moday vs court of appeals gr 107916 20 february 1997

Municipality of Parańaque vs V.M. Realty Corporation GR 127820 (July 20, 1998) Posted on October 4, 2012 G.R. No. 127820 292 SCRA 676 July 20, 1998 Facts: Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95, Series of 1993, the Municipality of Parañaque filed a Complaint for expropriation against V.M. Realty Corporation, over two parcels of land. Allegedly, the complaint was filed “for the purpose of alleviating the living conditions of the underprivileged by providing homes for the homeless through a socialized housing project.” Petitioner, pursuant to its Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 577, Series of 1991, previously made an offer to enter into a negotiated sale of the property with private respondent, which the latter did not accept. The RTC authorized petitioner to take possession of the subject property upon its deposit with the clerk of court of an amount equivalent to 15% of its fair market value. Private Respondent filed an answer alleging that (a) the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant to a resolution and not to an ordinance as required by RA 7160; and (b) the cause of action, if any, was barred by a prior judgment or res judicata. On private respondent’s motion, its answer was treated as a motion to dismiss. The trial court dismissed the complaint Issue: Whether a Local Government Unit can exercise its power of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution by its law-making body. Held: Under Section 19, of the present Local Government Code (RA 7160), it is stated as the first requisite that LGUs can exercise its power of eminent domain if there is an ordinance enacted by its legislative body enabling the municipal chief executive. A resolution is not an ordinance, the former is only an opinion of a law-making body, the latter is a law. The case cited by Petitioner involves BP 337, which was the previous Local Government Code, which is obviously no longer in effect. RA 7160 prevails over the Implementing Rules, the former being the law itself and the latter only an administrative rule which cannot amend the former.

Upload: jona-llenes

Post on 25-Jan-2016

24 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

DESCRIPTION

digested case consti 2

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Moday vs Court of Appeals GR 107916 20 February 1997

Municipality of Parańaque vs V.M. Realty Corporation GR 127820 (July 20, 1998)Posted on October 4, 2012

G.R. No. 127820292 SCRA 676July 20, 1998

Facts:Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95, Series of 1993, the Municipality of Parañaque filed a Complaint for expropriation against V.M. Realty Corporation, over two parcels of land. Allegedly, the complaint was filed “for the purpose of alleviating the living conditions of the underprivileged by providing homes for the homeless through a socialized housing project.” Petitioner, pursuant to its Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 577, Series of 1991, previously made an offer to enter into a negotiated sale of the property with private respondent, which the latter did not accept. The RTC authorized petitioner to take possession of the subject property upon its deposit with the clerk of court of an amount equivalent to 15% of its fair market value. Private Respondent filed an answer alleging that (a) the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant to a resolution and not to an ordinance as required by RA 7160; and (b) the cause of action, if any, was barred by a prior judgment or res judicata. On private respondent’s motion, its answer was treated as a motion to dismiss. The trial court dismissed the complaint

Issue:Whether a Local Government Unit can exercise its power of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution by its law-making body.

Held:Under Section 19, of the present Local Government Code (RA 7160), it is stated as the first requisite that LGUs can exercise its power of eminent domain if there is an ordinance enacted by its legislative body enabling the municipal chief executive. A resolution is not an ordinance, the former is only an opinion of a law-making body, the latter is a law. The case cited by Petitioner involves BP 337, which was the previous Local Government Code, which is obviously no longer in effect. RA 7160 prevails over the Implementing Rules, the former being the law itself and the latter only an administrative rule which cannot amend the former.

https://lexislove.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/municipality-of-paranaque-vs-v-m-realty-corporation/

oca.judiciary.gov.phoca.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/OCA-Circular-No... · ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE ... granted by the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. ... untenable. If

MARKTGEMEINDE REICHENAU AN DER RAX, GKZ … · Helmut Zisser GR Peter Weitzbauer GR Ing. Christian Blazek GR Manuela Pusker GR Oliver Kobald ... GR Martin Schikowitz GR Franz Tisch

Narratives - Berne Guerrero · PDF fileCrisologo-Jose vs. Court of Appeals [GR 80599, ... Narratives (Berne Guerrero) 1 Philippine Education Co. Inc. vs. Soriano [GR L-22405, 30 June

DAMPER - SERIE GR GR

Education Guide - Discovery Centrethediscoverycentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/... · 2019. 4. 25. · Eye Lights. Optics. PR - GR 2 GR 2 - 3 GR 3. GR 3 GR 4 GR 4 & 7 GR 5 GR

addition thereto, we cite the case of Moday vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107916, 20 February 1997 wherein the Supreme Court held that the "only qround upon which

onlineservices.ipophil.gov.phonlineservices.ipophil.gov.ph/ipcaselibrary/ipcasepdf/AP_BOT04-2012-0007.pdf · Court of Appeals, GR. No. 114508, 19 November 1999. DECISION dated 28

MIELE · naturale. CONFEZIONI DISPONIBILI Vaso (250 gr.) Vaso (500 gr.) Vaso (1000 gr.) Squeeze (240 gr.) CONFEZIONI DISPONIBILI Vaso (250 gr.) Vaso (500 gr.) Vaso (1000 gr.) MIELE

Chapter 6 · GR C GRC GR C GR C GR C GR C GR S GR C GRC GR C C GR C Drill-Hole Information 5 mi Distance between drill holes (in miles) ... CHAPTER 6, PLATE 1

GR-SXM757UM GR-SXM357UM GR-SX887UM GR-AX787UM

CAResolution-18Mar2008 - WordPress.com of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DhVISION LUISITO Q. GONZALEZ and ANTONIO T, BUENAFLOR, Petitioners, CA-GR. SPINO 101196 Members: