YUJUICO v ATIENZA

NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari the decision of the RTC

PONENTE: Tinga, J.
DOCTRINE: Money claims arising from contracts: filing of an
expropriation case allows the court to have jurisdiction over a local
government unit
RULING FORMAT:
RTC Granted petition of Yujuico. Granted
FACTS
(4) On Dec 8, 1995, City Council of Manila enacted an Ordinance
authorizing the City Mayor to acquire by negotiation or
expropriationcertainparcelsoflandforutilizationasasiteforthe
FranciscoBenitezElementarySchool.
(5) ThepropertychosenislocatedalongSolisSt.inManila,containing
anapprox.areaof3,979.10squaremeters.TheTCTsareallinthe
nameofpetitionerTeresitaYujuico.
(6) TheOrdinanceprovidesthatanamountnottoexceedtheFMVof
the land then prevailing in the area will be allocated out of the
SpecialEducatedFundoftheCitytodefraythecostofacquision.
(7) Failing to acquire land by negotiation, the City filed a case for
eminentdomainagainstpetitionerasowneroftheproperty.
(8) RTCrenderedaDecisionintheexpropriationcaseinfavorofthe
City; declaring said lots to be expropriated for public use. In
exchange,CitymustpayYujuicotheFMVofthetotalsumofthe
subjectlots.Judgmentbecamefinalandexecutory,noappealhaving
beeninterposedbyeitherparty.
RTC
- Court granted Motion to Quash the Notice of Garnishment, stating that
this case is on all fours with the case of Municipality of Makati v CA,
wherein it was ruled that Public funds are not subject to levy and
execution. Directed to release the said amount (P31,039,881) to
Yujuico in partial payment of just compensation. City School Board
(CSB) is given 30 days to pass resolution for payment of the
remaining balance due to the Yujuico.
- Court granted petitioners Motion for Execution, ordered respondents
to pass resolution appropriating necessary amount for full and
complete payment of remaining balance due. With respondents not
interposing an appeal, Decision became final and executory.
- Court subsequently granted respondents Petition for Relief from
Judgment, despite the attainment of finality of the Decision.

PETITIONER (Teresita Yujuico)

Procedural Issues:
(1) On April
2001, petitioner
a available
Motion fortoExecution
Judgment,
(3) 6Mandamus
is a filed
remedy
a propertyofowner
when a money
whichtheRTCgranted.BranchsheriffservedaNoticeofGarnishmentof
judgment is rendered in its favor and against a municipality or city; as
fundsoftheCitytosatisfyjudgmentwithinterest.
stated in Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals:
Procedural Issue:
(2) Nothavingbeenfavoredwithareplytoherqueriesevenafterthelapseof
Nevertheless, this is not to say that private respondent and PSB are
with to
noanlegal
recourse.
Where
the30daycomplianceperiod,sentalettertoCSBdatedSept10,2001,
Although the Order
cannot be madeleft
subject
appeal,
the rule
may abemunicipality fails or refuses,
without
justifiable
reason,
to
effect
payment
of a for
final money
demanding and
compliance
with
the Order.
She
then
the
filed
a petition
relaxed when exceptional
compelling
circumstances
warrant
judgment rendered
against
the claimant may avail of the remedy
exercise of this contempt.
Courts primary jurisdiction.
In this case,
theit,judgment
of mandamus
orderthe
to from
compel
the enactment
and approval of the
sought to be(3)satisfied
has long
attained
finalityin and
expropriated
FindingOrder
grantingPetitionforRelief
Judgment
unacceptable,
necessary
appropriation
ordinance,
and
the
corresponding
property has beenpetitionerappealedtotheSCbyCertiorari.
utilized as a school site for 5 now, yet just compensation
disbursement
of municipal
fundsof
therefore.
has not been fully paid. These circumstances
merit
the relaxation
the
technical rules of procedure to ensure that substantial justice will be
(4) Thesourceoftheamountnecessarytoacquirepetitionerspropertyhaving
served.
infactbeenspecifiedbytheCityCouncilofManila,thepassageofthe
RESPONDENT (City
of Manila)
resolutionfortheallocationanddisbursementthereofisaministerialduty
Substantial Issues:
oftheCSB.
ProceduralIssues:
(1) Recordsofthiscaseclearlyshowthatthesamecounsel,theOCLO,
(1) Invokingjurisprudenceholdingthatpublicfundscannotbemadesubjectto
representedtheCityintheexpropriationcaseandnow,allexcept
(5) Havingreliedontherepresentationsofrespondentsforpetitionertofilea
garnishment,theCityfiledamotiontoquashtheNoticeofGarnishment.
oneoftheindividualrespondentsinthecaseatbar.Manifestationin
(2) Countering PetitionforMandamus,petitionercannotnowbesentbyrespondentson
petition for contempt, respondent filed Motion to Dismiss.
theOrderontheMotiontoQuashNoticeofGarnishmentoverfunds
anotherwildgoosechasetoobtainultimaterecoveryofwhatsheislegally
CitingMunicipalityofMakativCA,respondentsassertedthatpetitioner
of the City
stated, Upon
manifestation of the counsel
for the
entitledto.
shouldhavefiledapetitionformandamus
toforcetheCSBtopassthe
plaintiffthatitistheCitySchoolBoardwhichhastheauthorityto
necessary resolution for immediate payment of the balance of just
passaresolutionallocatingfundsforthefullsatisfactionofthejust
While this Court recognizes the power of LGU to expropriate private
compensationawardedinherfavor.
compensationfixed.
propertyforpublicuse,itwillnotstandidlybywhiletheexpropriating
(3) FollowingthedecisionoftheRTC,respondentsfiledaPetitionforRelief
SamecounselwhomademanifestationnowclaimsthattheCity
authority maneuvers to evade the payment of just compensation of
from Judgment,invokingexcusablenegligenceforfailuretoseasonably
shouldbemadeliableforpaymentofitsownobligations,after
propertyalreadyinitspossession.
fileanappeal.(ThiswasgrantedbytheRTC,despiteattainmentoffinality
previously

stating
that the CSB had authority to satisfy the
oftheDecision)
obligation it had Thenotionofexpropriationishardenoughtotakeforaprivateowner.He
pursued. Through counsel, respondents are
estopped.

Petitioner
iscompelledtogiveuphispropertyforthecommonweal.Buttogiveit
SubstantiveIssues: and courts acted in accordance with the
CitysownmanifestationsbyrunningaftertheCSB,therefore,
upandwaitinvainforthejustcompensationdecreedbythecourtsistoo
respondentsandOCLOcannotpasstheobligationbacktothe
muchtobear.Incaseslikethese,courtswillnothesitatetostepinto
(1) CSB has apersonality
separate and distinct from the Citysuch that it
City. shouldnotbemadetopayfortheCitysobligations.
ensurethatjusticeandfairplayareserved.
(2) Contrarytorespondentsclaim,thelawdoesnotmaketheCSBan
(2) MembersoftheCSBcannotbedirectedtodecideadiscretionaryfunction
entityindependentfromtheCityofManila.Thisisevidentfromthe
Justcompensationmeansnotonlycorrectdeterminationofamount,but
inthespecificmannerthecourtdesires.(Mandamusinthiscase)
provisionsoftheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991andfromtheff
also payment within reasonable time from its taking. The decision
facts:
renderingjustcompensationinpetitionersfavorwaspromulgatedway
Thehighest rankingofficialofanLGUisdesignatedasco
backintheyear2000,yearshavepassed,yettheawardstillhasnotbeen
chairmanoftheschoolboard
fullysatisfied.
Government officialsintheschool boarddonot receiveany
compensation(6)
or RepublicvLim:Herethegovernmentfailedtopayjustcompensation
remuneration while NGO representatives
merelyreceiveallowances
withinfive(5)yearsfromthefinalityofjudgmentintheexpropriation
proceedings,theownersconcernedshallhavetherighttorecover
possessionoftheirproperty.
Suchisnotaremotepossibility;WHEREFORE,petitionis
GRANTED.OrderofRTCgrantingrespondentsPetitionforRelieffrom
COURT