of land is “arbitrary and capricious”, not for a public purpose. Subject lots are only real property and are too
small for expropriation. Fair market value of P3k per sq. m. is arbitrary because the BIR set the zonal valuation
set it at P7k per sq. m. Trial court dismissed amended complaint for expropriation declaring respondents as
small property owners whose land is exempt from expropriation under RA 7279. Expropriation was also not for
a public purpose for petitioner’s failure to present any evidence that the intended beneficiaries of the
expropriation are landless and homeless residents. Motion for reconsideration was denied. Case brought to
SC.

Petitioner claim:
1. Size of lots in litigation does not exempt because the lots are declared to be within the Area for
Priority Development No. 5. It allegedly authorizes petitioner to expropriate the property regardless
of land size.

ISSUE: Whether or not the City of Mandaluyong can validly expropriate the lands of the respondents.

Decision of the Supreme Court

Affirmed the decision of the trial court. Acquisition of lands for social housing governed by several provisions
of law. Sec 9 of RA 7279 sets priorities in acquisition of land: (a) owned by government, (b) alienable lands
of public domain, (c) unregistered/abandoned/idle lands, (d)areas of priority development, program sites,
(e) bagong lipunan improvement of sites, (f) privately owned lands. According to petitioner, the lot is under
APD, so that fact gives priority. However, it should not be read alone.

Sec 10 states that the acquiring of socialized housing has many modes: following: (1) community mortgage;
(2) land swapping, (3) land assembly or consolidation; (4) land banking; (5) donation to the government; (6)
joint venture agreement; (7) negotiated purchase; and (8) expropriation. The type of lands to be acquired
in Section 9 are to be acquired only in the modes under Section 10.

The mode of expropriation is subject to two conditions: (a) it shall be resorted to only when the other modes
of acquisition have been exhausted; and (b) parcels of land owned by small property owners are exempt
from such acquisition.

Law states that expropriation comes last in order, only after other modes have been exhausted. The petitioner
alleged only one mode of acquisition – negotiated purchase. No other mention has been made. Section 9
also exempts the expropriation of parcels of land owned by small property owners. Argument of petitioner:
eminent domain not conditioned on size of lands; that only a few can benefit does not diminish its public use
character.

SC: adheres to notion of public use; RA 7279 introduced a limitation on size of land sought to be expropriated
FOR SOCIAL HOUSING for small property owners. RA 7279 Sec 3 (q) – small property owners are (1) owners of
real property whose property consists of residential lands with an area not > 300 sq. m. in highly urbanized
cities and 800 sq. m in other urban areas, (2) do not own real property other than the same.

The properties of each co-owner did not exceed the 300 sq. m. rule in RA 7279. There was also no evidence
to the contrary that the co-owners owned other real properties. They may live in different housings, but that
was no proof from the petitioner. Respondents presented claims by presenting certifications from offices of
the City and Municipal Assessors in Metro Manila.

More about consolidation and property: read nalang the case lol.