FILSTREAM INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED vs COURT OF APPEALS GR. 128077, January 23, 1998

Fact: On January 7, 1993, petitioner filed an ejectment suit before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila against the occupants of the abovementioned parcels of land owned b the petitioner on the grounds of termination of the lease contract and non-payment of rentals. Judgment was rendered by the MTC on September 14, 1993 ordering private respondents to vacate the premises and pay back rentals to petitioner. Respondent appealed to reverse the decision to the RTC and CA but the coarts affirmed the decision of the lover court.

Thereafter, no further action was taken by the private respondents, as a result of which the decision in the ejectment suit became final and executory.

 

Thereafter, no further action was taken by the private respondents, as a result of which the decision in the ejectment suit became final and executory.

 

Issue: Whether the city of Manila comply with the conditions of the existing laws when it expropriated petitioner Filstreams properties?

 

Held: No, City of Manila did not complied with Sec. 9 and Sec. 10 of R.A. 7279. Petitioners Filstreams properties were expropriated and ordered condemned in favor of the City of Manila sans any showing that resort to the acquisition of other lands listed under Sec. 9 of RA 7279 have proved futile. Evidently, there was a violation of petitioner Filstreams right to due process which must accordingly be rectified.

Indeed, it must be emphasized that the State has a paramount interest in exercising its power of eminent domain for the general good considering that the right of the State to expropriate private property as long as it is for public use always takes precedence over the interest of private property owners. However we must not lose sight of the fact that the individual rights affected by the exercise of such right are also entitled to protection, bearing in mind that the exercise of this superior right cannot override the guarantee of due process extended by the law to owners of the property to be expropriated. In this regard, vigilance over compliance with the due process requirements is in order.

 

 

One thought on “FILSTREAM INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED vs COURT OF APPEALS GR. 128077, January 23, 1998

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: