MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, vs Intermediate Appellate Court

G.R. No. 72126

Petitioner/s: MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN, HON. ADRIANO D. DAEZ, MUNICIPAL
MAYOR, MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN
Respondents: INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and PHILIPPINE PIPES & MERCHANDIZING
CORPORATION
Ponente: GUTIERREZ, JR., J.
Facts:

In 1975, Philippine Pipes and Merchandising Corporation filed with the Office of the
Municipal Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan, an application for a permit to fence a parcel
of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 215165 and 37879 for the storage
of the heavy equipment and various finished products.
In the same year, the Municipal Council of Meycauayan, headed by then Mayor Celso R.
Legaspi, passed Resolution No. 258, Series of 1975, manifesting the intention to
expropriate the respondents parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
37879. Then an opposition to the resolution was filed by the respondent with the Office
of the Provincial Governor, which, in turn, created a special committee of four members
to investigate the matter.
On March 10, 1976, the Special Committee recommended that the Provincial Board of
Bulacan disapprove or annul the resolution in question because there was no genuine
necessity for the Municipality of Meycauayan to expropriate the respondents property
for use as a public road, then passed Resolution No. 238, Series of 1976, disapproving
and annulling Resolution No. 258, Series of 1975, of the Municipal Council of
Meycauayan. The respondent, then, reiterated to the Office of the Mayor its petition for
the approval of the permit to fence the aforesaid parcels of land.
On October 21, 1983, however, the Municipal Council of Meycauayan, now headed by
Mayor Adriano D. Daez, passed Resolution No. 21, Series of 1983, for the purpose of
expropriating anew the respondents land. The Provincial Board of Bulacan approved
the aforesaid resolution on January 25, 1984. Thereafter, the petitioner, on February 14,
1984, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch VI, a special civil
action for expropriation.
On August 27, 1984, the trial court issued an order declaring the taking of the property
as lawful and appointing the Provincial Assessor of Bulacan as court commissioner who
shall hold the hearing to ascertain the just compensation for the property.

The respondent went to the Intermediate Appellate Court on petition for review. On
January 10, 1985, the appellate court affirmed the trial courts decision. However, upon
motion for reconsideration by the respondent, the decision was re-examined and
reversed. The appellate court held that there is no genuine necessity to expropriate the
land for use as a public road as there were several other roads for the same purpose and
another more appropriate lot for the proposed public road. The court, taking into
consideration the location and size of the land, also opined that the land is more ideal
for use as storage area for respondents heavy equipment and finished products.
After its motion for reconsideration was denied, the petitioner went to this Court on
petition for review on certiorari the petitioner argues that respondent Court has
decided a question of substance not in accord with law or with applicable decisions of
this Honorable Supreme Court; that the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts and the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, and
conjectures.

Issue/s:
1. Whether respondent Court has decided a question of substance not in accord with law
and the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.
2. Whether there is genuine necessity to expropriate the strip of land for use as a public
road.
Held:
1. No, the private respondent contends that this Court may only resolve questions of law
and not questions of fact such as those which the petitioner puts in issue in this case.
The court agrees to the respondent and the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to
us from the Court of Appeals is limited to the review of errors of law factual issues not
being proper in certiorari proceedings. This Court reviews and rectifies the findings of
fact of the Court of Appeals only under certain established exceptions such as: (1) when
the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures;
(2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (3) when
there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; and (5) when the court, in making its finding, went beyond
the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both the appellant
and the appellee.
2. No, there is no genuine necessity to expropriate the strip of land for use as a public
road.

The land to expropriate is to be converted into a public road which would provide a
connecting link between Malhacan Road and Bulac Road in Valenzuela, Bulacan and thereby
ease the traffic in the area of vehicles coming from MacArthur Highway. The court found
out in the records that there were other connecting links between the aforementioned
roads. Appreciating the evidence presented, the property intended to be expropriated is
embraced under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37879 and is a private road of the company
used in the conduct and operation of its business.
There is no genuine necessity for the Municipality of Meycauayan to expropriate the
aforesaid property of the Philippine Pipes and Merchandizing Corporation for use as a
public road. Considering that in the vicinity there are other available road and vacant lot
offered for sale situated similarly as the lot in question and lying idle. There is also lot for
sale and lying idle which is most ideal for use as a public road for it is more than 3 times
wider and it is more just, fair, and reasonable to be expropriated than the other strip of
land.
The Court held that the foundation of the right to exercise the power of eminent domain is
genuine necessity and that necessity must be of a public character. Condemnation of
private property is justified only if it is for the public good and there is a genuine necessity
of a public character. Consequently, the courts have the power to require into the legality of
the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether there is a genuine
necessity therefor.
There is absolutely no showing in the petition why the more appropriate lot for the
proposed road which was offered for sale has not been the subject of the petitioners
attempt to expropriate assuming there is a real need for another connecting road.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The questioned resolution
of the respondent court is AFFIRMED.

Calalang vs. Williams

G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940
Petitioner: Maximo Calalang
Respondents: A.D. Williams, Et al.
Ponente: Laurel

FACTS:
Maximo Calalang in his capacity as a private citizen and a taxpayer of Manila filed a petition for a
writ of prohibition against the respondent A.D. Williams, Et. al. It is alleged in the petition that the
National Traffic Commission, in its resolution dated July 17, 1940, resolved to recommend to the
Director of the Public Works and to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications that the animal
drawn vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario Street extending from Plaza Calderon del Barca
to Dasmarias Street, from 7:30 AM to 12:30 PM and from 1:30 PM to 5:30 PM and along Rizal Avenue
extending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to Echague Street from 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM for
a period of one year from the date of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic.
On July 18, 1970, the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission recommended to the
Director of the Public Works with the approval from the Secretary of the Public Works and
Communications to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on
the National Roads. On August 2, 1940, the Director recommended to the Secretary the approval of the
recommendations made by the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission with modifications. On
August 10, 1940, the Secretary of the Public Works approved the recommendation. The Mayor of Manila
and the Acting Chief, have enforced and caused to be enforced the rules and regulation. As a
consequence, all animal drawn vehicle are not allowed to pass and pick up passengers in the place
above mentioned not only of their owners but of the riding public as well.
ISSUE: resolution

1. Whether the rules and regulations complained of infringe upon the

constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the
well-being and economic security of all the people?
2. Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the respondents
pursuant to the provisions of Commonwealth Act NO. 548 constitute an
unlawful inference with legitimate business or trade and abridged the right to personal
liberty and freedom of locomotion?
HELD:
1. N o . S ocial justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by
the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium
in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the
adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of

powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of SALUS
POPULI EST SUPREMA LEX. Social justice must be founded on the recognition of the
necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the
protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in
our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of
the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about
"the greatest good to the greatest number."

2. No. The promulgation of the Act aims to promote safe transit on national roads
in the convenience of the public. Inenacting said law, the National Assembly
was prompted by considerations of public convenience and welfare. Public welfare,
lies at the bottom of the enactment of said law, and the state in order to promote the
general welfare may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and
occupations. Persons and property may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and
burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state.
Liberty is a blessing, without which life is a misery, but liberty should not be made to prevail
over authority because then society will fall into anarchy. Neither should authority be made
to prevail over liberty because then the individual will fall into slavery. The citizen should
achieve the required balance of liberty and authority in his mind through education and
personal discipline, so that there may be established the resultant equilibrium, which means
peace and order and happiness for all. The moment greater authority is conferred upon the
government, logically so much is withdrawn from the residuum of liberty which resides in
the people. The paradox lies in the fact that the apparent curtailment of liberty is precisely
the very means of insuring its preservation.