Spouses Yusay vs CA

Facts:
- Spouses Yusay (petitioners) own a 1044-square meter parcel of land in Mandaluyong. They
resided on ½ and rent out the other half. This was their only property and source of income.
- The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaluyong adopted Resolution No. 552 authorizing City Mayor
Benjamin Abalos to expropriate the land for the purpose of developing it for low cost housing for
the less privileged but deserving city inhabitants.
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition praying for the annulment of Resolution
No. 552 due to its being unconstitutional, confiscatory, improper, and without force and effect.
- The City countered that Resolution No. 552 was a mere authorization given to the City Mayor to
initiate the legal steps towards expropriation, which included making a definite offer to purchase
the property of the petitioners; hence, the suit of the petitioners was premature.
- The RTC initially ruled in favor of the City, but reversed itself on MR.
- The CA ruled in favor of the City.

Issues:
W/N the validity of Resolution No. 552 can be assailed before implementation? NO
W/N a citizen should await the takeover and possession of his property by the local government before
he can go to court to nullify an unjust expropriation? NO

Ratio:
- Certiorari will not prosper against the City because the Sangguniang Panlungsod is not part of the
Judiciary. There was also no grave abuse of discretion.
- LGUs can only exercise the right of eminent domain thru an ordinance, not a resolution. The first
is upon a specific matter of a temporary nature while the latter is a law that is permanent in
character. No rights can be conferred by and be inferred from a resolution, which is nothing but
an embodiment of what the lawmaking body has to say in the light of attendant circumstances.
- In this case, the Spouses Yusay have not cause of action yet against the City as expropriation
proceedings cannot be commenced with a resolution.
- Prohibition will also not prosper in this case as it is still premature. There was no verified complaint
yet filed by the City.

Requisites for expropriation:

1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in
behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings
over a particular private property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit
of the poor and the landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9 Article III of the
Constitution and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be
expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.