The public use requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions.
The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time where it was felt that a literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not anymore. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. x x x The constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be divided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is in the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.
The term "public use" has acquired a more comprehensive coverage. To the literal import of the term signifying strict use or employment by the public has been added the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage. x x x
The restrictive view of public use may be appropriate for a nation which circumscribes the scope of government activities and public concerns and which possesses big and correctly located public lands that obviate the need to take private property for public purposes. Neither circumstance applies to the Philippines. We have never been a laissez-faire state. And the necessities which impel the exertion of sovereign power are all too often found in areas of scarce public land or limited government resources.
Specifically, urban renewal or development and the construction of low-cost housing are recognized as a public purpose, not only because of the expanded concept of public use but also because of specific provisions in the Constitution. x x x The 1987 Constitution [provides]:The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living and an improved quality of life for all. (Article II, Section 9)
The State shall, by law and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program for urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas. x xx In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small property owners. (Article XIII, Section 9)
Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the environment and in sum, the general welfare. The public character of housing measures does not change because units in housing projects cannot be occupied by all but only by those who satisfy prescribed qualifications. A beginning has to be made, for it is not possible to provide housing for all who need it, all at once.
Population growth, the migration to urban areas and the mushrooming of crowded makeshift dwellings is a worldwide development particularly in developing countries. So basic and urgent are housing problems that the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed 1987 as the "International Year of Shelter for the Homeless" "to focus the attention of the international community on those problems." The General Assembly is seriously concerned that, despite the efforts of Governments at the national and local levels and of international organizations, the driving conditions of the majority of the people in slums and squatter areas and rural settlements, especially in developing countries, continue to deteriorate in both relative and absolute terms." [G.A. Res. 37/221, Yearbook of the United Nations 1982, Vol. 36, p. 1043-4]
Sec. 3. Defenses and objections. -- If a defendant has no objection or defense to the action or the taking of his property, he may and serve a notice or appearance and a manifestation to that effect, specifically designating or identifying the property in which he claims to be interested, within the time stated in the summons. Thereafter, he shall be entitled to notice of all proceedings affecting the same.
If a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection or defense to the taking of his property, he shall serve his answer within the time stated in the summons. The answer shall specifically designate or identify the property in which he claims to have an interest, state the nature and extent of the interest claimed, and adduce all his objections and defenses to the taking of his property. No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint shall be alleged or allowed in the answer or any subsequent pleading.
A defendant waives all defenses and objections not so alleged but the court, in the interest of justice, may permit amendments to the answer to be made not later than ten (10) days from the filing thereof. However, at the trial of the issue of just compensation, whether or not a defendant has previously appeared or answered, he may present evidence as to the amount of the compensation to be paid for his property, and he may share in the distribution of the award.45
Accordingly, Rule 16, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, does not consider as grounds for a motion to dismiss the allotment of the disputed land for another public purpose or the petition for a mere easement of right-of-way in the complaint for expropriation. The grounds for dismissal are exclusive to those specifically mentioned in Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, and an action can be dismissed only on a ground authorized by this provision.
To be exact, the issues raised by the petitioner are affirmative defenses that should be alleged in an answer, since they require presentation of evidence aliunde. Section 3 of Rule 67 provides that "if a defendant has any objection to the filing of or the allegations in the complaint, or any objection or defense to the taking of his property," he should include them in his answer. Naturally, these issues will have to be fully ventilated in a full-blown trial and hearing. It would be precipitate to dismiss the Complaint on such grounds as claimed by the petitioner. Dismissal of an action upon a motion to dismiss constitutes a denial of due process if, from a consideration of the pleadings, it appears that there are issues that cannot be decided without a trial of the case on the merits.
Inasmuch as the 1997 Rules had just taken effect when this case arose, we believe that in the interest of substantial justice, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file its answer to the Complaint for expropriation in accordance with Section 3, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.x x x53
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 12-20. The petition states that the same was filed under Section 3, Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, and was taken from the August 12, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71894 which denied reconsideration of the April 29, 2005 Decision in the same case. Section 3, in relation to Section 4 of the said Rule, provides that appeals to the Supreme Court may be taken only by petition for review in accordance, among others, with the provisions of Rule 45. The petition was initially denied in the Court's November 21, 2005 Resolution for being filed out of the period of extension given, for lack of proper verification and certification, as well for lack of reversible error. (See rollo, p. 155). On Motion for Reconsideration, which discussed both the technicalities as well as the merits of the case, the Court reconsidered and directed respondent to file her Comment, which addressed the primordial issues raised in the petition. Thereafter, petitioner filed its Reply. The issues pervading since the inception of this case now call for the exercise of discretionary power of judicial review.
2 The assailed decision was penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. Delos Santos, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Arturo D. Brion (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) concurring; CA rollo, pp. 97-105.
3 CA rollo, pp. 130-132.
4 The Order was signed by Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.; records, pp. 137-138.
5 It is entitled AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING HIS HONOR, THE MAYOR, TO ACQUIRE EITHER BY NEGOTIATION OR EXPROPRIATION CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND COVERED BY TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NOS. 233273, 175106 AND 140471, CONTAINING A TOTAL AREA OF ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE (1,425) SQUARE METERS, LOCATED AT MARIA CLARA AND GOV. FORBES STREETS, STA. CRUZ, MANILA, FOR LOW-COST HOUSING AND AWARD TO ACTUAL BONA FIDE RESIDENTS THEREAT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO AVAIL FOR THAT PURPOSE ANY AVAILABLE FUNDS OF THE CITY AND OTHER EXISTING FUNDING FACILITIES FROM OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; id. at 8-9.
6 Respondent's property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 233273. The two other properties are covered by TCT Nos. 175106 and 140471; id. at 7-8.
7 See the Decision in Civil Case Nos. 156527-CV, 156528-CV, 156729-CV, 156731-CV, 156732-CV, 156733-CV, 156734-CV, 156735-CV and 156736-CV, as well as the Writ of Execution issued in these cases and the Order for the issuance of a Writ of Demolition; id. at 65-82.
8 The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-85700 with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 47.
9 Urban land reform was institutionalized in 1978 by Presidential Decree (P.D) No. 1517, known as the Urban Land Reform Act, issued by then President Ferdinand Marcos. This decree sought to liberate human communities from blight, congestion and hazard, and promote their development and modernization, the optimum use of land as a national resource for public welfare. Accordingly, Proclamation No. 1893 was issued a year later and declared the entire Metro Manila area as an urban land reform zone. Amendments came in 1980 under Proclamation No. 1967 and then in 1983 under Proclamation No. 2284 which identified 245 sites in Metro Manila as areas for priority development and urban land reform zones.
10 See Order dated August 6, 1998 issued in Civil Case No. 97-85700, records, pp. 87-91.
11 Petitioner, the City of Manila, is a municipal corporation organized and existing under Republic Act No. 409, as amended.
12 Records, pp. 1-6.
13 Presided by Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.
14 Records, p. 3. See also Letter dated May 21, 1999 signed by City Legal Officer Melchor Monsod communicating petitioner's formal offer to purchase respondent's property for the amount equivalent to its assessed value; records, p. 10.
15 See May 21, 1999 Letter addressed to respondent; id. at 10.
16 See Certification from the Philippine Postal Corporation showing respondent failed to claim the letter despite notices on July 2, 9 and 21, 1999; id. at 11.
17 See Certification issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines dated April 7, 2000, id. at 12.
18 Records, pp. 44-64.
19 SEC. 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. -- Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order:
(a) Those owned by the Government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
(b) Alienable lands of the public domain;
(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands;
(d) Those within the declared Areas or Priority Development, Zonal Improvement Program sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired;
(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and
(f) Privately-owned lands.
Where on-site development is found more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries, the priorities mentioned in this section shall not apply. The local government units shall give priority to on-site development of government lands.
20 SEC. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. -- The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include, among others, community mortgage, land-swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the Government, joint-venture agreement, negotiated purchase, and expropriation: Provided, however, That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted: Provided, further, That where expropriation is resorted to, parcels of land owned by small property owners shall be exempted for purposes of this Act: Provided, finally, That abandoned property, as herein defined, shall be reverted and escheated to the State in a proceeding analogous to the procedure laid down in Rule 91 of the Rules of Court.
For the purpose of socialized housing, government-owned and foreclosed properties shall be acquired by the local government units, or by the National Housing Authority, primarily through negotiated purchase: Provided, That qualified beneficiaries who are actual occupants of the land shall be given the right of first refusal.
21 Records, pp. 137-138.
22 Id. at 138. The Order disposed of the complaint as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, finding merit in the Motion, the same is hereby GRANTED. The complaint filed by plaintiff is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
With the dismissal of the complaint, the motion to allow plaintiff to enter the property of defendant filed by plaintiff had become MOOT and ACADEMIC. The hearing on the Motion scheduled on July 6, 2001 at 8:30 a.m. is hereby CANCELLED.
SO ORDERED.
23 CA rollo, p. 90. It disposed of the appeal as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
24 Id. at 91-94.
25 Id. at 126-128.
26 Rollo, pp. 12-20.
27 Id. at 17-19, 207-209.
28 Id. at 182-188, 190-197
29 Id. at 188-189.
30 Id. at 189. Section 3 (q) of R.A. No. 7279 states:
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. -- For purposes of this Act:
(q) "Small property owners" refers to those whose only real property consists of residential lands and exceeding three hundred square meters (300 sq. m.) in highly urbanized cities and eight hundred square meters (800 sq. m.) in other urban areas.
31 Id. at 199.
32 No. L-48685, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA 461.
33 Nos. L-60549, 60553-60555, October 26, 1983, 125 SCRA 220.
34 Sumulong v. Guerrero, supra note 32, at 468-469. See also National Housing Authority v. Guivelondo G.R. No. 154411, June 19, 2003, 404 SCRA 389 and Reyes v. National Housing Authority, 443 Phil. 603 (2003). (Emphasis supplied.)
35 Urban land reform was institutionalized in 1978 by Presidential Decree No. 1517, known as the Urban Land Reform Act, issued by then President Ferdinand Marcos. This decree sought to liberate human communities from blight, congestion and hazard, and to promote their development and modernization as well as the optimum use of land as a national resource for public welfare. Accordingly, Proclamation No. 1893 was issued a year later and declared the entire Metro Manila area as an urban land reform zone. Amendments came in 1980 under Proclamation No. 1967 and then in 1983 under Proclamation No. 2284 which identified 245 sites in Metro Manila as areas for priority development and urban land reform zones.
36 R.A. No. 7279, Sec. 2.
37 R.A. No. 7279, Secs. 7, 8, 9 and 12.
38 See notes 19 and 20.
39 Abad v. Fil-Homes Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 189239, November 24, 2010, 636 SCRA 247, 255, citing Lintag v. National Power Corporation, G.R. No. 158609, July 27, 2007, 528 SCRA 287.
40 See Act 190, Sec. 243.
41 Section 3 of the old Rule 67 of the Rules of Court allowed a defendant "in lieu of an answer, [to] present in a single motion to dismiss or for other appropriate relief, all his objections and defenses to the plaintiff's right to take his property x x x." See Feria-Noche, Civil procedure Annotated, Volume 2, 2001 ed., p. 536 and Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, 8th Revised ed., p. 752.
42 Robern Development Corporation v. Quitain, 373 Phil. 773, 790 (1999); Rural Progress Administration v. Guzman, 87 Phil. 176, 178 (1950);
43 Robern Development Corporation, supra, citing Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. IV-B, Part I, 1972 ed., pp. 405-412.
44 Id. at 790-791, citing Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, 8th Revised ed., pp. 752-753.
45 Emphasis supplied.
46 Sec. 8. Omnibus motion. -- Subject to the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 9, a motion attacking a pleading, order, judgment, or proceeding shall include all objections then available, and all objections not so included shall be deemed waived.
47 Robern Development Corporation v. Quitain, supra note 42, at 791, citing Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, 8th Revised ed., pp. 752-753.
48 242 Phil. 345 (1988).
49 G.R. No. 74903, March 21, 1989, 171 SCRA 392.
50 Supra note 42.
51 See Panes v. Visayas State College of Agriculture, 332 Phil. 745 (1996).
52 See Borje v. CFI of Misamis Occidental, Br. II, No. L-48315, February 27, 1979, 88 SCRA 576, 581, cited in Robern Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 42, at 791.
53 Robern Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, supra note 42, at 164-165.