Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

CITY OF MANILA VS.

ALEGAR
Petition for certiorari for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner:
- City of Manila passed Ordinance 8012, authorizing the City Mayor to acquire private lots of
Alegar Corporation, Terocel Realty Corporation, and Filomena Vda. De Legarda for socialized
housing project.
- City offered P1,500 per sqm, which the respondents rejected.
- City filed a complaint for expropriation before RTC Manila.
Respondents:
- Alegar and Terocel claimed that the suit was premature because the City made no
renegotiation when they rejected the initial offer.
- RTC issued writ of possession in Citys favor, and asked the City to pay P1,500,000 deposit to
the respondents.
- Both parties agreed to go to trial and the respondents submitted their memorandum
EXCEPT the City.
- RTC dismissed the complaint for expropriation because the City violated:
o Sec. 9, RA. 7279 = There is a rank to be followed in acquiring properties for
socialized housing projects. Acquisition of private property is the last in rank. City
failed to provide evidence that there are no other available location except for the
said private property.
o Sec. 10, RA 7279 = prefers the acquisition of private property by negotiated sale
over the filing of an expropriation suit. City did not negotiate.
- City moved for reconsideration but before RTC could act upon it, the City appealed to the
Court of Appeals. CA affirmed RTCs decision.
Issue:
Whether or not City of Manilas complaint for expropriation deserves approval.
Supreme Court:
No. City claims that they do not need to comply with Sec. 9 of RA. 7279 because the lots were
already more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries because they were long-time occupants
of the land. However, they failed to adduce evidence on this. They also failed to show evidence that
there are no other available location except for the private properties.
City also violated Sec. 10 of RA. 7279 when it did not conduct the proper mode of land
acquisition when it did not renegotiate the price rejected by the respondents.
The project does not fall under the category of public use because it only benefits a few
people. City failed to present evidence to counter this claim.
There was also no denial of due process upon the City because a hearing was conducted and
they did not submit a memorandum.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
February 27, 2009 in CAG. R. CV 90530 subject to the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. Petitioner City of Manila is ordered to indemnify respondents Alegar Corporation, Terocel Realty
Corporation, and Filomena Vda. De Legarda in the amount of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees

2. Respondents Alegar Corporation, Terocel Realty Corporation, and Filomena Vda. De Legarda are in
turn ordered to return the advance deposit of P1,500,000.00 that they withdrew incident to the
expropriation case and
3. This decision is without prejudice to the right of the City of Manila to refile their action for
expropriation after complying with what the law requires.
SO ORDERED.