Municipality of Meycauayanvs Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC)

Facts:
Respondent Philippine Pipes and Merchandising Corporation filed with the
Office of the Municipal Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan an application for a permit to
fence a parcel of land. The fencing of said property was allegedly to enable the storage
of the respondents heavy equipment and various finished products.
The Municipal Council of Meycauayan passed Resolution manifesting the
intention to expropriate the respondents parcel of land. It was opposed by the
respondent Philippine Pipes and Merchandising Corporation with the office of the
Provincial Governor.
Special Committee recommended that the Provincial Board of Bulacan
disapprove or annul the resolution in question because there was no genuine
necessity for the Municipality of Meycauyan to expropriate the respondents property
for use as a public road. Then Provincial Board of Bulacan passed Resolution
disapproving and annulling the Resolution passed by the Municipal Council of
Meycauayan.
However, Petitioner (Municipality of Meycauayan) filed with the RTC of Malolos,
Bulacan a special civil action for expropriation, and upon deposit of the amount of
P24,025.00, which is the market value of the land, with the PNB, the trial court issued
a writ of possession in favor of the Petitioner.
The respondent went to IAC, on petition for review, which the appellate court
affirmed the trial courts decision. But upon MR, the decision was reversed and held
that there is no genuine necessity to expropriate the land for use as public road as
there were several other roads for the same purpose and another more expropriate lot
for the proposed public road.
Issue:
Whether or not Petitioner has the right to expropriate?
Held:
The Petitioners purpose in expropriating the respondents property is to convert
the same into a public road for the purposes to ease the traffic in the area of vehicles.
However, it reveals that there are other connecting links or several roads for the same
purpose and another lot for proposed public road. The Petitioner itself admits that
there are four (4) such cross roads in existence.
The foundation of the right to exercise the power of eminent domain is genuine
necessity and that necessity must be of public character. Condemnation of private
property is justified only if it is for the public good and there is 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.
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 absolutely no showing in the petition why the more appropriate lot for
the proposed road which was offered for sale has not been the subject of the
petitioners attempt to expropriate assuming there is a real need for another
connecting road.
Petition DISMISSED.