municipality of meycauayan vs iac

Muni ci pal i t yofMeycauayan vsI nt er medi at eAppel l at eCour t( I AC) Facts: Res pondent Phi l i ppi ne Pi pes and Mer chandi si ng Cor porat i on fil ed wi t ht he Officeoft heMu Muni ci palMay orofMey cauayan,Bul acan an appl i cat i on f oraper mi tt o f e nc eapar c e lo fl and.Thef e nc i ngofs ai dpr o pe r t ywa wasal l e g e dl yt oenabl et hes t o r ag e oft her espondent ’ sheavyequi pmentandvar i ousfini shedpr oduct s.  The Muni ci pal Counci l of Me y cauay an passe d Resol ut i on mani f es t i ng t he i nt ent i on t o expropri at et he r espondent ’ s par celof l and. I t was opposed by t he r es pondentPhi l i ppi ne Pi pes and Mer chandi si ng Cor por at i on wi t ht he offic fficeoft he Pr o v i nc i alGo v e r no r . Spec i al Comm mmi t t e e r ec omm mmended t hat t he Pr ov i nci al Boar d of Bul ac an di sappr oveorannult her esol ut i oni nquest i onbecauset her ewasnogenui nenecessi t y f o rt heMu Muni c i pa l i t yo fMe y c a uy a nt oe xpr o pr i at et her e s po nde nt ’ spr o pe r t yf o rus eas apubl i croad.Then Pr ovi nci alBoardofBul acan passedResol ut i on di sappr ovi ngand annul l i ngt heResol ut i onpassedbyt heMu Muni ci palCounci lofMey cauayan. However ,Pet i t i oner( Muni ci pal i t yofMeycauayan)fil edwi t ht heRTC ofMal ol os, Bul acan a speci alci vi lact i on f orexpr opr i at i on,and upon deposi toft heamountof P24, 025. 00,whi c hi st hema mar ke tv a l ueo ft hel a nd,wi t ht hePNB,t het r i a lc o ur ti s s ue d awr i tofpo ss e ss i o ni nf a v oro ft hePe t i t i o ne r .  Ther espondentwentt oI AC,on pe t i t i on f orr evi e w,whi c ht heappel l at ecour t affir ffir medt het r i alcour t ’ sdeci si on.Butupon MR,t hedeci si on wasre ver sedandhel d t hatt her ei snogenui nenecessi t yt oexpr opri at et hel and f oruseaspubl i croad as t her ewer eseve r alot herr oadsf ort hesame mepur poseandanot hermor eexpr opr i at el ot f o rt hepr o po s e dpubl i cr o ad.

I ssue:  Whe t herornotPe t i t i one rhast her i ghtt oexpr opr i at e?

Hel d:  ThePe t i t i oner ’ spur pos ei ne xpr opr i at i ngt her esponde nt ’ spr oper t yi st oc onv er t t hesame mei nt oapubl i cr oadf ort hepurposest oeaset het r affic ffi ci nt hear eaofvehi cl es. Ho we v er ,i tr e v e a l stha tt he r ear eo t he rc o nne c t i ngl i nksors e v er a lr o adsf o rt hesame purpose and anot herl otf orpr oposed publ i cr oad.ThePet i t i oneri t sel fadmi t st hat t he r ea r ef o ur( 4)s uc hc r o s sr o adsi ne x i s t e nc e .  Thef oundat i onoft her i ghtt oe xer ci s et hepowerofemi nentdomai ni sgenui ne nece ssi t y and t hatnece ssi t y mustbe ofpubl i c char act er .Condemn mnat i on ofpr i vat e pr o pe r t yi sj us t i fie do nl yi fi ti sf o rt hepubl i cgo odandt he r ei sg e nui nene c e s s i t yo fa s hav et he powe wer t oi nqui r ei nt ot he publ i c charact er .Consequent l y ,t he court l egal i t y of t he exe r ci se of t he r i ght of emi mi nent doma mai n and t o det er mi ne whet hert herei sagenui nenecessi t yt heref or . I ti sst i l la j udi ci alquest i on whet heri nt heexerci seofsuch comp mpet ence, t hepart y adver sel y affect ed i st hevi ct i m ofpar t i al i t y and pr ej udi ce.  Thatt he

e qualpr o t e c t i onc l aus ewi wi l lno ta l l o w.  Ther ei sabs ol ut el ynoshowi ngi nt hepe t i t i onwhyt hemor eappr opr i at el otf or t he pr opose dr oad whi c h was offer ed f or sal e has not be en t he subj ec t oft he

pet i t i oner ’ s at t emp mpt t o expr opr i at e assumi ng t her ei sar eal nee d f or anot her connect i ngr oad. Pet i t i onDI SMI SSED.