8/4/2019 FORTICH vs

1/3

FORTICH vs. CORONA298 SCRA 678

Facts:

This pertains to the two (2) separate motions for reconsiderationfiled by herein respondent and the applicants for intervention,seeking a reversal of our April 24, 1998 Decision nullfying theso-called "win-win" Resolution dated November 7, 1997, issued by theOffice of the President in O.P. Case No. 96-C-6424, and denying theapplicants Motion For Leave To Intervene.

The issue in this case stems from a proposed agro-economicdevelopment of the disputed land which the province of Bukidnon andthe municipality of Sumilao, Bukidnon intend to undertake. Expressingfull support for the proposed project, the Sangguniang Bayan ofSumilao, Bukidnon on March 4, 1193 enacted Ordinance No. 24 convertingor reclassifying the subject 144-hectare land from agricultural toindustrial/institutional use. It was intended to provide anopportunity to attract investors, who can inject new economic

vitality, provide more jobs and raise the income of its people.Bukidnon Provincial Board also supported the said project.

Issue: Whether or not the power of the local government units toreclassify lands is subject to the approval of the Department of

Agrarian Reform (DAR)

Held:

Local Government Units need not obtain the approval of the DAR toconvert or reclassify lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use.It should be stressed that when the March 29, 1996 OP Decision wasdeclared final and executory, vested rights were acquired by theherein petitioners, namely, the province of Bukidnon, the municipalityof Sumilao, Bukidnon, and the NQSR Management and DevelopmentCorporations, and all others who should be benefited by the saiddecision. The issue here is not a question of technicality but that ofsubstance and merit. Whether the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao has thelegal authority to reclassify the land into industrial/institutionaluse, the March 29, 1996 OP Decision has thoroughly and properly

disposed the issue. Converting the land in question from agriculturalto agro-industrial would open great opportunities for employment and

bring about real development in the area towards a sustained economicgrowth of the municipality.

Procedural lapses in the manner of identifying/reclassifying thesubject property for agro-industrial purposes cannot be allowed todefeat the very purpose of the law granting autonomy to local

8/4/2019 FORTICH vs

2/3

government units in the management of their local affairs. Stated moresimply, the language of Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 is clear andaffords no room for any other interpretation. By unequivocal legalmandate, it grants local governments units autonomy in their localaffairs including the power to convert portions of their agriculturallands and provide for the manner of their utilization and disposition

to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliantcommunities.

MUNICIPALITY OF PARAAQUE, petitioner, vs. V.M. REALTY CORPORATION,respondent.292 SCRA 676

Facts:Pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95, Series of 1993,the Municipality of Paraaque filed on September 20, 1993, a Complaintfor expropriation against Private Respondent V.M. Realty Corporation,over two parcels of land located at Wakas, San Dionisio, Paraaque,Metro Manila. Allegedly, the complaint was filed "for the purpose ofalleviating the living conditions of the underprivileged by providinghomes for the homeless through a socialized housing project." It wasalso for this stated purpose that petitioner, pursuant to itsSangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 577, Series of 1991, previously madean offer to enter into a negotiated sale of the property with private

respondent, which the latter did not accept.

Issue: Whether or not the Resolution of the Paraaque MunicipalCouncil No. 93-95, Series of 1993 is a substantial compliance of thestatutory requirement in the exercise of its power of eminent domain

Held:

The following essential requisites must concur before an LGU canexercise the power of eminent domain:1.An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizingthe local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power

of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over aparticular 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 ofthe property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.

8/4/2019 FORTICH vs

3/3

In the case at bar, the local chief executive sought to exercise thepower of eminent domain pursuant to a resolution of the municipalcouncil. Thus, there was no compliance with the first requisite thatthe mayor be authorized through an ordinance. A valid ordinance isrequired before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain. A

mere resolution will not suffice.