Civil Law, Constitutional Law

MASIKIP vs PASIG G.R. No. 136349 January 23, 2006 Power of Eminent Domain, Expropriation, Genuine Necessity

 

 FACTS:

Petitioner Lourdes Dela Paz Masikip is the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Pag-Asa, Caniogan, Pasig City, Metro Manila. The City of Pasig notified petitioner of its intention to expropriate a 1,500 square meter portion of her property to be used for the “sports development and recreational activities” of the residents of Barangay Caniogan. This was pursuant to Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1993 enacted by the then Sangguniang Bayan of Pasig.

Petitioner replied stating that the intended expropriation of her property is unconstitutional, invalid, and oppressive.

Respondent reiterated that the purpose of the expropriation of petitioner’s property is “to provide sports and recreational facilities to its poor residents” and subsequently filed with the trial court a complaint for expropriation,

 

ISSUE:

Was the City of Pasig able to establish “genuine necessity”?

 

RULING:

The Court holds that respondent City of Pasig has failed to establish that there is a genuine necessity to expropriate petitioner’s property. A scrutiny of the records shows that the Certification issued by the Caniogan Barangay Council, the basis for the passage of Ordinance No. 42 s. 1993 authorizing the expropriation, indicates that the intended beneficiary is the Melendres Compound Homeowners Association, a private, non-profit organization, not the residents of Caniogan. Petitioner’s lot is the nearest vacant space available. The purpose is, therefore, not clearly and categorically public. The necessity has not been shown, especially considering that there exists an alternative facility for sports development and community recreation in the area, which is the Rainforest Park, available to all residents of Pasig City, including those of Caniogan.

 

Constitution attaches to the property of the individual requires not only that the purpose for the taking of private property be specified. The genuine necessity for the taking, which must be of a public character, must also be shown to exist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.