The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu.

One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in

Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.1[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.
 It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.2[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.3[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.4[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.5[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

 For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.6[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.
Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.6[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.6[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.6[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the
questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.6[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029
 We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.6[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.6[21]
The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.7[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.
 It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.8[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.9[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.10[21]

v The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.11[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

 For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.12[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029
 We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.13[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or
oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.14[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer
to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.15[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.16[21]
The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.17[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.
 It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.18[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.19[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.20[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772
 [6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.21[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

 For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.22[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029
 We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.23[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or
oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.24[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer
to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.25[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.26[21]
The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.27[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.
 It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.28[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.29[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.30[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772
 [6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.31[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

 For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.32[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029
 We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.33[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or
oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.34[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer
to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.35[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.36[21]
The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.37[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.
 It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.38[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.39[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.40[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772
 [6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.41[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

 For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.42[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029
 We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.43[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or
oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.44[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer
to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.45[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.46[21]
The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.47[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.
 It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.48[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.49[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.50[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772
 [6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.51[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

 For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.52[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029
 We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.53[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or
oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.54[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer
to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.55[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.56[21]
The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.57[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.
 It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.58[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.59[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.60[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772
 [6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.61[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

 For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.62[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029
 We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.63[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or
oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.64[21]

The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer
to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.65[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.

It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.66[21]
The Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu. One of these lots was Lot 1029, situated in
Capitol Hills, Cebu City which was later on purchased by Lacgao on an installment basis.

But then, the 210 lots, including Lot 1029 was returned to the Province of Cebu. The province tried to
annul the sale of Lot 1029 which resulted petitioners to sue the province for speciFc performance and
damages. The RTC and CA ruled in favor of the petitioners which resulted in executing the Fnal deed of
sale and issuing the Transfer CertiFcate of Title in favor to the petitioners. However, the petitioners
discovered that it was already occupied by the squatters. ±rom this, the petitioners instituted ejectment
proceedings against the squatters which was later on granted by the MTCC and ordered the squatters to
vacate the lot. On appeal, the RTC a²rmed the MTCCs decision and issued a writ of execution and order
of demolition.

However, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia wrote two letters ] to the MTCC, requesting the postponement
of the demolition on the ground that the City was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters.
Because of this, MTCC issued two orders suspending the demolition for a period of 120 days from
±ebruary 22, 1999. During the suspension period, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City passed a
resolution which identiFed Lot 1029 as a socialized housing site pursuant to RA 7279. They also passed
Ordinance No. 1772

[6] which included Lot 1029 among the identiFed sites for socialized housing and Ordinance No. 1843
[7] which authorized the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of
Lot 1029 to be used for the beneFt of the homeless after its subdivision and sale to the actual occupants
thereof. ±or this purpose, the ordinance appropriated the amount.

Whether the ordinance pass by the LGU is valid in expropriating the land 1029

We have found nothing in the records indicating that the City of Cebu complied strictly with

Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property without

any attempt to first acquire the lands listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279. Likewise, Cebu City

failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA 7279 were first exhausted.

Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer

to buy petitioners property as required by Section 19 of RA 7160.67[20] We therefore find Ordinance No.

1843 to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of the petitioners right to due process.
 It should also be noted that, as early as 1998, 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. The unconscionable manner in which the

questioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated that respondent City transgressed the Constitution, RA

7160 and RA 7279.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or

municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It must be in

accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature. These principles require

that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute (2) must not be unfair or

oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must

be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must not be unreasonable.68[21]