CASE 5 LEAGUE OF CITIES v COMELEC G.R.

178056, FACTS: During the 11th Congress, 57 bills seeking the conversion of municipalities into component cities were filed before the ouse of !epresentatives" owever, Congress acted onl# on $$ bills" %t did not act on bills converting &' other municipalities into cities" During the 1&th Congress, !"A" (o" )**) became effective revising Section '5* of the +ocal ,overnment Code" %t increased the income re-uirement to -ualif# for conversion into a cit# from .&* million annual income to .1** million locall#/generated income" %n the 1$th Congress, 10 of the &' municipalities filed, through their respective sponsors, individual cit#hood bills" Each of the cit#hood bills contained a common provision e1empting the particular municipalit# from the 1** million income re-uirement imposed b# !"A" (o" )**)" ISSUE: Are the cit#hood laws converting 10 municipalities into cities constitutional2 RULING: 3A4,4S5 &',&*1*6//(o" 5he SC 3voting 7/06 granted the motions for reconsideration of the +eague of Cities of the .hilippines 3+C.6, et al" and reinstated its (ovember 17, &**7 decision declaring unconstitutional the Cit#hood +aws or !epublic Acts 3!As6 converting 10 municipalities into cities" 84ndeniabl#, the 0/0 vote did not overrule the prior ma9orit# en banc Decision of 17 (ovember &**7, as well as the prior ma9orit# en banc !esolution of $1 :arch &**) den#ing reconsideration" 5he tie/vote on the second motion for reconsideration is not the same as a tie/vote on the main decision where there is no prior decision,; the Court said" %n the latest resolution, the Court reiterated its (ovember 17, &**7 ruling that the Cit#hood +aws violate sec" 1*, Art" < of the Constitution which e1pressl# provides that 8no cit#=shall be created=e1cept in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code"; %t stressed that while all the criteria for the creation of cities must be embodied e1clusivel# in the +ocal ,overnment Code, the assailed Cit#hood +aws provided an e1emption from the increased income re-uirement for the creation of cities under sec" '5* of the +,C" 85he unconstitutionalit# of the Cit#hood +aws lies in the fact that Congress provided an e1emption contrar# to the e1press language of the Constitution="Congress e1ceeded and abused its law/making power, rendering the challenged Cit#hood +aws void for being violative of the Constitution,; the Court held" 5he Court further held that 8limiting the e1emption onl# to the 10 municipalities violates the re-uirement that the classification must appl# to all similarl# situated" :unicipalities with the same income as the 10 respondent municipalities cannot convert into cities, while the 10 respondent municipalities can" Clearl#, as worded the e1emption provision found in the Cit#hood +aws, even if it were written in Section '5* of the +ocal ,overnment Code, would still be unconstitutional for violation of the e-ual protection clause"; 3,! (o" 170)51, +eague of Cities of the .hilippines v" Comelec> ,! (o" 177')), +eague of Cities of the .hilippines v" Comelec> ,! (o" 177*50, +eague of Cities of the .hilippines v" Comelec, August &', &*1*6 AUGUST 24, 2010

CASE '* LAGCAO,vs. LABRA G.R. No. 155746, FACTS: 5he .rovince of Cebu donated &1* lots to the Cit# of Cebu" ?ut then, in late 1)05, the &1* lots,including +ot 1*&), reverted to the .rovince of Cebu" Conse-uentl#, the province tried to annul the sale of +ot 1*&) b# the Cit# of Cebu to the petitioners" 5his prompted the latter to sue the province for specific performance and damages in the then Court of @irst %nstance" 5he court a -uo ruled in favor of petitioners and ordered the .rovince of Cebu to e1ecute the final deed of sale in favor of petitioners" 5he Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court" After ac-uiring title, petitioners tried to take possession of the lot onl# to discover that it was alread# occupied b# s-uatters" 5hus petitioners instituted e9ectment proceedings against the s-uatters" 5he :unicipal 5rial Court in Cities 3:5CC6 ordering the s-uatters to vacate the lot" An appeal, the !5C affirmed the :5CCBs decision and issued a writ of e1ecution and order of demolition" owever, when the demolition order was about to be implemented, Cebu Cit# :a#or Alvin ,arcia wrote two letters to the :5CC, re-uesting the deferment of the demolition on the ground that the Cit# was still looking for a relocation site for the s-uatters" Acting on the ma#orBs re-uest, the :5CC issued two orders suspending the demolition" 4nfortunatel# for petitioners,during the suspension period, the Sangguniang .anlungsod 3S.6 of Cebu Cit# passed a resolution which identified +ot 1*&) as a socialiCed housing site pursuant to !A 7&7)".etitioners filed with the !5C an action for declaration of nullit# of Ardinance (o"17'$ for being unconstitutional" " ISSUE: DA( the Ardinance (o" 17'$ is unconstitutional as it sanctions the e1propriation of their propert# for the purpose of selling it to the s-uatters, an endeavor contrar# to the concept of 8public use; contemplated in the Constitution" RULING: 4nder Section '7 of !A 710*, otherwise known as the +ocal ,overnment Code of 1))1, local legislative power shall be e1ercised b# the Sangguniang .anlungsod of the cit#" 5he legislative acts of the Sangguniang .anlungsod in the e1ercise of its lawmaking authorit# are denominated ordinances"+ocal government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can e1ercise it onl# when e1pressl# authoriCed b# the legislature" ?# virtue of !A 710*, Congress conferred upon local government units the power to e1propriate" Ardinance (o" 17'$ which authoriCed the e1propriation of petitionersB lot was enacted b# the S. of Cebu Cit# to provide socialiCed housing for the homeless and low/income residents of theCit#" owever, while we recogniCe that housing is one of the most serious social problems of the countr#, local government units do not possess unbridled authorit# to e1ercise their power of eminent domain in seeking solutions to this problem" 5here are two legal provisions which limit the e1ercise of this powerE 316 no person shall be deprived of life, libert#, or propert# without due process of law, nor shall an# person be denied the e-ual protection of the laws> and 3&6 private propert# shall not be taken for public use without 9ust compensation" 5hus, the e1ercise b# local government units of the power of eminent domain is not absolute" %n fact, Section 1) of !A 710* itself e1plicitl# states that such e1ercise must compl# with the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws" October13,2004

CASE '1 JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION, INC., vs. MUNICIPALITY (now CITY) OF PASIG, METRO MANILA, G.R. No. 152230 FACTS: 5he :unicipalit# of .asig needed an access road from E" !" Santos Street, a municipal road near the .asig .ublic :arket, to ?aranga# Sto" 5omas ?ukid, .asig" 5he residents in the area needed the road for water and electrical outlets" 5he municipalit# then decided to ac-uire 51 s-uare meters out of the 1,7)1/s-uare meter propert# of the Ching Cuancos which is abutting E" !" Santos Street" 5he Sangguniang ?a#an of .asig approved an Ardinance authoriCing the municipal ma#or to initiate e1propriation proceedings to ac-uire the said propert# and appropriate the fund therefor" 5he ordinance stated that the propert# owners were notified of the municipalit#Bs intent to purchase the propert# for public use as an access road but the# re9ected the offer" 5he municipalit# filed a complaint, against the Ching Cuancos for the e1propriation of the propert# under Section 1) of the +ocal ,overnment Code" 5he plaintiff alleged therein that it notified the defendants, b# letter, of its intention to construct an access road on a portion of the propert# but the# refused to sell the same portion" 5he plaintiff deposited with the !5C 15F of the market value of the propert# based on the latest ta1 declaration covering the propert#" An plaintiffBs motion, the !5C issued a writ of possession over the propert# sought to be e1propriated" 5he plaintiff caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the dorsal portion of 5C5 (o" .5/)&57) under the name of the Gesus %s +ord Christian School @oundation, %ncorporated 3G%+CS@%6 which had purchased the propert#" .laintiff constructed therein a cemented road with called Dama#an Street" G%+CS@% filed a motion for leave to intervene as defendant/in/intervention, which motion the !5C granted" During trial, !olando 5ogonon, the plaintiffBs messenger, testified on direct e1amination that on @ebruar# &$, 1))$, he served a letter of Engr" Gose !e#es, the 5echnical Assistant to the :a#or on %nfrastructure, to +orenCo Ching Cuanco at his store" 5he plaintiff offered in evidence a photocop# of the letter of Engr" Gose !e#es addressed to +orenCo Ching Cuanco to prove that the plaintiff made a definite and valid offer to ac-uire the propert# to the co/ owners" owever, the !5C re9ected the same letter for being a mere photocop#" ISSUES: 1" DA( the respondent complied with the re-uirement, under Section 1) of the +ocal ,overnment Code, of a valid and definite offer to ac-uire the propert# prior to the filing of the complaint &" DA( propert# which is alread# intended to be used for public purposes ma# still be e1propriated b# the respondent RULING: 1" (A, 5he respondent was burdened to prove the mandator# re-uirement of a valid and definite offer 3Art $5 %!! of +,C6 to the owner of the propert# before filing its complaint and the re9ection thereof b# the latter" %t is incumbent upon the condemnor to e1haust all reasonable efforts to obtain the land it desires b# agreement" @ailure to prove compliance with the mandator# re-uirement will result in the dismissal of the complaint" An offer is a unilateral proposition which one part# makes to the other for the celebration of a contract" %t creates a power of acceptance permitting the offeree, b# accepting the offer, to transform the offerorBs promise into a contractual obligation" 5he offer must be complete, indicating with sufficient clearness the kind of contract intended and definitel# stating the essential conditions of the proposed contract" An offer would re-uire, among other things, a clear certaint# on both the ob9ect and the cause or consideration of the envisioned contract" 5he respondent failed to prove that before it filed its complaint, it made a written definite and valid offer to ac-uire the propert# for public use as an access road" / Even if the letter was, indeed, received b# the co/owners, the letter is not a valid and definite offer to purchase a specific portion of the propert# for a price certain" %t is merel# an invitation for onl# one of the co/owners, +orenCo Ching Cuanco, to a conference to discuss the pro9ect and the price that ma# be mutuall# acceptable to both parties" &" HES, Court re9ected the contention of the petitioner that its propert# can no longer be e1propriated b# the respondent because it is intended for the construction of a place for religious worship and a school for its members" Ju g!e"t# $et%t%o" gr&"te . August 9, 2005

CASE '& BRGY MATICTIC S. JUDGE ELBINIASAND SPS SERAPIO G.R. No. '(48769 , FACTS: ?arrio :atictic filed with C@% ?ulacan an action for in9unction against the Sps Serapio to en9oin the latter f r o m p l a c i n g o b s t r u c t i o n s a n d c l o s i n g t h e t h e .oblacion/5omana/Can#akan barrio road and to allow plaintiff barrio to remove the obstructions and repair the barrio road so as to enable convenient passage through it" +ater, ?arrio :atictic filed :5D on the g r o u n d t h a t a n e 1 p r o p r i a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g , n o t a n i n 9 u n c t i o n , i s t h e b e t t e r r e m e d #" G u d g e , e r a l d e C granted the motion"/ owever, a complaint for Eminent Domain involving the same propert# was filed b# the :unicipalit# of (orCagara# with the same court" 5he defendants filed :5D alleging lack of sub9ect/matter 9urisdiction, lack of cause of action and plaintiff municipalit#Bs lack of capacit# to sue" 5heir principal contention is that the plaintiff municipalit#, in the absence of an approval from the Affice of the .resident, ma# not properl# file the sub9ect e1propriation case"/5he municipalit# later filed an amended complaint alleging that it had obtained authorit# from the Affice of the .resident to institute e1propriation proceedings" Defendants filed their :5D anew, arguing on plaintiffIs lack of cause of action and asserting that a subse-uent authoriCation would n o t c u r e t h e 9 u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t a t t a c h i n g t o t h e p l a i n t i f f I s complaint when the sub9ect case was initiall# filed"/5he court ordered the plaintiff municipalit# to submit plans of the land to be e1propriated, dul# approved b# the ?ureau of +ands" @or failure to compl# with this order, the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute"/4pon appeal, CA ordered C@% ?ulacan to proceed with the e1propriation case pursuant to !ule 07"$ of the !ules of Court" At this point however, the (orCagara# ma#or displa#ed reluctance to prosecute the case" %nfact, he re-uested the :unicipal Council to withdraw the e1propriation proceedings" 5he :unicipal Council,h o w e v e r , r e f u s e d t o a c c e d e t o t h e w i s h e s o f t h e ma#or"/ ? r g # : a t i c t i c , c h a g r i n e d a n d c o n f r o n t e d b # t h e attitude of its ma#or, filed a :otion for %ntervention g r o u n d e d o n i t s a v e r m e n t t h a t t h e r e s u l t o f t h e e1propriation case will greatl# affect the social and economic development of the area" 5his motion was noted b# C@% ?ulacanBs Gudge Elbinias"/Dithout taking an# further action on the motion for i n t e r v e n t i o n , G u d g e E l b i n i a s i s s u e d a n o r d e r dismissing, without pre9udice, the e1propriation case,o n t h e s i n g u l a r r e a s o n t h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e e1propriation case was initiall# filed there was no s h o w i n g o f a n # prior .residential approval J a re-uisite that should have been first complied with, pursuant to Section &&'5 of the !evised Administrative Code" .laintiff municipalit#Bs :@! was denied" %t no longer appealed"/ ?aranga# :atictic filed this petition for certiorari and m a n d a m u s , p r a # i n g f o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a w r i t o f mandamus to compel the lower court to allow and admit the petitionerIs complaint in intervention" ISSUE: DA( mandamus lies"3 D A ( t h e c o m p l a i n t i n i n t e r v e n t i o n s h o u l d b e admitted62 RULING: (A, . r o p e r p a r t # t o a p p e a l o r s e e k a r e v i e w o f t h e dismissal of the e1propriation proceedings would be the :unicipalit# of (orCagara#" ?arrio :atictic, which is a different political entit#, and although a part and p a r c e l o f t h e a f o r e s a i d m u n i c i p a l i t #, h a s n o l e g a l p e r s o n a l i t # t o -uestion the aforestated orders b e c a u s e b # i t s e l f , i t m a # n o t c o n t i n u e t h e e1propriation case" Since the municipalit# did not a p p e a l , t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e e 1 p r o p r i a t i o n c a s e became final and there is no more proceeding wherein ? a r a n g a # : a t i c t i c m a # p o s s i b l # i n t e r v e n e " 5 h e dismissal of the e1propriation case has no less the i n h e r e n t e f f e c t o f also dismissing the motion for i n t e r v e n t i o n w h i c h i s b u t t h e u n a v o i d a b l e conse-uence" (othing is lost to the petitioner" %f at all petitioner can rightfull# establish that it is allowed b# law to institute a separate and independent action of its own, then there would be no necessit# for it to intervene in the case initiated b# the :unicipalit# of (orCagara# which is now apparentl# no longer interested in continuing the e1propriation proceedings" 5he dismissal of the e 1 p r o p r i a t i o n c a s e w a s w i t h o u t p r e 9 u d i c e " 5 h e municipalit# of (orCagara#, ?ulacan can revive its action" 5here is no need for the proposed intervention o f ? a r r i o : a t i c t i c " D h a t i t m a # d o i s t o u r g e t h e municipalit# to file its case anew" %f the ?aranga# has obtained authorit# for itself to pursue the action of eminent domain, then the more reason there is to refuse its intervention" .etition denied for lack of merit" )ebru&r* 27, 1987

CASE '$ DE LA PA! MASI"IP S CITY OF PASIG G.R. No. 136349 FACTS: .etitioner +ourdes Dela .aC :asikip is the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of ',5&1 s-uare meters located at .ag/Asa, Caniogan, .asig Cit#, :etro :anila" 5he then :unicipalit# of .asig, now Cit# of .asig, respondent, notified petitioner of its intention to e1propriate a 1,5** s-uare meter portion of her propert# to be used for the sports development and recreational activities of the residents of ?aranga# Caniogan" 5his was pursuant to Ardinance (o" '&, Series of 1))$ enacted b# the then Sangguniang ?a#an of .asig"Again, respondent wrote another letter to petitioner, but this time the purpose was allegedl# in line with the program of the :unicipal ,overnmentto provide land opportunities to deserving poor sectors of our communit#" .etitioner sent a repl# to respondent stating that the intended e1propriation of her propert# is unconstitutional, invalid, and oppressive, as the area of her lot is neither sufficient nor suitable to provide land opportunities to deserving poor sectors of our communit#" !espondent filed with the trial court a complaint for e1propriation and petitioner filed a :otion to Dismiss the complaint alleging that plaintiff has no cause of action for the e1ercise of the power of eminent domain considering thatE 316 there is no genuine necessit# for the taking of the propert# sought to be e1propriated> and 3&6 plaintiff has arbitraril# and capriciousl# chosen the propert# sought to be e1propriated" 5he trial court issued an Arder den#ing the :otion to Dismiss, on the ground that there is a genuine necessit# to e1propriate the propert# for the sports and recreational activities of the residents of .asig" 5he Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court" ence, this petition" ISSUEE Dhether or not there is a genuine necessit# for the taking of the propert# of petitioner" RULING: 5he Supreme Court held that respondent Cit# of .asig has failed to establish that there is a genuine necessit# to e1propriate petitionerBs propert#" 5he records show that the Certification issued b# the Caniogan ?aranga# Council the basis for the passage of Ardinance (o" '& s" 1))$ authoriCing the e1propriation, indicates that the intended beneficiar# is the :elendres Compound omeowners Association, a private, nonprofit organiCation, not the residents of Caniogan" %t can be gleaned that the members of the said Association are desirous of having their own private pla#ground and recreational facilit#" .etitionerBs lot is the nearest vacant space available" 5he purpose is, therefore, not clearl# and categoricall# public" 5he necessit# has not been shown, especiall# considering that there e1ists an alternative facilit# for sports development and communit# recreation in the area, which is the !ainforest .ark, available to all residents of .asig Cit#, including those of Caniogan" 5herefore, the petition for review was ,ranted" J&"u&r* 23, 2006

CASE '' EP!A vs. DULAY G.R. No. '(59603 FACTS: 5he four parcels of land which are the sub9ect of this case is where the :actan E1port .rocessing Kone Authorit# in Cebu 3E.KA6 is to be constructed" .rivate respondent San Antonio Development Corporation 3San Antonio, for brevit#6, in which these lands are registered under, claimed that the lands were e1propriated to the government without them reaching the agreement as to the compensation" !espondent Gudge Dula# then issued an order for the appointment of the commissioners to determine the 9ust compensation" %t was later found out that the pa#ment of the government to San Antonio would be .15 per s-uare meter, which was ob9ected to b# the latter contending that under .D 15$$, the basis of 9ust compensation shall be fair and according to the fair market value declared b# the owner of the propert# sought to be e1propriated, or b# the assessor, whichever is lower" Such ob9ection and the subse-uent :otion for !econsideration were denied and hearing was set for the reception of the commissionerBs report" E.KA then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus en9oining the respondent from further hearing the case" ISSUE: Dhether or (ot the e1clusive and mandator# mode of determining 9ust compensation in .D 15$$ is unconstitutional" RULING: 5he Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determination of 9ust compensation in .D 15$$ is unconstitutional" 5he method of ascertaining 9ust compensation constitutes impermissible encroachment to 9udicial prerogatives" %t tends to render the courts inutile in a matter in which under the Constitution is reserved to it for financial determination" 5he valuation in the decree ma# onl# serve as guiding principle or one of the factors in determining 9ust compensation, but it ma# not substitute the courtBs own 9udgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount" 5he determination of 9ust compensation is a 9udicial function" 5he e1ecutive department or the legislature ma# make the initial determination but when a part# claims a violation of the guarantee in the ?ill of !ights that the private part# ma# not be taken for public use without 9ust compensation, no statute, decree, or e1ecutive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the courtBs findings" :uch less can the courts be precluded from looking into the 9ustness of the decreed compensation" A+r%, 29, 1987

CASE '5

PRO INCE OF CAMARINES SUR vs. CA G.R. 103125 FACTS: An December &&, 1)77, the Sangguniang .anlalawigan of the .rovince of Camarines Sur passed a !esolution authoriCing the .rovincial ,overnor to purchase or e1propriate propert# contiguous to the provincial Capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non/food and non/traditional agricultural crops and a housing pro9ect for provincial government emplo#ees .ursuant to the !esolution, the .rovince of Camarines Sur, through its ,overnor, filed two separate cases for e1propriation against Ernesto (" San Goa-uin and Efren (" San Goa-uin, at the !egional 5rial Court, .ili, Camarines Sur" 5he San Goa-uins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inade-uac# of the price offered for their propert#" %n an order, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and authoriCed the .rovince of Camarines Sur to take possession of the propert# upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court the amount provisionall# fi1ed b# the trial court to answer for damages that private respondents ma# suffer in the event that the e1propriation cases do not prosper" 5 San Goa-uins filed a motion for relief from the order, authoriCing the .rovince of Camarines Sur to take possession of their propert# and a motion to admit an amended motion to dismiss" ?oth motions were denied in the order dated @ebuar# &0, 1))*" %n teir petition before the Court of Appeals, the San Goa-uins askedE 3a6 that !esolution of the Sangguniang .anlalawigan be declared null and void> 3b6 that the complaints for e1propriation be dismissed> and 3c6 that the order den#ing the motion to dismiss and allowing the .rovince of Camarines Sur to take possession of the propert# sub9ect of the e1propriation and the order dated @ebruar# &0, 1))*, den#ing the motion to admit the amended motion to dismiss, be set aside" 5he# also asked that an order be issued to restrain the trial court from enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter to issue a writ of in9unction" Asked b# the Court of Appeals to give his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor ,eneral stated that under Section ) of the +ocal ,overnment Code 3?"." ?lg" $$76, there was no need for the approval b# the Affice of the .resident of the e1ercise b# the Sangguniang .anlalawigan of the right of eminent domain" owever, the Solicitor ,eneral e1pressed the view that the .rovince of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian !eform of the plan to e1propriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing pro9ect"5he Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court, allowing the .rovince of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondentsI lands and the order den#ing the admission of the amended motion to dismiss" %t also ordered the trial court to suspend the e1propriation proceedings until after the .rovince of Camarines Sur shall have submitted the re-uisite approval of the Department of Agrarian !eform to convert the classification of the propert# of the private respondents from agricultural to non/agricultural land" ISSUE: DA( the .rovince of Cam Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian !eform of the plan to e1propriate the lands of the San Goa-uins" -&* 17, 1993

RULING: 5o sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer e1propriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc", without first appl#ing for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian !eform, because all of these pro9ects would naturall# involve a change in the land use" %n effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian !eform to scrutiniCe whether the e1propriation is for a public purpose or public use"

CASE '0

MUNICIPALITY OF PARANA#UE vs. .M. REALTY G.R. No. 127820. Ju,* 20, 1998

FACTS: 4nder a cit# council resolution, the :unicipalit# of .araLa-ue filed on September &*, 1))$, a Complaint for e1propriation against .rivate !espondent M":" !ealt# Corporation over two parcels of land of 1*,*** s-uare meters" 5he cit# previousl# negotiated for the sale of the propert# but M: didnBt accept"5he trial court issued an Arder dated @ebruar# ', 1))', authoriCing petitioner to take possession of the sub9ect propert# upon deposit with its clerk of court of an amount e-uivalent to 15 percent of its fair market value based on its current ta1 declaration" According to the respondent, the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it was filed pursuant to a resolution and not to an ordinance as re-uired b# !A 710* 3the +ocal ,overnment Code6> and 3b6 the cause of action, if an#, was barred b# a prior 9udgment or res 9udicata" .etitioner claimed that res 9udicata was not applicable" 5he trial court dismissed the case" 5he petitionerBs :@! was denied" 5he CA affirmed" ISSUES: 1" DA( a resolution dul# approved b# the municipal council has the same force and effect of an ordinance and will not deprive an e1propriation case of a valid cause of action" &" DA( the principle of res 9udicata as a ground for dismissal of case is not applicable when public RULING: (o to 1st Hes to &nd" .etition dismissed"

CASE '7

CHA E! vs. PEA$AMARI G.R. No. 133250, FACTS: 5his petition asked the Court to legitimiCe a government contract that conve#ed toa private entit# 157"7' hectares of reclaimed public lands along !o1as ?oulevard in :etro :anila at the negotiated price of .1,&** per s-uare meter" owever,published reports place the market price of land near that area at that time at a high of .)*,*** per s-uare meter" 5he difference in price is a staggering .1'*"10billion, e-uivalent to the budget of the entire Gudiciar# for seventeen #ears and more than three times the :arcos Swiss deposits that this Court forfeited in favor of the government" .ublic Estates Authorit# 3.EA6, under the GMA, obligated itself to conve# title and possession over the .ropert#, consisting of appro1imatel# Ane :illion @ive undred Sevent# Eight 5housand @our undred @ort# Ane 31,577,''16 S-uare :eters for a total consideration of Ane ?illion Eight undred (inet# @our :illion Ane undred 5went# (ine 5housand 5wo undred 3.1,7)',1&),&**"**6 .esos, or a price of Ane 5housand 5wo undred 3.1,&**"**6 .esos per s-uare meter" ISSUE: Dhether or not stipulations in the Amended GMA for the transfer to A:A!% of lands,reclaimed or to be reclaimed on portions of :anila ?a#, violate the Constitution2 RULING: Submerged lands, like the waters 3sea or ba#6 above them, are part of the StateBsinalienable natural resources" Submerged lands are propert# of public dominion,absolutel# inalienable and outside the commerce of man" 5his is also true withrespect to foreshore lands" An# sale of submerged or foreshore lands is void beingcontrar# to the Constitution as it violates Section &, Article <%%" %n the instant case,the bulk of the lands sub9ect of the Amended GMA are still submerged lands even tothis ver# da#, and therefore inalienable and outside the commerce of man" Af the75* hectares sub9ect of the Amended GMA, 5)&"15 hectares or 77F of the total areaare still submerged, permanentl# under the waters of :anila ?a#" 4nder theAmended GMA, the .EA conve#ed to Amari the submerged lands even before theiractual reclamation, although the documentation of the deed of transfer andissuance of the certificates of title would be made onl# after actual reclamation" 5his !esolution does not pre9udice an# innocent third part# purchaser of thereclaimed lands covered b# the Amended GMA" (either the .EA nor Amari has soldan# portion of the reclaimed lands to third parties" 5itle to the reclaimed landsremains with the .EA" As held in the ) Gul# &**& Decision, the Amended GMANviolates glaringl# Sections & and $, Article <%% of the 1)77 Constitution"N No.e!ber 11, 2003