Case 24

G.R. No. 155746 October 13, 2004

Lagcao vs. Labra

FACTS:

In 1965 petitioners purchased a lot (1029) on installment basis from the province of
Cebu. Consequently, the province through the City of Cebu tried to annul the sale which
prompted the petitioner to file civil action in the court of first instance.

On July 9, 1986, the court of first instance ruled that the province execute a deed of sale
in favor of the petitioner. On June 11, 1992, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
of the trial court wherein this ruling was affirmed by the CA.

After the title was acquired, petitioners discovered that the property was occupied by
squatters which prompted them to institute ejectment proceedings. In this regard, The
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Cebu City, rendered a decision on
April 1, 1998, ordering the squatters to vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the
MTCC's decision and issued a writ of execution and order of demolition

The writ of execution and order of demolition was suspended for 120 days when Cebu
City Alvin Garcia wrote a request for the deferment of the ejection order on the ground
that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters. During the effect of
the suspension order, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a resolution and
an Ordinance on Feb 22, 1999 and June 30, 1999 respectively, which identified lot 1029
as part of the socialized housing in pursuant of RA 7279. On July 19, 2000, Ordinance
No. 1843 was enacted authorizing the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation
proceedings on petitioners’ property.

Issue:

Whether or not Cebu City Ordinance No. 1843 contravenes the Constitution and other
applicable laws

Ruling:

The enactment of Ordinance 1843 contravenes the Constitution and other applicable
laws.
First, Ordinance 1843 contravenes the constitution because condemnation
of private lands in an irrational or piecemeal fashion or the random
expropriation of small lots to accommodate no more than a few tenants or
squatters is certainly not the condemnation for public use contemplated by
the Constitution. This is depriving a citizen of his property for the
convenience of a few without perceptible benefit to the public

Second, the ordinance is violative of the petitioners’ right to due process since petitioners
had already obtained a favorable judgment of eviction against the illegal occupants of
their property. The judgment in this ejectment case had, in fact, already attained finality,
with a writ of execution and an order of demolition. But Mayor Garcia requested the trial
court to suspend the demolition on the pretext that the City was still searching for a
relocation site for the squatters. However, instead of looking for a relocation site during
the suspension period, the city council suddenly enacted Ordinance No. 1843 for the
expropriation of petitioners' lot. It was trickery and bad faith, pure and simple.

Third, RA 7160 itself explicitly states that local appropriation of property must comply
with the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws. Relatively, RA 7279 mandates
that local expropriation of property must comply on the order of the priorities on the
expropriation of property under section 10 for which private property ranks last in the
order of priorities provided under section 9.