CA sets aside ruling on Talisay expropriations case

CEBU, Philippines - The Court of Appeals 19th Division set aside the ruling of the trial court to proceed with the pre-trial of an expropriation case filed by the Talisay City government.

The case stemmed from the acquisition of the parcels of land owned by private individuals and intended for a government center.

Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella-Maxino said the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff-appellee, Talisay City government,  complied with the requirements of the law to initiate expropriation proceedings in court in the exercise of its power of eminent domain.

“The Regional Trial Court gravely erred when it issued the order dated April 18, 2008, declaring that plaintiff-appellee has substantially complied with the requirement of the law despite the absence of the fourth requisite to exercise the right of eminent domain. Clearly, the filing of the expropriation suit against defendant-appellant Daniel Go is premature,” the decision reads.

With that, Maxino ruled to dismiss the amended complaint for expropriation filed by the appellee.

The Talisay City government filed an expropriation case before the court for the acquisition of 7,203 square meters located at Lawaan II, Talisay City, owned by Manuel Borromeo, Lily Arias, Dionisio Delima, Helen Niadas, Antonio Delima, Ester Snowdon, and the heirs of Felicia Delima and Go.

The area was intended for a government center where all government buildings, plaza and parks will be located. The appellee cited the area was the “most suitable and beneficial to the public” as it is situated directly between the South Reclamation Road and the new Talisay City Hall and Palace of Justice.

The appellee offered P2,200 per square meter as the price subject for the expropriation.

The city government said the other owners accepted the offer while the heirs of Felicia Delima are subject for separate litigation.

In his answer, Go said the city government failed to comply with the requirement of the provisions provided in the Local Government Code of 1991 on eminent domain.

Under the law, it stated a plaintiff can file an expropriation after their offer to buy was rejected. However, Go said he did not categorically said that he rejected the offer but asked for the postponement of the date of purchase.

In her 15-page decision, Maxino ruled in favor of Go. She said the trial court erred in ruling that the apellee complied with the necessary requirements.

“The law explicitly requires not only that the expropriating authority has made a valid and definite offer to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated but also that such offer was not accepted or was rejected by the latter,” the decision reads.

Likewise, Maxino ruled that the city government failed to establish that Go indeed rejected the offer.

Moreover, she said the term reject was not synonymous to the term postpone.

“One of the meanings of reject found on 1915 of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary is to decline to accept while postpone… is to hold back to a later time,” the decision further reads. —/MIT (FREEMAN)