Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 651 views

    City of Manila Vs Melba Tan Te

    Uploaded by

    Virnadette Lopez
    1) Melba Tan Te acquired property in 1996 that was occupied by families whose lease rights had expired. She sought their ejectment in 1998. 2) In 1998, Manila City Mayor approved an ordinance authorizing expropriation of property for low-cost housing. 3) The city instituted an expropriation case for the same property. The court dismissed for lack of showing of expropriation authorization. The city adopted a new theory that expropriation was valid for public purpose as low-cost housing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    City of Manila Vs Melba Tan Te

    Uploaded by

    Virnadette Lopez
    651 views1 page
    1) Melba Tan Te acquired property in 1996 that was occupied by families whose lease rights had expired. She sought their ejectment in 1998. 2) In 1998, Manila City Mayor approved an ordinance authorizing expropriation of property for low-cost housing. 3) The city instituted an expropriation case for the same property. The court dismissed for lack of showing of expropriation authorization. The city adopted a new theory that expropriation was valid for public purpose as low-cost housing.

    Original Title

    10. City of Manila vs Melba Tan Te

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Melba Tan Te acquired property in 1996 that was occupied by families whose lease rights had expired. She sought their ejectment in 1998. 2) In 1998, Manila City Mayor approved an ordinance authorizing expropriation of property for low-cost housing. 3) The city instituted an expropriation case for the same property. The court dismissed for lack of showing of expropriation authorization. The city adopted a new theory that expropriation was valid for public purpose as low-cost housing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    651 views1 page

    City of Manila Vs Melba Tan Te

    Uploaded by

    Virnadette Lopez
    1) Melba Tan Te acquired property in 1996 that was occupied by families whose lease rights had expired. She sought their ejectment in 1998. 2) In 1998, Manila City Mayor approved an ordinance authorizing expropriation of property for low-cost housing. 3) The city instituted an expropriation case for the same property. The court dismissed for lack of showing of expropriation authorization. The city adopted a new theory that expropriation was valid for public purpose as low-cost housing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Lopez, Virnadette L.

    LAW 1932250

    CITY OF MANILA, PETITIONER, VS. MELBA TAN TE, RESPONDENT.

    G.R. No. 169263, September 21, 2011

    FACTS: Melban Tan Te, respondent, had acquired the property from the heirs of Emerlinda Dimayuga
    Reyes in 1996, and back then it was being occupied by a number of families whose leasehold
    rights had long expired even prior to said sale. In 1998, respondent had sought before the
    Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 15 the ejectment of these occupants from the
    premises.

    On March 15, 1998, then Manila City Mayor Joselito L. Atienza approved Ordinance No. 7951
    - an expropriation measure enacted on February 3, 1998 by the city council - authorizing him
    to acquire by negotiation or expropriation certain pieces of real property along Maria Clara
    and Governor Forbes Streets where low-cost housing units could be built and then awarded
    to bona fide residents therein.

    The favorable ruling in that case evaded execution; hence, the court, despite opposition of
    the City of Manila, issued a Writ of Demolition at respondent's instance. It appears that in the
    interim between the issuance of the writ of execution and the order of demolition, the City of
    Manila had instituted an expropriation case affecting the same property. Respondent had
    moved for the dismissal of that first expropriation case for lack of cause of action, lack of
    showing of an ordinance authorizing the expropriation, and noncompliance with the
    provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and
    Housing Act of 1992. The trial court found merit in the motion and dismissed the complaint
    without prejudice.

    Series of trial had been executed. The petitioner changes it adopts a different theory which is
    the power of eminent domain. They didn’t need to comply with provision of RA No. 7279
    since it is a valid expropriation for public purpose and respondent was already compensated
    of 1M deposited in trust.

    ISSUES: Whether or not the expropriation is for public purpose?

    RULING: Yes, the expropriation is for public purpose. The public use requirement for a valid exercise
    of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing
    conditions. Urban renewal or development and the construction of low-cost housing are
    recognized as a public purpose, not only because of the expanded concept of public use but
    also because of specific provisions in the Constitution.

    You might also like