Scribd
Upload
107 views2 pages

Rule 67 - Expropriation - No.7 - Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs. J. King and Sons Co., Inc. (PARE)

Petitioner Metropolitan Cebu Water District sought to acquire a five-square meter lot occupied by its production well, which was part of respondent J. King and Sons Company's property. Negotiations for the voluntary sale of the property failed, so petitioner initiated expropriation proceedings. Respondent challenged the expropriation, arguing the board resolution authorizing the complaint lacked particularity and there was no necessity for expropriating the property. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioner's board of directors properly authorized the expropriation complaint through Board Resolution No. 015-2004, and the local utilities administration reviewed and approved the complaint. Therefore, petitioner had sufficient authority from its board of directors to institute the expropriation complaint.

Uploaded by

Rimvan Le Sufeor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
107 views2 pages

Rule 67 - Expropriation - No.7 - Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs. J. King and Sons Co., Inc. (PARE)

Petitioner Metropolitan Cebu Water District sought to acquire a five-square meter lot occupied by its production well, which was part of respondent J. King and Sons Company's property. Negotiations for the voluntary sale of the property failed, so petitioner initiated expropriation proceedings. Respondent challenged the expropriation, arguing the board resolution authorizing the complaint lacked particularity and there was no necessity for expropriating the property. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioner's board of directors properly authorized the expropriation complaint through Board Resolution No. 015-2004, and the local utilities administration reviewed and approved the complaint. Therefore, petitioner had sufficient authority from its board of directors to institute the expropriation complaint.

Uploaded by

Rimvan Le Sufeor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER ATTY. ALBERTSON S.

CAJAYON

Doctrine: Expropriation under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court

Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs. J. King and Sons Co., Inc.
GR No. 175983
April 16, 2009
Tinga, J.

Facts: Petitioner Metropolitan Cebu Water District is a government-owned and controlled


corporation created pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 198, as amended. Among its purposes
are to acquire, install, improve, maintain and operate water supply and distribution systems
within the boundaries of the District.
Petitioner wanted to acquire a five (5)-square meter lot occupied by its production well. The lot
is part of respondent's property covered by TCT No. 168605 and located in Banilad, Cebu City.
Petitioner initiated negotiations with respondent J. King and Sons Company, Inc. for the
voluntary sale of the latter's property. Respondent did not acquiesce to petitioner's proposal.
After the negotiations had failed, petitioner pursuant to its charter initiated expropriation
proceedings through Board Resolution No. 015-2004 which was duly approved by the Local
Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). On 10 November 2004, petitioner filed a complaint to
expropriate the five (5)-square meter portion of respondent's property.

On 7 February 2005, petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession. Petitioner
wanted to tender the amount to respondent during a rescheduled hearing which petitioner's
counsel had failed to attend. Petitioner deposited with the Clerk of Court the amount of
P17,500.00 equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the current zonal value of the property
which the Bureau of Internal Revenue had pegged at P3,500.00 per square meter. Subsequently,
the trial court granted the motion and issued the writ of possession. Respondent moved for
reconsideration but the motion was denied.

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. It sought the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) which the Court of Appeals granted. Thus,
petitioner was not able to gain entry to the lot.
On 26 July 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision granting respondent's
petition. It ruled that the board resolution which authorized the filing of the expropriation
complaint lacked exactitude and particularity which made it invalid; that there was no genuine
necessity for the expropriation of the five (5)-square meter lot and; that the reliance on Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8974 in fixing the value of the property contravenes the judicial determination of
just compensation. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the motion was rejected.

Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not there was sufficient authority from the petitioner’s board of directors to
institute the expropriation complaint?
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER ATTY. ALBERTSON S. CAJAYON

Ruling: Yes. Petitioner’s charter provides that it has the powers, rights, and privileges given to
private corporations under existing laws, in addition to the powers granted in it. All the powers,
privileges, and duties of a district shall be exercised and performed by and through the board and
that any executive, administrative or ministerial power may be delegated and redelegated by the
board to any of its officers or agents for such purpose. Being a corporation, petitioner can
exercise its power only through its board of directors.

For MCWD to exercise its power of eminent domain, two (2) requirements should be met,
namely: first, its board of directors passed a resolution authorizing the expropriation, and second,
the exercise of the power of eminent domain was subjected to review by the LWUA.

In this case, petitioner’s board of directors approve on 27 February 20014, Board Resolution No.
015-2004 authorizing its general manager to file expropriation and other cases. Moreover, the
LWUA did review and gave its stamp of approval to the filing of a complaint for the
expropriation of respondent’s lot. Specifically, the LWUA through its Administrator, Lorenzo H.
Jamora, wrote petitioner’s manager, Armando H. Paredes, a letter dated 28 February 2005
authorizing petitioner to file the expropriation case “against the owner of the five-square meter
lot.

You might also like