POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

11. Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation

(G.R. No. 127820. July 20, 1998)

FACTS: The Municipality of Parañaque filed on Sept. 20, 1993, a complaint for expropriation against Private
Respondent V.M. Realty Corporation over two parcels of land, with a combined area of about 10,000 square meters, located at
San Dionisio, Parañaque, and covered by Torrens Certificate of Title No.48700. The complaint was filed “for alleviating
the living conditions of the underprivileged by providing homes for the homeless through a socialized housing project.
Petitioner, pursuant to its Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 577, previously made an offer to enter into a negotiated
sale of the property with respondent, which the latter did not accept. RTC gave it a due course and authorizing petitioner to take
possession of the subject property (Feb. 4, 1994 order). The private respondent filed its Answer containing affirmative defenses
and a counterclaim, alleging in the main that (a) the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant to a
resolution and not to an ordinance as required by RA 7160 (the Local Government Code); and (b) the cause of action, if any, was
barred by a prior judgment or res judicata. The petitioner filed its opposition, stressing that the trial court’s Order
dated February 4, 1994 was in accord with Section 19 of RA 7160, and that the principle of res judicata was not applicable.
Thereafter, the trial court issued its August 9, 1994 Resolution nullifying its February 4, 1994 Order and
dismissing the case.

ISSUE: 1.WON the local government of Paranaque can validly exercise the power of eminent domain in
the absence of an ordinance.
2.WON principle of res judicata is applicable to the present case.
HELD:
1. The following essential requisites must concur before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent
domain: a.) An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive
to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private
property. b.) The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the
benefit of the poor and the landless. c.) There is payment of just compensation, as required under Sec.
9, Article 3 of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws. d.) 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.
In the case at bar, the local chief executive sought to exercise the power of eminent domain pursuant to a
resolution of the municipal council. Thus, there was no compliance with the first requisite that the mayor
be authorized through an ordinance because a resolution is different from an ordinance, as what the
petitioner contends. A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a
resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An
ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature.

2. All the requisites for the application of res judicata are present in this case. There is a previous final
judgment on the merits in a prior expropriation case involving identical interests, subject matter and
cause of action, which has been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over it.

The Court holds that the principle of res judicata cannot bar the right of the State to expropriate private
property. The very nature of eminent domain, as an inherent power of the State, dictates that the right to
exercise the power be absolute and unfettered even by a prior judgment or res judicata. The scope of
eminent domain is plenary and can “reach every form of property which the State might need for public
use. The power of the State or its agent to exercise eminent domain is not diminished by the mere fact that
a prior final judgment over the property to be expropriated has become the law of the case as to the
parties. The State or its authorized agent may still subsequently exercise its right to expropriate the same
property, once all legal requirements are complied with. To rule otherwise will not only improperly
diminish the power of eminent domain, but also clearly defeat social justice.