eminent domain case digests

8/11/2019 Eminent Domain Case Digests

1/50

NarrativesConstitutional Law II

Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola2005

Shared under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAli e !"0 #hili$$ines license"

Some %i&hts %eserved"
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ph/


2/50

'able o( Contents

Cit) o( Manila v" Chinese Communit) o( Manila *G%+,!55 !+ .ctober +/+/ """ +Moda) vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +01/+ 20 3ebruar) +//1 4 2

%e$ublic vs" #hili$$ine Lon& istance 'ele$hone Co" *G% L-+66,+ 21 7anuar) +/ / 4 !8aran&a) San %o9ue v" :eirs o( #astor *G% +!66/ 20 7une 2000 4 ,

%e$ublic vs" Vda" de Castellvi *G% L-20 20 +5 Au&ust +/1, 4 5Cit) Government o( ;ueardo *G% L-+2+12 2/ Au&ust +/56 4 1

National #ower Cor$oration vs" Gutierre< *G% 0011 +6 7anuar) +//+ 4 6?nited States vs" Causb) *!26 ?S 25 21 Ma) +/, 4 /3ilstream International Inc" *G% +252+6 and G% +26011" 2! 7anuar) +//6 """ +0

=state or :eirs o( the late e@-7ustice 7ose 8" L" %e)es vs" Cit) o( Manila *G% +!2,!+ +! 3ebruar) 200, 4 +2Cit) o( Mandalu)on& vs" A&uilar *G% +!1+52 2/ 7anuar) 200+ 4 +,

:eirs o( 7uancho Ardona vs" %e)es *G% L- 05,/ 055! to 0555 2 .ctober +/6! 4 +5Sumulon& vs" Guerrero *G% L-,6 65 !0 Se$tember +/61 """ +1

#rovince o( Camarines Sur vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +0!+25 +1 Ma) +//! """ +6Manosca vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +0 ,,0 2/ 7anuar) +// 4 +/

=state o( Salud 7imene< vs" #hili$$ine =@$ort #rocessin& Bone *G% +!1265 + 7anuar) 200+ 4 20Munici$alit) o( Me)caua)an vs" Intermediate A$$ellate Court *G% L-12+2 2/ 7anuar) +/66 4 22

e necht vs" 8autista *G% L-5+016 !0 .ctober +/60 4 2!%e$ublic vs" de necht *G% 61!!5 +2 3ebruar) +//0 4 2,

#hili$$ine #ress Institute vs" Commission on =lections *G% ++/ /, 22 Ma) +//5 4 25National :ousin& Authorit) vs" :eirs ( Isidro Guivelondo *G% +5,,++ +/ 7une 200! 4 2

=slaban vs" Vda" de .norio *G% +, 0 2 26 7une 200+ 4 26%e$ublic vs" Intermediate A$$ellate Court *G% 1++1 2+ Ma) +//0 4 2/

Cit) o( Cebu vs" edamo *G% +,2/1+ 1 Ma) 2002 4 !+=@$ort #rocessin& Bone Authorit) vs" ula) *G% L-5/ 0! 2/ A$ril +/61 4 !2

Ansaldo vs" 'antuico *G% 50+,1 ! Au&ust +//0 4 !!National #ower Cor$oration vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +01 !+ 2 3ebruar) +// 4 !,

Association o( Small Landowners in the #hili$$ines Inc" vs" Secretar) o( A&rarian %e(orm *G% 161,+ +, 7ul) +/6/ 4 !5e$artment o( A&rarian %e(orm vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% ++61,5 .ctober +//5 4 !1

Manila =lectric Com$an) DM=%ALC.E vs" #ineda *G% 5/1/+ +! 3ebruar) +//2 4 !/National #ower Cor$oration vs" :enson *G% +2///6 2/ ecember +//6 4 ,0

National #ower Cor$oration vs" An&as *G% 0225-2 6 Ma) +//2 4 ,+%e$ublic o( the #hili$$ines vs" Salem Investment Cor$oration *G% +!15 / 2! 7une 2000 4 ,!

Cit) o( Manila vs" Serrano *G% +,2!0, 20 7une 200+ 4 ,,Cit) o( 8a&uio vs" National Faterwor s and Sewera&e Authorit) *G% L-+20!2 !+ Au&ust +/5/ 4 ,5#rovince o( Bamboan&a del Norte v" Cit) o( Bamboan&a *G"%" No" L-2,,,0" March 26 +/ 6" 4 ,

This collection contains thirty severn (37) casessummarized in this format by

Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student)during the irst !emester" school year #$$%$$'

in the olitical aw *eview classunder +ean Mariano Magsalin ,r.

at the -rellano niversity !chool of aw (- ! )./om0iled as + " !e0tember #$1#.

2erne Guerrero entered - ! in ,une #$$#and eventually graduated from - ! in #$$'.

e 0assed the hili00ine bar e4aminations immediately after (-0ril #$$7).

berne&uerrero"word$ress"com


3/50

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

15 City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila [GR14355, 31 October 1919 First Division, Johnson (J): 4 concur

!acts" On 11 December, 1916, the city of Manila presented a petition in the Court of First Instance (CFI) ofManila prayin that certain lands (e!tension of "i#al $%enue &ithin 'loc of the district of 'inondo) be

e!propriated for the purpose of constructin a public impro%ement* +he Comunidad de Chinos de ManilaChinese Community of Manila- alle ed in its ans&er that it &as a corporation or ani#ed and e!istin underand by %irtue of the la&s of the .hilippine Islands, ha%in for its purpose the benefit and eneral &elfare ofthe Chinese Community of the City of Manila/ that it &as the o&ner of parcels one and t&o of the landdescribed in para raph 0 of the complaint/ that it denied that it &as either necessary or e!pedient that the saidparcels be e!propriated for street purposes/ that e!istin street and roads furnished ample means ofcommunication for the public in the district co%ered by such proposed e!propriation/ that if the constructionof the street or road should be considered a public necessity, other routes &ere a%ailable, &hich &ould fullysatisfy the City s purposes, at much less e!pense and &ithout disturbin the restin places of the dead/ that ithad a +orrens title for the lands in 2uestion/ that the lands in 2uestion had been used by the ChineseCommunity for cemetery purposes/ that a reat number of Chinese &ere buried in said cemetery/ that if saide!propriation be carried into effect, it &ould disturb the restin places of the dead, &ould re2uire the

e!penditure of a lar e sum of money in the transfer or remo%al of the bodies to some other place or site and inthe purchase of such ne& sites, &ould in%ol%e the destruction of e!istin monuments and the erection of ne&monuments in their stead, and &ould create irreparable loss and in3ury to the Chinese Community and to allthose persons o&nin and interested in the ra%es and monuments &hich &ould ha%e to be destroyed/ that theCity &as &ithout ri ht or authority to e!propriate said cemetery or any part or portion thereof for streetpurposes/ and that the e!propriation, in fact, &as not necessary as a public impro%ement* Ildefonso+ambuntin , ans&erin the petition, denied each and e%ery alle ation of the complaint, and alle ed that saide!propriation &as not a public impro%ement* Feli#a Concepcion de Del ado, &ith her husband, 4ose MariaDel ado, and each of the other defendants, ans&erin separately, presented substantially the same defense asthat presented by the Comunidad de Chinos de Manila and Ildefonso +ambuntin * 4ud e 5implicio del"osario decided that there &as no necessity for the e!propriation of the strip of land and absol%ed each and allof the defendants (Chinese Community, +ambuntin , spouses Del ado, et* al*) from all liability under the

complaint, &ithout any findin as to costs* From the 3ud ment, the City of Manila appealed*#ssue" hether portions of the Chinese Cemetery, a public cemetery, may be e!propriated for the constructionof a public impro%ement*

$el%" 7o* 5ection 0809 of $ct 0 11 (Charter of the city of Manila) pro%ides that the city (Manila) maycondemn pri%ate property for public use* +he Charter of the city of Manila, ho&e%er, contains no procedureby &hich the said authority may be carried into effect* $ct 19: pro%ides for ho& ri ht of eminent domain maybe e!ercised* 5ection 081 of said $ct pro%ides that the ;o%ernment of the .hilippine Islands, or of anypro%ince or department thereof, or of any municipality, and any person, or public or pri%ate corporationha%in , by la&, the ri ht to condemn pri%ate property for public use, shall e!ercise that ri ht in the mannerprescribed by 5ection 080 to 086* +he ri ht of e!propriation is not an inherent po&er in a municipalcorporation, and before it can e!ercise the ri ht some la& must e!ist conferrin the po&er upon it* hen thecourts come to determine the 2uestion, they must not only find (a) that a la& or authority e!ists for thee!ercise of the ri ht of eminent domain, but (b) also that the ri ht or authority is bein e!ercised inaccordance &ith the la&*


4/50


cemeteries and sepulchers and the places of the burial of the dead are still &ithin the memory and commandof the acti%e care of the li%in / &hile they are still de%oted to pious uses and sacred re ard, it is difficult tobelie%e that e%en the le islature &ould adopt a la& e!pressly pro%idin that such places, under suchcircumstances, should be %iolated*

1& Mo%ay vs. Court of '((eals [GR 1)*91&, +) !ebruary 199*Second Division, Romero (J): 4 concur

!acts" On 0 4uly 19>9, the 5an unian 'ayan of the Municipality of 'una&an in $ usan del 5ur passed"esolution 8 =>9, ?$uthori#in the Municipal Mayor to Initiate the .etition for @!propriation of a 1 =.ls=8 $lon the 7ational 9, the 5an unian .anlala&i an disappro%ed said "esolution and returned it &ith thecomment that ?e!propriation is unnecessary considerin that there are still a%ailable lots in 'una&an for theestablishment of the o%ernment center*? +he Municipality of 'una&an subse2uently filed a .etition for@minent Domain a ainst .erci%al Moday before the "e ional +rial Court ("+C) at .rosperidad, $ usan del

5ur* +he complaint &as later amended to include the re istered o&ners, .erci%al Moday s parents, Botico ( )and Aeonora Moday, as party defendants* On 6 March 1991, the municipality filed a Motion to +a e or @nterpon the .ossession of 5ub3ect Matter of +his Case statin that it had already deposited &ith the municipal

treasurer the necessary amount in accordance &ith 5ection 0, "ule 6 of the "e%ised "ules of Court and thatit &ould be in the o%ernment s best interest for the municipality to be allo&ed to ta e possession of theproperty* Despite Moday s opposition and after a hearin on the merits, the "+C ranted the municipality smotion to ta e possession of the land/ holdin that the 5an unian .anlala&i an s failure to declare theresolution in%alid lea%es it effecti%e, and that the duty of the 5an unian .anlala&i an is merely to re%ie&the ordinances and resolutions passed by the 5an unian 'ayan under 5ection 0:> (1) of '. (the oldAocal ;o%ernment Code) and that the e!ercise of eminent domain is not one of the t&o acts enumerated in5ection 19 thereof re2uirin the appro%al of the 5an unian .anlala&i an* Moday s motion forreconsideration &as denied by the trial court on 1 October 1991* Moday ele%ated the case before the Court

of $ppeals in a petition for certiorari, &hich &as dismissed on 1E 4uly 1990* +he appellate court also deniedModay s motion for reconsideration on 00 October 1990* Mean&hile, the Municipality of 'una&an haderected three buildin s on the sub3ect property the $ssociation of 'aran ay Councils ($'C) 9 for the Municipality of 'una&an clearly has the po&er to e!ercise the ri ht of

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 2 )


5/50


eminent domain and its 5an unian 'ayan the capacity to promul ate said resolution, pursuant to theearlier=2uoted 5ection 9 of '. * .erforce/ it follo&s that "esolution 8 =>9 is %alid and bindin and couldbe used as la&ful authority to petition for the condemnation of Moday s property*

1* Re(ublic vs. hili((ine -on /istance 0ele(hone Co. [GR - 12241, +* anuary 19&9

En Banc, Reyes JBL [J]: ! concur

!acts" +he "epublic of the .hilippines, is a political entity e!ercisin o%ernmental po&ers throu h itsbranches and instrumentalities, one of &hich is the 'ureau of +elecommunications* +hat office &as created on1 4uly 198 , under @!ecuti%e Order 98, in addition to certain po&ers and duties formerly %ested in theDirector of .osts* 5ometime in 19 , the .hilippine Aon Distance +elephone Company (.AD+), and the"C$ Communications, Inc*, entered into an a reement &hereby telephone messa es, comin from the nited5tates and recei%ed by "C$ s domestic station, could automatically be transferred to the lines of .AD+/ and%ice=%ersa, for calls collected by the .AD+ for transmission from the .hilippines to the nited 5tates* +hecontractin parties a reed to di%ide the tolls, as follo&s 0EG to .AD+ and EG to "C$* +he sharin &asamended in 1981 to :G for .AD+ and :G for "C$, and a ain amended in 198 to a E:=E: basis* +hearran ement &as later e!tended to radio=telephone messa es to and from @uropean and $siatic countries*

+heir contract contained a stipulation that either party could terminate it on a 08=month notice to the other* On0 February 19E6, .AD+ a%e notice to "C$ to terminate their contract on 0 February 19E6* 5oon after itscreation in 198 , the 'ureau of +elecommunications set up its o&n ;o%ernment +elephone 5ystem byutili#in its o&n appropriation and e2uipment and by rentin trun lines of the .AD+ to enable o%ernmentoffices to call pri%ate parties* $t that time, the 'ureau &as maintainin E,::: telephones and had E,:::pendin applications for telephone connection* +he .AD+, on the other hand, &as also maintainin 6:,:::telephones and had also 0:,::: pendin applications* +hrou h the years, neither of them has been able to fillup the demand for telephone ser%ice* +he 'ureau of +elecommunications had proposed to the .AD+ on >4anuary 19E> that both enter into an interconnectin a reement, &ith the o%ernment payin (on a call basis)for all calls passin throu h the interconnectin facilities from the ;o%ernment +elephone 5ystem to the.AD+* On E March 19E>, the "epublic, throu h the Director of +elecommunications, entered into ana reement &ith "C$ Communications, Inc*, for a 3oint o%erseas telephone ser%ice &hereby the 'ureau &ould

con%ey radio=telephone o%erseas calls recei%ed by "C$ s station to and from local residents* +hey actuallyinau urated this 3oint operation on 0 February 19E>, under a ?pro%isional? a reement* On $pril 19E>, .AD+complained to the 'ureau of +elecommunications that said bureau &as %iolatin the conditions under &hichtheir .ri%ate 'ranch @!chan e (.'H) is interconnected &ith the .AD+ s facilities, referrin to the rentedtrun lines, for the 'ureau had used the trun lines not only for the use of o%ernment offices but e%en toser%e pri%ate persons or the eneral public, in competition &ith the business of the .AD+/ and a%e noticethat if said %iolations &ere not stopped by midni ht of 10 $pril 19E>, the .AD+ &ould se%er the telephoneconnections* hen the .AD+ recei%ed no reply, it disconnected the trun lines bein rented by the 'ureau atmidni ht on 10 $pril 19E>* +he result &as the isolation of the .hilippines, on telephone ser%ices, from the restof the &orld, e!cept the nited 5tates* On 10 $pril 19E>, the "epublic commenced suit a ainst .AD+, in theCourt of First Instance of Manila (CFI, Ci%il Case E>:E), prayin in its complaint for 3ud ment commandinthe .AD+ to e!ecute a contract &ith the "epublic, throu h the 'ureau, for the use of the facilities of .AD+ stelephone system throu hout the .hilippines under such terms and conditions as the court mi ht considerreasonable, and for a &rit of preliminary in3unction a ainst .AD+ to restrain the se%erance of the e!istintelephone connections and or restore those se%ered* $fter trial, the lo&er court rendered 3ud ment that it couldnot compel the .AD+ to enter into an a reement &ith the 'ureau because the parties &ere not in a reement/that under @!ecuti%e Order 98, establishin the 'ureau of +elecommunications, said 'ureau &as not limitedto ser%icin o%ernment offices alone, nor &as there any in the contract of lease of the trun lines, since the.AD+ ne&, or ou ht to ha%e no&n, at the time that their use by the 'ureau &as to be public throu hout theIslands, hence the 'ureau &as neither uilty of fraud, abuse, or misuse of the poles of the .AD+/ and, in %ie&of serious public pre3udice that &ould result from the disconnection of the trun lines, declared thepreliminary in3unction permanent, althou h it dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaims* 'oth



6/50


parties appealed*

#ssue" hether interconnection bet&een .AD+ and the ;o%ernment +elephone 5ystem can be an %alid ob3ectfor e!propriation, i*e* the e!ercise of eminent domain*

$el%" $lthou h parties can not be coerced to enter into a contract &here no a reement is had bet&een them asto the principal terms and conditions of the contract == the freedom to stipulate such terms and conditionsbein of the essence of our contractual system, and by e!press pro%ision of the statute, a contract may beannulled if tainted by %iolence, intimidation or undue influence == and thus the "epublic may not compel the.AD+ to celebrate a contract &ith it, the "epublic may, in the e!ercise of the so%erei n po&er of eminentdomain, re2uire the telephone company to permit interconnection of the o%ernment telephone system andthat of the .AD+, as the needs of the o%ernment ser%ice may re2uire, sub3ect to the payment of 3ustcompensation to be determined by the court* 7ormally, of course, the po&er of eminent domain results in theta in or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the e!propriated property/ but no co ent reason appears&hy the said po&er may not be a%ailed of to impose only a burden upon the o&ner of condemned property,&ithout loss of title and possession* It is un2uestionable that real property may, throu h e!propriation, besub3ected to an easement of ri ht of &ay* +he use of the .AD+ s lines and ser%ices to allo& interser%ice

connection bet&een both telephone systems is not much different* In either case pri%ate property is sub3ectedto a burden for public use and benefit* If under 5ection 6, $rticle HIII, of the Constitution, the 5tate may, inthe interest of national &elfare, transfer utilities to public o&nership upon payment of 3ust compensation,there is no reason &hy the 5tate may not re2uire a public utility to render ser%ices in the eneral interest,pro%ided 3ust compensation is paid therefor* ltimately, the beneficiary of the interconnectin ser%ice &ouldbe the users of both telephone systems, so that the condemnation &ould be for public use*

12 aran ay an Ro6ue v. $eirs of astor [GR 13229&, +) une +)))"hird Division, #an$ani%an (J): & concur, on 'eave on o icia' %usiness

!acts" 'aran ay 5an "o2ue in +alisay, Cebu filed before the Municipal +rial Court (M+C) of +alisay, Cebu('ranch 1) a Complaint to e!propriate a property of $pril 199 , the M+C dismissed theComplaint on the round of lac of 3urisdiction* It reasoned that ? e-minent domain is an e!ercise of thepo&er to ta e pri%ate property for public use after payment of 3ust compensation* In an action for eminentdomain, therefore, the principal cause of action is the e!ercise of such po&er or ri ht* +he fact that the actionalso in%ol%es real property is merely incidental* $n action for eminent domain is therefore &ithin thee!clusi%e ori inal 3urisdiction of the "e ional +rial Court and not &ith this Court*? hen the complaint &asfiled &ith the "e ional +rial Court ("+C), the "+C also dismissed the Complaint on 09 March 1999, holdinthat an action for eminent domain affected title to real property/ hence, the %alue of the property to bee!propriated &ould determine &hether the case should be filed before the M+C or the "+C/ thereforeconcludin that the action should ha%e been filed before the M+C since the %alue of the sub3ect property &asless than .0:,:::* +he 'aran ay s motion for reconsideration &as li e&ise denied on 18 May 1999* +he'aran ay filed the petition for re%ie& on certiorari &ith the 5upreme Court*

#ssue" hether the "e ional +rial Court ("+C) or the Metropolitan +rial Court (M+C) has 3urisdiction o%ere!propriation cases*

$el%" +he primary consideration in an e!propriation suit is &hether the o%ernment or any of itsinstrumentalities has complied &ith the re2uisites for the ta in of pri%ate property*


7/50


estimated in monetary terms, for the court is duty=bound to determine the 3ust compensation for it* +his,ho&e%er, is merely incidental to the e!propriation suit* Indeed, that amount is determined only after the courtis satisfied &ith the propriety of the e!propriation* Jerily, the Court held in "epublic of the .hilippines %*Burbano that ?condemnation proceedin s are &ithin the 3urisdiction of Courts of First Instance,? theforerunners of the re ional trial courts ("+C)* +he said case &as decided durin the effecti%ity of the

4udiciary $ct of 198> &hich, li e 'atas .ambansa 109 in respect to "+Cs, pro%ided that courts of firstinstance had ori inal 3urisdiction o%er ?all ci%il actions in &hich the sub3ect of the liti ation is not capable ofpecuniary estimation*? +he 199 amendments to the "ules of Court &ere not intended to chan e these

3urisprudential precedents*

19 Re(ublic vs. 7%a. %e Castellvi [GR - +)&+), 15 'u ust 19*4 En Banc, a'divar (J): * concur, 4 too+ no art

!acts" +he "epublic of the .hilippines occupied the land of Carmen M* %da* de Castell%i, the 3udicialadministratri! of the estate of the late $lfonso de Castell%i, from 1 4uly 198 , by %irtue of a contract of lease,on a year to year basis (from 4uly 1 of each year to 4une : of the succeedin year)* 'efore the e!piration ofthe contract of lease on : 4une 19E6, the "epublic sou ht to rene& the same but Castell%i refused* hen the

$F. refused to %acate the leased premises after the termination of the contract, Castell%i &rote to the Chief of5taff of the $F. on 11 4uly 19E6, informin the latter that the heirs of the property had decided not tocontinue leasin the property in 2uestion because they had decided to subdi%ide the land for sale to the

eneral public, demandin that the property be %acated &ithin : days from receipt of the letter, and that thepremises be returned in substantially the same condition as before occupancy* +he Chief of 5taff refused,sayin that it &as difficult for the army to %acate the premises in %ie& of the permanent installations and otherfacilities &orth almost .E::,:::*:: that &ere erected and already established on the property, and that, therebein no other recourse, the ac2uisition of the property by means of e!propriation proceedin s &ould berecommended to the .resident* Castell%i then brou ht suit in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of .ampan a(Ci%il Case 18E>), to e3ect the .hilippine $ir Force from the land* hile this e3ectment case &as pendin , the"epublic filed on 06 4une 19E9 complaints for eminent domain a ainst Castell%i, and Maria 7ie%es +oledo;o#un o%er parcels of land situated in the barrio of 5an 4ose, Floridablanca, .ampan a* In its complaint, the

"epublic alle ed, amon other thin s, that the fair mar et %alue of the abo%e=mentioned lands, accordin tothe Committee on $ppraisal for the .ro%ince of .ampan a, &as not more than .0,::: per hectare, or a totalmar et %alue of .0E9,669*1:/ and prayed, that the pro%isional %alue of the lands be fi!ed at .0E9,669*1:, thatthe court authori#es the "epublic to ta e immediate possession of the lands upon deposit of that amount &iththe .ro%incial +reasurer of .ampan a/ that the court appoints commissioners to ascertain and report to thecourt the 3ust compensation for the property sou ht to be e!propriated, and that the court issues thereafter afinal order of condemnation* +he "epublic &as placed in possession of the lands on 1: $u ust 19E9*Mean&hile, on 01 7o%ember 19E9, the CFI of .ampan a, dismissed Ci%il Case 18E>, upon petition of theparties* $fter the parties filed their respecti%e memoranda, the trial court, on 06 May 1961, rendered itsdecision, findin that the unanimous recommendation of the commissioners of .1:*:: per s2uare meter forthe lots sub3ect of the action is fair and 3ust/ and re2uired the "epublic to pay interests* On 01 4une 1961 the"epublic filed a motion for a ne& trial and or reconsideration, a ainst &hich motion Castell%i and +oledo=;o#un filed their respecti%e oppositions, and &hich the trial court denied on 10 4uly 1961* +he "epublic srecord on appeal &as finally submitted on 6 December 1961, after filin %arious e!=parte motions fore!tension of time &ithin &hich to file its record on appeal* On 0 December 1961 the trial court dismissedboth appeals for ha%in been filed out of time, thereby * On 11 4anuary 1960 the "epublic filed a ?motion tostri e out the order of 0 December 1961 and for reconsideration?, and subse2uently an amended record onappeal, a ainst &hich motion Castell%i and +oledo=;o#un filed their opposition* On 06 4uly 1960 the trialcourt issued an order, statin that ?in the interest of e!pediency, the 2uestions raised may be properly andfinally determined by the 5upreme Court,? and at the same time it ordered the 5olicitor ;eneral to submit arecord on appeal containin copies of orders and pleadin s specified therein* In an order dated 19 7o%ember1960, the trial court appro%ed the "epublic s record on appeal as amended* Castell%i did not insist on her



8/50


appeal* +oledo=;o#un did not appeal*

#ssue" hether the ta in of Castell%iKs property occurred in 198 or in 19E9*

$el%" $ number of circumstances must be present in the ?ta in ? of property for purposes of eminent

domain* First, the e!propriator must enter a pri%ate property* 5econd, the entrance into pri%ate property mustbe for more than a momentary period* +hird, the entry into the property should be under &arrant or color ofle al authority* Fourth, the property must be de%oted to a public use or other&ise informally appropriated orin3uriously affected* Fifth, the utili#ation of the property for public use must be in such a &ay as to oust theo&ner and depri%e him of all beneficial en3oyment of the property* +he ?ta in ? of Castell%i s property forpurposes of eminent domain cannot be considered to ha%e ta en place in 198 &hen the "epublic commencedto occupy the property as lessee thereof* +&o essential elements in the ?ta in ? of property under the po&erof eminent domain, namely (1) that the entrance and occupation by the condemnor must be for a permanent,or indefinite period, and (0) that in de%otin the property to public use the o&ner &as ousted from theproperty and depri%ed of its beneficial use, &ere not present &hen the "epublic entered and occupied theCastell%i property in 198 * +he ?ta in of the Castell%i property should not be rec oned as of the year 198&hen the "epublic first occupied the same pursuant to the contract of lease, and that the 3ust compensation to

be paid for the Castell%i property should not be determined on the basis of the %alue of the property as of thatyear* nder 5ection 8 of "ule 6 of the "ules of Court, the ?3ust compensation? is to be determined as of thedate of the filin of the complaint* +his Court has ruled that &hen the ta in of the property sou ht to bee!propriated coincides &ith the commencement of the e!propriation proceedin s, or ta es place subse2uent tothe filin of the complaint for eminent domain, the 3ust compensation should be determined as of the date ofthe filin of the complaint* , 5=68, entitled ?Ordinance "e ulatin the @stablishment, Maintenanceand Operation of .ri%ate Memorial +ype Cemetery Or 'urial ;round ithin the 4urisdiction of Lue#on Cityand .ro%idin .enalties for the Jiolation thereof? pro%ides that at least 6G of the total area of the memorialpar cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons &ho are paupers and ha%e beenresidents of Lue#on City for at least E years prior to their death, to be determined by competent City$uthorities, and &here the area so desi nated shall immediately be de%eloped and should be open foroperation not later than 6 months from the date of appro%al of the application* For se%eral years, section 9 ofthe Ordinance &as not enforced by city authorities but years after the enactment of the ordinance, theLue#on City Council passed a resolution re2uestin the City @n ineer, Lue#on City, to stop any furthersellin and or transaction of memorial par lots in Lue#on City &here the o&ners thereof ha%e failed todonate the re2uired 6G space intended for paupers burial* .ursuant to this petition, the Lue#on City @n ineernotified , 5=68 &ould be enforced*


9/50


#ssue" hether the settin aside of 6G of the total area of all pri%ate cemeteries for charity burial rounds ofdeceased paupers is tantamount to ta in of pri%ate property &ithout 3ust compensation*

$el%" +here is no reasonable relation bet&een the settin aside of at least 6G of the total area of all pri%atecemeteries for charity burial rounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of health, morals, ood order,

safety, or the eneral &elfare of the people* +he ordinance is actually a ta in &ithout compensation of acertain area from a pri%ate cemetery to benefit paupers &ho are char es of the municipal corporation* Insteadof buildin or maintainin a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the burden to pri%ate cemeteries*+he e!propriation &ithout compensation of a portion of pri%ate cemeteries is not co%ered by 5ection 10(t) of"epublic $ct E , the "e%ised Charter of Lue#on City &hich empo&ers the city council to prohibit the burialof the dead &ithin the center of population of the city and to pro%ide for their burial in a proper place sub3ectto the pro%isions of eneral la& re ulatin burial rounds and cemeteries* hen the Aocal ;o%ernment Code,'atas .ambansa pro%ides in 5ection 1 (2) that a 5an unian panlun sod may ?pro%ide for the burialof the dead in such place and in such manner as prescribed by la& or ordinance? it simply authori#es the cityto pro%ide its o&n city o&ned land or to buy or e!propriate pri%ate properties to construct public cemeteries*+his has been the la& and practice in the past and it continues to the present* @!propriation, ho&e%er, re2uirespayment of 3ust compensation* +he 2uestioned ordinance is different from la&s and re ulations re2uirin

o&ners of subdi%isions to set aside certain areas for streets, par s, play rounds, and other public facilitiesfrom the land they sell to buyers of subdi%ision lots* +he necessities of public safety, health, and con%enienceare %ery clear from said re2uirements &hich are intended to insure the de%elopment of communities &ithsalubrious and &holesome en%ironments* +he beneficiaries of the re ulation, in turn, are made to pay by thesubdi%ision de%eloper &hen indi%idual lots are sold to homeo&ners*

+1 eo(le vs. !a;ar%o [GR - 1+1*+, +9 'u ust 1952 En Banc, Reyes JBL (J): 1 concur

!acts" On 1E $u ust 19E:, durin the incumbency of 4uan F* Fa3ardo as mayor of the municipality of 'aao,Camarines 5ur, the municipal council passed Ordinance , series of 19E:, pro%idin that ?any person orpersons &ho &ill construct or repair a buildin should, before constructin or repairin , obtain a &ritten

permit from the Municipal Mayor,? that ?a fee of not less than .0*:: should be char ed for each buildinpermit and .1*:: for each repair permit issued,? and that any %iolation of the pro%isions of the ordinance shallma e the %iolator liable to pay a fine of not less than .0E nor more than .E: or imprisonment of not less than10 days nor more than 08 days or both, at the discretion of the court/ and that if said buildin destroys the%ie& of the .ublic .la#a or occupies any public property, it shall be remo%ed at the e!pense of the o&ner ofthe buildin or house* 8 years later, after the term of Fa3ardo as mayor had e!pired, he and his son=in=la&,.edro 'abilonia, filed a &ritten re2uest &ith the incumbent municipal mayor for a permit to construct abuildin ad3acent to their asoline station on a parcel of land re istered in Fa3ardo s name, located alon thenational hi h&ay and separated from the public pla#a by a cree * On 16 4anuary 19E8, the re2uest &asdenied, for the reason amon others that the proposed buildin &ould destroy the %ie& or beauty of the publicpla#a* On 1> 4anuary 19E8, Fa3ardo and 'abilonia reiterated their re2uest for a buildin permit, but a ain there2uest &as turned do&n by the mayor* hereupon, Fa3ardo and 'abilonia proceeded &ith the construction ofthe buildin &ithout a permit, because they needed a place of residence %ery badly, their former house ha%inbeen destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been li%in on leased property* On 06 February 19E8,Fa3ardo and 'abilonia &ere char ed before and con%icted by the 3ustice of the peace court of 'aao,Camarines 5ur, for %iolation of Ordinance * Fa3ardo and 'abilonia appealed to the Court of First Instance(CDI), &hich affirmed the con%iction, and sentenced both to pay a fine of . E each and the costs, as &ell as todemolish the buildin in 2uestion because it destroys the %ie& of the public pla#a of 'aao* From this decision,Fa3ardo and 'abilonia appealed to the Court of $ppeals, but the latter for&arded the records to the 5upremeCourt because the appeal attac s the constitutionality of the ordinance in 2uestion*

#ssue" hether the refusal of the Mayor of 'aao to issue a buildin permit on the round that the proposed



10/50


buildin &ould destroy the %ie& of the public pla#a is an undue depri%ation of the use of the property in2uestion, and thus a ta in &ithout due compensation*

$el%" +he refusal of the Mayor of 'aao to issue a buildin permit to Fa3ardo and 'abilonia &as predicated onthe round that the proposed buildin &ould ?destroy the %ie& of the public pla#a? by pre%entin its bein

seen from the public hi h&ay* @%en thus interpreted, the ordinance is unreasonable and oppressi%e, in that itoperates to permanently depri%e the latter of the ri ht to use their o&n property/ hence, it o%ersteps thebounds of police po&er, and amounts to a ta in of the property &ithout 3ust compensation* 'ut &hileproperty may be re ulated in the interest of the eneral &elfare such as to re ard the beautification ofnei hborhoods as conduci%e to the comfort and happiness of residents), and in its pursuit, the 5tate mayprohibit structures offensi%e to the si ht, the 5tate may not, under the uise of police po&er, permanentlydi%est o&ners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preser%e orassure the aesthetic appearance of the community* $s the case no& stands, e%ery structure that may be erectedon Fa3ardo s land, re ardless of its o&n beauty, stands condemned under the ordinance in 2uestion, because it&ould interfere &ith the %ie& of the public pla#a from the hi h&ay* Fa3ardo &ould, in effect, be constrainedto let their land remain idle and unused for the ob%ious purpose for &hich it is best suited, bein urban incharacter* +o le ally achie%e that result, the municipality must i%e Fa3ardo 3ust compensation and an

opportunity to be heard*++


11/50


s2uare meters belon in to the said spouses, in li ht of the classification of the land to be partly commercialand partly a ricultural* 5till not satisfied, an appeal &as filed by the 7$.OCO" &ith the Court of $ppealsbut appellate court, on 9 March 19>0, sustained the trial court* 7$.OCO" filed the petition for re%ie& oncertiorari before the 5upreme Court*

#ssue" hether the spouses are depri%e of the propertyKs ordinary use and thus the easement of ri ht of &ay infa%or of 7$.OCO" constitutes ta in *

$el%" +he ac2uisition of the ri ht=of=&ay easement falls &ithin the pur%ie& of the po&er of eminent domain*5uch conclusion finds support in similar cases of easement of ri ht=of=&ay &here the 5upreme Courtsustained the a&ard of 3ust compensation for pri%ate property condemned for public use* acres near an airport outside of ;reensboro, 7orth Carolina* It has on it a d&ellinhouse, and also %arious outbuildin s &hich &ere mainly used for raisin chic ens* +he end of the airport snorth&est=southeast run&ay is 0,00: feet from Causby s barn and 0,0 E feet from their house* +he path of

lide to this run&ay passes directly o%er the property=&hich is 1:: feet &ide and 1,0:: feet lon * +he : to 1safe lide an le appro%ed by the Ci%il $eronautics $uthority passes o%er this property at > feet, &hich is 6feet abo%e the house, 6 feet abo%e the barn and 1> feet abo%e the hi hest tree* +he use by the nited 5tatesof this airport is pursuant to a lease e!ecuted in May 1980, for a term commencin 1 4une 1980 and endin :4une 1980, &ith a pro%ision for rene&als until : 4une 196 , or 6 months after the end of the nationalemer ency, &hiche%er is the earlier* Jarious aircraft of the nited 5tates, i*e* bombers, transports and fi hters,use this airport* 5ince the nited 5tates be an operations in May 1980, its four=motored hea%y bombers, otherplanes of the hea%ier type, and its fi hter planes ha%e fre2uently passed o%er Causby s land buildin s inconsiderable numbers and rather close to ether* +hey come close enou h at times to appear barely to miss thetops of the trees and at times so close to the tops of the trees as to blo& the old lea%es off* +he noise isstartlin * $nd at ni ht the lare from the planes bri htly li hts up the place* $s a result of the noise, theCausbys had to i%e up their chic en business* $s many as 6 to 1: of their chic ens &ere illed in one day byflyin into the &alls from fri ht* +he total chic ens lost in that manner &as about 1E:* .roduction also felloff* +he result &as the destruction of the use of the property as a commercial chic en farm* +he Causbys arefre2uently depri%ed of their sleep and the family has become ner%ous and fri htened* $lthou h there ha%ebeen no airplane accidents on their property, there ha%e been se%eral accidents near the airport and close totheir place* +hese are the essential facts found by the Court of Claims* On the basis of these facts, it foundthat the property had depreciated in %alue* It held that the nited 5tates had ta en an easement o%er theproperty on 4une 1, 1980, and that the %alue of the property destroyed and the easement ta en &as 0,:::*+he nited 5tates contends that &hen fli hts are made &ithin the na%i able airspace ($ir Commerce $ct of1906, as amended by the Ci%il $eronautics $ct of 19 >) &ithout any physical in%asion of the property of thelando&ners, there has been no ta in of property* It says that at most there &as merely incidental dama e

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( )


12/50


occurrin as a conse2uence of authori#ed air na%i ation*

#ssue" hether there &as ta in of the CausbyKs property, e%en in the li ht that the nited 5tates alle edlyhas complete and e!clusi%e national so%erei nty in the air space o%er the country*

$el%" +he nited 5tates conceded that if the fli hts o%er Causby s property rendered it uninhabitable, there&ould be a ta in compensable under the Eth $mendment* It is the o&ner s loss, not the ta er s ain, &hich isthe measure of the %alue of the property ta en* Mar et %alue fairly determined is the normal measure of thereco%ery* $nd that %alue may reflect the use to &hich the land could readily be con%erted, as &ell as thee!istin use* If, by reason of the fre2uency and altitude of the fli hts, Causby could not use this land for anypurpose, their loss &ould be complete* It &ould be as complete as if the nited 5tates had entered upon thesurface of the land and ta en e!clusi%e possession of it* , 169199, 1690:: and 1690:0 of the "e ister of Deeds of Manila)* On 4anuary199 , Filstream filed an e3ectment suit before the Metropolitan +rial Court (M+C) of Manila ('ranch 1E,Ci%il Case 18:>1 =CJ) a ainst the occupants of the parcels of land (Orlando Malit, $ntonio Ca uiat, $liciaCabrera, $rmando Aachica, 4acinto Ca uiat, ;loria $ntonio, @li#alde 7a%arra, Dolores Fuentes, 5usana "oy,$ntonio IbaPe#, 'eni no 'asilio, Auceria Dematulac, Florencia ;ome#, Aa#aro ;ome#, 4ose ;ome#,Jenancio Manaloto, Cristino mali, Demetria ;atus, .riscilla Malon , Domin o $ uila, "amon 5an $ ustin,4ulian Ferrer, 4r*, Francisco ;alan , Florentino Mali&at, 5e%erina Jillar, +rinidad 7a uit, 4ose 7a uit,Fortunato $ ustin Cabrera, ;audencio Intal, Danilo Da%id, @nri2ue Da%id, Jicente De ;u#man, .olicarpioAumba, 'elen .alma, @len 5om%illo, Aeonardo Manicad, Opren Miclat, 'enita Mata, ;re orio Aope#,Marcelina 5apno, 4esus Mercado, and Cali!to ;ome#) on the rounds of termination of the lease contract andnon=payment of rentals* 4ud ment &as rendered by the M+C on 5eptember 18, 199 orderin pri%aterespondents to %acate the premises and pay bac rentals to Filstream* 7ot satisfied, malit, et* al* appealed thedecision to the "e ional +rial Court ("+C) of Manila ('ranch 8, Ci%il Case 9 =6>1 :) &hich in turn affirmedthe decision of the M+C* 5till not content, Malit, et* al* proceeded to the Court of $ppeals %ia a petition forre%ie& (C$=;" 5. 18)* +he result ho&e%er remained the same as the appellate court affirmed thedecision of the "+C in its decision dated 0E $u ust 1998* +hereafter, no further action &as ta en by Malit, et*al*, as a result of &hich the decision in the e3ectment suit became final and e!ecutory*


13/50


66:E9)* It &as at this sta e that City of Manila came into the picture &hen the city o%ernment appro%edOrdinance >1 on E 7o%ember 199 , authori#in Mayor $lfredo 5* Aim to initiate the ac2uisition byne otiation, e!propriation, purchase, or other le al means certain parcels of land &hich formed part ofFilstream s properties then occupied by Malit, et* al* 5ubse2uently, the City of Manila appro%ed Ordinance

>EE declarin the e!propriation of certain parcels of land situated alon $ntonio "i%era and Fernando Ma*

;uerrero streets in +ondo, Manila &hich &ere o&ned by Mr* @nri2ue Lui3ano ;utierre#, Filstream spredecessor=in=interest* +he said properties &ere to be sold and distributed to 2ualified tenants of the areapursuant to the Aand se De%elopment .ro ram of the City of Manila* On 0 May 1998, the City of Manilafiled a complaint for eminent domain before the "+C of Manila ('ranch 80, Ci%il Case 98= :E6:), see in toe!propriate the parcels of land o&ned by Filstream &hich are situated at $ntonio "i%era 5treet, +ondo II,Manila* .ursuant to the complaint filed by the City of Manila, the trial court issued a rit of .ossession infa%or of the former &hich ordered the transfer of possession o%er the disputed premises to the City of Manila*Filstream filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for eminent domain as &ell as a motion to 2uash the &rit ofpossession* On : 5eptember 1998, the "+C of Manila issued an order denyin Filstream s motion to dismissand the motion to 2uash the rit of .ossession* Filstream filed a motion for reconsideration as &ell as asupplemental motion for reconsideration see in the re%ersal of the order but the same &ere denied* 5till,Filstream filed a subse2uent motion to be allo&ed to file a second motion for reconsideration but it &as also

denied* $ rie%ed, Filstream filed on 1 March 1996, a .etition for Certiorari &ith the Court of $ppeals (C$=;" 5. 69:8) see in to set aside the "+C order* On 1> March 1996, the appellate court dismissed thepetition* Filsteream filed a motion for reconsideration and attached clearer copies of the pertinent documentsand papers pursuant to 5ection 0(a), "ule 6 of the "e%ised Internal "ules of the Court of $ppeals* 'ut on 0:May 1996, the appellate court issued a resolution denyin the motion as petitioner failed to submit clearer andreadable copies of the pleadin s* +his prompted Filstream to proceed to the 5upreme Court by filin a petitionfor re%ie& on certiorari*

Mean&hile, o&in to the finality of the decision in the e3ectment suit (Ci%il Case 18:>1 =CJ), the M+C ofManila, 'ranch 1E, upon motion of Filstream, issued a rit of @!ecution as &ell as a 7otice to Jacate thedisputed premises* Malit, et* al* filed a Motion to "ecall Luash the rit of @!ecution and 7otice to Jacatealle in the e!istence of a super%enin e%ent in that the properties sub3ect of the dispute ha%e already been

ordered condemned in an e!propriation proceedin in fa%or of the City of Manila for the benefit of the2ualified occupants thereof, thus e!ecution shall be stayed* For its part, the City of Manila filed on 1 March1996, a motion for inter%ention &ith prayer to stay 2uash the &rit of e!ecution on the round that it is thepresent possessor of the property sub3ect of e!ecution* In its order dated 18 March 1996, the M+C of Maniladenied Malit, et* al* s motion as it found the alle ations therein bereft of merit and upheld the issuance of the

rit of @!ecution and 7otice to Jacate in Filstream s fa%or* 5ubse2uently, the trial court also denied themotion filed by the City of Manila* On 00 $pril 1996, the trial court issued an order commandin thedemolition of the structure erected on the disputed premises* +o a%ert the demolition, Malit, et* al* filed beforethe "+C of Manila, ('ranch 18, Ci%il Case 96= >:9>) a .etition for Certiorari and .rohibition &ith prayer forthe issuance of a temporary restrainin order and preliminary in3unction * On 1E May 1996, the City ofManila filed its .etition for Certiorari and .rohibition &ith prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraininorder and preliminary in3unction &hich &as raffled to 'ranch 0 of the "+C of Manila (Ci%il Case 96= > >0),see in the re%ersal of the orders issued by the M+C of Manila, 'ranch 18* +hereafter, upon motion filed bythe City of Manila, an order &as issued by the "+C of Manila, 'ranch 1:, orderin the consolidation of Ci%ilCase 96= > >0 &ith Ci%il Case 96= >:9> pendin before 'ranch 18 of the "+C of Manila* In3unctions &ereissued* Filstream then filed a motion for reconsideration from the order of denial but pendin resolution ofthis motion, it filed a motion for %oluntary inhibition of the presidin 3ud e of the "+C of Manila, 'ranch 18*+he motion for inhibition &as ranted 0E and as a result, the consolidated cases (Ci%il Cases 96= > >0 and96= >:9>) &ere re=raffled to the "+C of Manila, 'ranch * Durin the proceedin s before the "+C ofManila, 'ranch , Filstream mo%ed for the dismissal of the consolidated cases (Ci%il Cases 96= > >0 and96= >:9>) for %iolation of 5upreme Court Circular :8=98 (forum shoppin ) because the same parties, causesof action and sub3ect matter in%ol%ed therein ha%e already been disposed of in the decision in the e3ectment



14/50


case (Ci%il Case 18:>1 ) &hich has already become final and e!ecutory prior to the filin of theseconsolidated cases* On 9 December 1996, the "+C of Manila, 'ranch ordered the dismissal of Ci%il Cases96= > >0 and 96= >:9> due to forum shoppin * Immediately thereafter, Filstream filed an @!=parte Motionfor Issuance of an $lias rit of Demolition and @3ectment and a supplemental motion to the same dated4anuary 1: and 1 , 199 , respecti%ely, before the M+C of Manila, 'ranch 1E, &hich promul ated the decision

in the e3ectment suit (Ci%il Case 7o* 18:>1 =CJ)* 0 On 4anuary 199 , the court ranted the motion andissued the correspondin &rit of demolition* $s a conse2uence of the dismissal of the consolidated cases,Malit, et* al* filed a .etition for Certiorari and .rohibition &ith prayer for the issuance of a temporaryrestrainin order and preliminary in3unction before the Court of $ppeals (C$=;" 5. 8 1:1)* $t theconclusion of the hearin for the issuance of a &rit of preliminary in3unction, the Court of $ppeals, in itsresolution dated 1> February 199 , found merit in Malit, et* al* s alle ations in support of their application ofthe issuance of the &rit and ranted the same* Filstream filed a .etition for Certiorari under "ule 6E*

#ssue" hether there is %iolation of due process a ainst Filstream in the manner its properties &eree!propriated and condemned in fa%or of the City of Manila*

$el%" +hat only a fe& could actually benefit from the e!propriation of the property does not diminish its

public use character* It is simply not possible to pro%ide all at once land and shelter for all &ho need them*Corollary to the e!panded notion of public use, e!propriation is not anymore confined to %ast tracts of landand landed estates* It is therefore of no moment that the land sou ht to be e!propriated in this case is less thanhalf a hectare only* +hrou h the years, the public use re2uirement in eminent domain has e%ol%ed into afle!ible concept, influenced by chan in conditions* .ublic use no& includes the broader notion of indirectpublic benefit or ad%anta e, includin in particular, urban land reform and housin * +he Court ta es 3udicialnotice of the fact that urban land reform has become a paramount tas in %ie& of the acute shorta e of decenthousin in urban areas particularly in Metro Manila* 7e%ertheless, despite the e!istence of a serious dilemma,local o%ernment units are not i%en an unbridled authority &hen e!ercisin their po&er of eminent domainin pursuit of solutions to these problems* +he basic rules still ha%e to be follo&ed, &hich are as follo&s ?noperson shall be depri%ed of life, liberty, or property &ithout due process of la&, nor shall any person be deniedthe e2ual protection of the la&s/ pri%ate property shall not be ta en for public use &ithout 3ust compensation?*

+hus, the e!ercise by local o%ernment units of the po&er of eminent domain is not &ithout limitations* @%en5ection 19 of the 1991 Aocal ;o%ernment Code is %ery e!plicit that it must comply &ith the pro%isions of theConstitution and pertinent la&s* Jery clear from 5ections 9 and 1: of "epublic $ct 0 9 ( rban De%elopmentand


15/50


are bein occupied and leased by different tenants, amon &hom are respondents Dr* "osario $bio , $n elinaMa lonso and members of the 5ampa uita 'isi n Ma a apitbahay, Incorporated (5'MI)* +he "eyesesleased to $bio Aot 0=@, 'loc :: of the consolidated subdi%ision plan (A"C) .sd= 0> 8E, &ith an area of191 s2uare meters and to Ma lonso, Aot 0=", 'loc 0996 of the same consolidation plan, &ith an area of 110s2uare meters* On 9 7o%ember 199 and 06 May 1998, respecti%ely, 4ose '*A* "eyes and the E1=CJ(Metropolitan +rial Court M+C- of Manila, 'ranch 1:, 9 May 1998) a ainst $bio , and in Ci%il Case1880:E=CJ (M+C of Manila, 'ranch , 8 May 199E) a ainst Ma lonso* $bio and Ma lonso appealed theM+C decisions but the same &ere denied by the "+C of Manila, 'ranch 0>, and the "+C of Manila, 'ranch

>, respecti%ely* +heir appeals to the Court of $ppeals &ere li e&ise denied* $s no appeals &ere furtherta en, the 3ud ments of e%iction a ainst respondents $bio and Ma lonso became final and e!ecutory in199>*

Durin the pendency of the t&o e3ectment cases a ainst $bio and Ma lonso, the City of Manila filed on 0E$pril 199E a complaint for eminent domain (e!propriation) of the properties of "eyeses at the "+C of Manila,'ranch 9* +he properties sou ht to be ac2uired by the City included parcels of land occupied by $bio ,

Ma lonso and members of 5'MI* +he complaint &as based on Ordinance >1> enacted on 09 7o%ember199 authori#in the City Mayor of Manila to e!propriate certain parcels of land &ith an a re ate area of9,9 : s2uare meters, more or less, o&ned by 4ose '*A* "eyes and @dmundo "eyes situated alon the streetsof "i#al $%enue, +ecson, M* 7ati%idad, 5ampa uita, Oro2uieta, M* , the Court of $ppeals rendered thedecision re%ersin the trial court 3ud ment and upholdin as %alid CityKs e!ercise of its po&er of eminentdomain o%er the "eyesesK properties* From the aforementioned decision of the Court of $ppeals, the "eyesesfiled on 19 March 199> the petition for re%ie& before the 5upreme Court*



16/50


#ssue" hether there is %iolation of due process a ainst the "eyeses in the manner their property &eree!propriated and condemned in fa%or of the City of Manila*

$el%" +he Filstream case is substantially similar in facts and issues to the present case* In Filstream %s* Court

of $ppeals, the Court held that the 5ections 9 and 1: of "epublic $ct 0 9 are limitations to the e!ercise ofthe po&er of eminent domain, specially &ith respect to the order of priority in ac2uirin pri%ate lands and inresortin to e!propriation proceedin s as a means to ac2uire the same* .ri%ate lands ran last in the order ofpriority for purposes of sociali#ed housin * In the same %ein, e!propriation proceedin s are to be resorted toonly after the other modes of ac2uisition ha%e been e!hausted* Compliance &ith these conditions ismandatory because these are the only safe uards of often=times helpless o&ners of pri%ate property a ainst%iolation of due process &hen their property is forcibly ta en from them for public use* , thelots &ere classified by "esolution 10E of the 'oard of the 8 ofthen .resident Marcos* $s a result of this classification, the tenants and occupants of the lots offered topurchase the land from the $ uilars, but the latter refused to sell* On 7o%ember 1996, the 5an unian

.anlun sod of Mandaluyon , upon petition of the Napitbisi , an association of tenants and occupants of thesub3ect land, adopted "esolution E16, 5eries of 1996 authori#in Mayor 'en3amin $balos of the City ofMandaluyon to initiate action for the e!propriation of the sub3ect lots and construction of a medium=risecondominium for 2ualified occupants of the land* On 1: 4anuary 1996, Mayor $balos alle edly sent a letter tothe $ uilars offerin to purchase the said property at . ,:::*:: per s2uare meter* On 8 $u ust 199 , the Cityfiled &ith the "e ional +rial Court ("+C), 'ranch 16>, .asi City a complaint for e!propriation, see in toe!propriate ad3oinin parcels of land &ith an a re ate area of 1,>8 s2uare meters in the names of the$ uilars, and prayin that the fi!in of 3ust compensation at the fair mar et %alue of . ,:::*:: per s2uaremeter* In their ans&er, the $ uilars, e!cept @usebio &ho died in 199E, denied ha%in recei%ed a copy ofMayor $balos offer to purchase their lots* +hey alle ed that the e!propriation of their land is arbitrary andcapricious, and is not for a public purpose/ that the sub3ect lots are their only real property and are too smallfor e!propriation, &hile the City has se%eral properties in%entoried for sociali#ed housin / and that the fairmar et %alue of . ,:::*:: per s2uare meter is arbitrary because the #onal %aluation set by the 'ureau ofInternal "e%enue is . ,:::*:: per s2uare meter* $s counterclaim, the $ uilars prayed for dama es of .01million* On E 7o%ember 199 , the City filed an $mended Complaint and named as an additional defendantJir inia 7* $ uilar and, at the same time, substituted @usebio $ uilar &ith his heirs* +he City also e!cludedfrom e!propriation +C+ 7E9> : and thereby reduced the area sou ht to be e!propriated from three ( )parcels of land to t&o (0) parcels totallin 1,6 6 s2uare meters*+he $mended Complaint &as admitted by thetrial court on 1> December 199 * On 1 5eptember 199>, the trial court issued an order dismissin the$mended Complaint after declarin the $ uilars as ?small property o&ners? &hose land is e!empt frome!propriation under "epublic $ct 0 9* +he court also found that the e!propriation &as not for a publicpurpose for the City s failure to present any e%idence that the intended beneficiaries of the e!propriation are



17/50


landless and homeless residents of Mandaluyon * +he City mo%ed for reconsideration* On 09 December199>, the court denied the motion* +he City filed a petition for re%ie& &ith the 5upreme Court*

#ssue" hether the City has e!hausted all means to ac2uire the land under the hands of pri%ate persons, but&hich is &ithin the $reas for .riority De%elopment ($.D)*

$el%" .residential Decree (.D) 1E1 , the rban Aand "eform $ct, &as issued by then .resident Marcos in19 >* +he decree adopted as a 5tate policy the liberation of human communities from bli ht, con estion andha#ard, and promotion of their de%elopment and moderni#ation, the optimum use of land as a nationalresource for public &elfare* .ursuant to this la&, .roclamation 1>9 &as issued in 19 9 declarin the entireMetro Manila as rban Aand "eform Bone for purposes of urban land reform* +his &as amended in 19>: by.roclamation 196 and in 19> by .roclamation 00>8 &hich identified and specified 08E sites in MetroManila as $reas for .riority De%elopment and rban Aand "eform Bones* +he ac2uisition of lands forsociali#ed housin is o%erned by se%eral pro%isions in the la&* .ursuant to 5ection 9 of "$ 0 9, Aands forsociali#ed housin are to be ac2uired in the follo&in order (1) o%ernment lands/ (0) alienable lands of thepublic domain/ ( ) unre istered or abandoned or idle lands/ (8) lands &ithin the declared $reas for .riorityDe%elopment ($.D), Bonal Impro%ement .ro ram (BI.) sites, 5lum Impro%ement and "esettlement (5I")

sites &hich ha%e not yet been ac2uired/ (E) 'AI55 sites &hich ha%e not yet been ac2uired/ and (6) pri%ately=o&ned lands* 5ection 9, ho&e%er, is not a sin le pro%ision that can be read separate from the other pro%isionsof the la&* It must be read to ether &ith 5ection 1: of "$ 0 9* +hus, lands for sociali#ed housin under "$

0 9 are to be ac2uired in se%eral modes* $mon these modes are the follo&in (1) community mort a e/(0) land s&appin , ( ) land assembly or consolidation/ (8) land ban in / (E) donation to the o%ernment/ (6)

3oint %enture a reement/ ( ) ne otiated purchase/ and (>) e!propriation* +he mode of e!propriation is sub3ectto t&o conditions (a) it shall be resorted to only &hen the other modes of ac2uisition ha%e been e!hausted/and (b) parcels of land o&ned by small property o&ners are e!empt from such ac2uisition* +he ac2uisition ofthe lands in the priority list must be made sub3ect to the modes and conditions set forth in the ne!t pro%ision*In other &ords, land that lies &ithin the $.D may be ac2uired only in the modes under, and sub3ect to theconditions of, 5ection 1:*


18/50


$nastacio C* Cabilao,


19/50


better li%in standards* +he CourtKs dismissal of the petition is, in part, predicated on those assurances* +heri ht of the .+$ to proceed &ith the e!propriation of the 0>0 hectares already identified as fit for theestablishment of a resort comple! to promote tourism is, therefore, sustained*

+2 umulon vs. Guerrero [GR - 42&25, 3) e(tember 192*

En Banc, ortes (J): 2 concur

!acts" On E December 19 the 7ational


20/50


+9 rovince of Camarines ur vs. Court of '((eals [GR 1)31+5, 1* May 1993 First Division, 5uiason (J): & concur

!acts" On 00 December 19>>, the 5an unian .anlala&i an of the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur passed"esolution 109, 5eries of 19>>, authori#in the .ro%incial ;o%ernor to purchase or e!propriate property

conti uous to the pro%incial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non=food and non=traditionala ricultural crops and a housin pro3ect for pro%incial o%ernment employees* .ursuant to the "esolution,the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur, throu h its ;o%ernor,


21/50


be de%oted by the e!propriatin authority* hile those rules %est on the Department of $ rarian "eform thee!clusi%e authority to appro%e or disappro%e con%ersions of a ricultural lands for residential, commercial orindustrial uses, such authority is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the land o&nersor tenant beneficiaries* Further, there has been a shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of ?publicpurpose? or ?public use? for &hich the po&er of eminent domain may be e!ercised* +he old concept &as that

the condemned property must actually be used by the eneral public (e* * roads, brid es, public pla#as, etc*)before the ta in thereof could satisfy the constitutional re2uirement of ?public use?* nder the ne& concept,?public use? means public ad%anta e, con%enience or benefit, &hich tends to contribute to the eneral &elfareand the prosperity of the &hole community, li e a resort comple! for tourists or housin pro3ect* +hee!propriation of the property authori#ed by "esolution 109, 5eries of 19>>, is for a public purpose* +heestablishment of a pilot de%elopment center &ould inure to the direct benefit and ad%anta e of the people ofthe .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur* Once operational, the center &ould ma e a%ailable to the communityin%aluable information and technolo y on a riculture, fishery and the cotta e industry* ltimately, theli%elihood of the farmers, fishermen and craftsmen &ould be enhanced* +he housin pro3ect also satisfies thepublic purpose re2uirement of the Constitution*


22/50


$el%" @minent domain, also often referred to as e!propriation and, &ith less fre2uency, as condemnation, is,li e police po&er and ta!ation, an inherent po&er of so%erei nty* It need not be clothed &ith anyconstitutional ear to e!ist/ instead, pro%isions in our Constitution on the sub3ect are meant more to re ulate,rather than to rant, the e!ercise of the po&er* @minent domain is enerally so described as ?the hi hest andmost e!act idea of property remainin in the o%ernment? that may be ac2uired for some public purpose

throu h a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the 5tate* It is a ri ht to ta e or reassert dominion o%erproperty &ithin the state for public use or to meet a public e!i ency* It is said to be an essential part ofo%ernance e%en in its most primiti%e form and thus inseparable from so%erei nty* +he only direct

constitutional 2ualification is that ?pri%ate property shall not be ta en for public use &ithout 3ustcompensation*? +his prescription is intended to pro%ide a safe uard a ainst possible abuse and so to protect as&ell the indi%idual a ainst &hose property the po&er is sou ht to be enforced* +he term ?public use,? notha%in been other&ise defined by the constitution, must be considered in its eneral concept of meetin apublic need or a public e!i ency* +he %alidity of the e!ercise of the po&er of eminent domain for traditionalpurposes is beyond 2uestion/ it is not at all to be said, ho&e%er, that public use should thereby be restricted tosuch traditional uses* +he idea that ?public use? is strictly limited to clear cases of ?use by the public? haslon been discarded* +he purpose in settin up the mar er is essentially to reco ni#e the distincti%econtribution of the late Feli! Manalo to the culture of the .hilippines, rather than to commemorate his

foundin and leadership of the I lesia ni Cristo* +he attempt to i%e some reli ious perspecti%e to the casedeser%es little consideration, for &hat should be si nificant is the principal ob3ecti%e of, not the casualconse2uences that mi ht follo& from, the e!ercise of the po&er* +he practical reality that reater benefit maybe deri%ed by members of the I lesia ni Cristo than by most others could &ell be true but such a peculiarad%anta e still remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature* Indeed, that only a fe& &ouldactually benefit from the e!propriation of property does not necessarily diminish the essence and character ofpublic use*

31 :state of alu% imene vs. hili((ine :?(ort rocessin Aone [GR 13*+25, 1& anuary +))1Second Division, De Leon Jr/ (J): 4 concur

!acts" On 1E May 19>1, .hilippine @!port .rocessin Bone (.@B$), then called as the @!port .rocessin

Bone $uthority (@.B$), initiated before the "e ional +rial Court of Ca%ite e!propriation proceedin s on parcels of irri ated riceland in "osario, Ca%ite* One of the lots, Aot 18:6 ($ and ') of the 5an Francisco deMalabon @state, &ith an appro!imate area of 09,::> s2uare meters, is re istered in the name of 5alud 4imene#(+C+ +=11 89> of the "e istry of Deeds of Ca%ite)* More than 1: years later, the said trial court in an Orderdated 11 4uly 1991 upheld the ri ht of .@B$ to e!propriate, amon others, Aot 18:6 ($ and ')*"econsideration of the said order &as sou ht by the @state of 5alud 4imene# contendin that said lot &ouldonly be transferred to a pri%ate corporation, .hilippine Jinyl Corp*, and hence &ould not be utili#ed for apublic purpose* In an Order dated 0E October 1991, the trial court reconsidered the Order dated 11 4uly 1991and released Aot 18:6=$ from e!propriation &hile the e!propriation of Aot 18:6=' &as maintained* Findinthe said order unacceptable, .@B$ interposed an appeal to the Court of $ppeals* Mean&hile, the @state and.@B$ entered into a compromise a reement, dated 8 4anuary 199 * +he compromise a reement pro%ides ?(1)+hat plaintiff a rees to &ithdra& its appeal from the Order of the 1 up to the present* (0) +hat the parties a ree thatdefendant @state of 5alud 4imene# shall transfer lot 18:6=' &ith an area of 1 ,11> s2uare meters &hich formspart of the lot re istered under +C+ 7o* 11 89> of the "e istry of Deeds of Ca%ite to the name of the plaintiffand the same shall be s&apped and e!chan ed &ith lot 8 8 &ith an area of 18,16 s2uare meters and co%eredby +ransfer Certificate of +itle 7o* 18 0 of the "e istry of Deeds of Ca%ite &hich lot &ill be transferred tothe name of @state of 5alud 4imene#* ( ) +hat the s&ap arran ement reco ni#es the fact that the lot 18:6='co%ered by +C+ 7o* +=11 89> of the estate of defendant 5alud 4imene# is considered e!propriated in fa%or ofthe o%ernment based on Order of the


23/50


the 3ust compensation for said lot, the estate of said defendant shall be paid &ith lot 8 8 co%ered by +C+ 7o*+=18 0* (8) +hat the parties a ree that they &ill abide by the terms of the fore oin a reement in ood faithand the Decision to be rendered based on this Compromise $ reement is immediately final and e!ecutory*?+he Court of $ppeals remanded the case to the trial court for the appro%al of the said compromise a reemententered into bet&een the parties, conse2uent &ith the &ithdra&al of the appeal &ith the Court of $ppeals* In

the Order dated 0 $u ust 199 , the trial court appro%ed the compromise a reement*


24/50


comprehensi%e co%era e* +o the literal import of the term si nifyin strict use or employment by the publichas been added the broader notion of indirect public benefit or ad%anta e* hat ultimately emer ed is aconcept of public use &hich is 3ust as broad as ?public &elfare*?

3+ Munici(ality of Meycauayan vs. #nterme%iate '((ellate Court [GR - *+1+&, +9 anuary 1922

"hird Division, -utierre. Jr/ (J): 4 concur

!acts" In 19 E, the .hilippine .ipes and Merchandisin Corporation (..MC) filed &ith the Office of theMunicipal Mayor of Meycauayan, 'ulacan, an application for a permit to fence a parcel of land &ith a &idthof 06*> meters and a len th of 1>8* meters co%ered by +C+s 01E16E and > 9* +he fencin of saidproperty &as alle edly to enable the stora e of .MC s hea%y e2uipment and %arious finished products such aslar e diameter steel pipes, pontoon pipes for ports, &har%es, and harbors, brid e components, pre=stressed

irders and piles, lar e diameter concrete pipes, and parts for lo& cost housin * In the same year, theMunicipal Council of Meycauayan, headed by then Mayor Celso "* Ae aspi, passed "esolution 0E>, 5eries of19 E, manifestin the intention to e!propriate the respondent s parcel of land co%ered by +C+ > 9* $nopposition to the resolution &as filed by the ..MC &ith the Office of the .ro%incial ;o%ernor, &hich, in turn,created a special committee of four members to in%esti ate the matter* On 1: March 19 6, the 5pecial

Committee recommended that the .ro%incial 'oard of 'ulacan disappro%e or annul the resolution in 2uestionbecause there &as no enuine necessity for the Municipality of Meycauayan to e!propriate the respondent sproperty for use as a public road* On the basis of this report, the .ro%incial 'oard of 'ulacan passed"esolution 0 >, 5eries of 19 6, disappro%in and annullin "esolution 0E>, 5eries of 19 E, of the MunicipalCouncil of Meycauayan* +he ..MC, then, reiterated to the Office of the Mayor its petition for the appro%al ofthe permit to fence the aforesaid parcels of land* On 01 October 19> , ho&e%er, the Municipal Council ofMeycauayan, no& headed by Mayor $driano D* Dae#, passed "esolution 01, 5eries of 19> , for the purposeof e!propriatin ane& ..MC s land* +he .ro%incial 'oard of 'ulacan appro%ed the aforesaid resolution on 0E4anuary 19>8* +hereafter, the Municipality of Meycauayan, on 18 February 19>8, filed &ith the "e ional+rial Court of Malolos, 'ulacan, 'ranch JI, a special ci%il action for e!propriation* pon deposit of theamount of .08,:0E*::, &hich is the mar et %alue of the land, &ith the .hilippine 7ational 'an , the trialcourt on 1 March 19>8 issued a &rit of possession in fa%or of the municipality* On 0 $u ust 19>8, the trial

court issued an order declarin the ta in of the property as la&ful and appointin the .ro%incial $ssessor of'ulacan as court commissioner &ho shall hold the hearin to ascertain the 3ust compensation for the property*..MC &ent to the Intermediate $ppellate Court on petition for re%ie&* On 1: 4anuary 19>E, the appellatecourt affirmed the trial court s decision* E*

#ssue" hether there is enuine necessity to e!propriate ..MCKs property for the purpose of a connectinroad, in li ht of other appropriate lots for the purpose*

$el%" +here is no 2uestion here as to the ri ht of the 5tate to ta e pri%ate property for public use uponpayment of 3ust compensation* hat is 2uestioned is the e!istence of a enuine necessity therefor* +hefoundation of the ri ht to e!ercise the po&er of eminent domain is enuine necessity and that necessity mustbe of a public character* Condemnation of pri%ate property is 3ustified only if it is for the public ood andthere is a enuine necessity of a public character* Conse2uently, the courts ha%e the po&er to re2uire into thele ality of the e!ercise of the ri ht of eminent domain and to determine &hether there is a enuine necessitytherefor* +he o%ernment may not capriciously choose &hat pri%ate property should be ta en* ith duereco nition then of the po&er of Con ress to desi nate the particular property to be ta en and ho& much



25/50


thereof may be condemned in the e!ercise of the po&er of e!propriation, it is still a 3udicial 2uestion &hetherin the e!ercise of such competence, the party ad%ersely affected is the %ictim of partiality and pre3udice* +hatthe e2ual protection clause &ill not allo&* +he 5pecial Committee s "eport, dated 1: March 19 6, stated that?there is no enuine necessity for the Municipality of Meycauayan to e!propriate the aforesaid property of the.hilippine .ipes and Merchandi#in Corporation for use as a public road* Considerin that in the %icinity

there are other a%ailable road and %acant lot offered for sale situated similarly as the lot in 2uestion and lyinidle, unli e the lot sou ht to be e!propriated &hich &as found by the Committee to be badly needed by thecompany as a site for its hea%y e2uipment after it is fenced to ether &ith the ad3oinin %acant lot, the

3ustification to condemn the same does not appear to be %ery imperati%e and necessary and &ould only causeun3ustified dama e to the firm* +he desire of the Municipality of Meycauayan to build a public road todecon est the %olume of traffic can be fully and better attained by ac2uirin the other a%ailable roads in the%icinity maybe at lesser costs &ithout causin harm to an establishment doin le itimate business therein* Or,the municipality may see to e!propriate a portion of the %acant lot also in the %icinity offered for sale for a&ider public road to attain decon estion of traffic because as obser%ed by the Committee, the lot of theCorporation sou ht to be ta en &ill only accommodate a one=&ay traffic lane and therefore, &ill not suffice toimpro%e and decon est the flo& of traffic and pedestrians in the Malhacan area*? +here is absolutely nosho&in in the petition &hy the more appropriate lot for the proposed road &hich &as offered for sale has not

been the sub3ect of the municipalities s attempt to e!propriate assumin there is a real need for anotherconnectin road*

33 /e Bnecht vs. autista [GR - 51)*2, 3) October 192) First Division, Fernande. (J): 4 concur

!acts" In 19 :, the o%ernment throu h the Department of .ublic or s and Communications (no& Ministyof .ublic


26/50


necessary, in li ht of similar acceptable lots alon Cuneta $%enue &hich &ere sub3ect of the ori inal plan*

$el%" +here is no 2uestion as to the ri ht of the "epublic of the .hilippines to ta e pri%ate property for publicuse upon the payment of 3ust compensation* 5ection 0, $rticle IJ of the Constitution of the .hilippinespro%ides that ?.ri%ate property shall not be ta en for public use &ithout 3ust compensation*? It is reco ni#ed,

ho&e%er, that the o%ernment may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose &hat pri%ate property should beta en* $ lando&ner is co%ered by the mantle of protection due process affords* It is a mandate of reason* Itfro&ns on arbitrariness, it is the antithesis of any o%ernmental act that smac s of &him or caprice* It ne atesstate po&er to act in an oppressi%e manner* It is, as had been stressed so often, the embodiment of the sportinidea off air play* In that sense, it stands as a uaranty of 3ustice* +hat is the standard that must be met by any

o%ernmental a ency in the e!ercise of &hate%er competence is entrusted to it* $s &as so emphaticallystressed by the present Chief 4ustice, $cts of Con ress, as &ell as those of the @!ecuti%e, can deny dueprocess only under pain of nullity* :, the 5upreme Court rendered a decision, rantin the petition for certiorari andprohibition and settin aside the 18 4une 19 9 order of the 4ud e 'autista*



27/50


On > $u ust 19>1, Maria Del Carmen "o!as Jda* de @li#alde, Francisco @li#alde and $ntonio "o!as mo%edto dismiss the e!propriation action in compliance &ith the dispositi%e portion of the aforesaid decision of the5upreme Court &hich had become final and in order to a%oid further dama e to latter &ho &ere deniedpossession of their properties* +he "epublic filed a manifestation on 5eptember 19>1 statin , amon others,that it had no ob3ection to the said motion to dismiss as it &as in accordance &ith the aforestated decision*

, the "epublic filed a motion to dismiss said case due to the enactment of the'atas .ambansa 8: e!propriatin the same properties and for the same purpose* +he lo&er court in an orderof 0 5eptember 19> dismissed the case by reason of the enactment of the said la&* +he motion forreconsideration thereof &as denied in the order of the lo&er court dated 1> December 19>6* De Nnechtappealed from said order to the Court of $ppeals &herein in due course a decision &as rendered on 0>December 19>>, settin aside the order appealed from and dismissin the e!propriation proceedin s* +he"epublic filed the petition for re%ie& &ith the 5upreme Court*

#ssue" hether an e!propriation proceedin that &as determined by a final 3ud ment of the 5upreme Courtmay be the sub3ect of a subse2uent le islation for e!propriation*

$el%" hile it is true that said final 3ud ment of the 5upreme Court on the sub3ect becomes the la& of the

case bet&een the parties, it is e2ually true that the ri ht of the "epublic to ta e pri%ate properties for publicuse upon the payment of the 3ust compensation is so pro%ided in the Constitution and our la&s* 5uche!propriation proceedin s may be underta en by the "epublic not only by %oluntary ne otiation &ith the lando&ners but also by ta in appropriate court action or by le islation* hen on 1 February 19> the 'atasan.ambansa passed '. 8: e!propriatin the %ery properties sub3ect of the present proceedin s, and for thesame purpose, it appears that it &as based on super%enin e%ents that occurred after the decision of the5upreme Court &as rendered in De Nnecht in 19>: 3ustifyin the e!propriation throu h the Fernando "ein=Del .an 5treets* +he social impact factor &hich persuaded the Court to consider this e!tension to be arbitraryhad disappeared* $ll residents in the area ha%e been relocated and duly compensated* >:G of the @D5$outfall and :G of the @D5$ e!tension had been completed* Only De Nnecht remains as the solitary obstacleto this pro3ect that &ill sol%e not only the draina e and flood control problem but also minimi#e the trafficbottlenec in the area* Moreo%er, the decision, is no obstacle to the le islati%e arm of the ;o%ernment in

thereafter ma in its o&n independent assessment of the circumstances then pre%ailin as to the propriety ofunderta in the e!propriation of the properties in 2uestion and thereafter by enactin the correspondinle islation as it did in this case* +he Court a rees in the &isdom and necessity of enactin '. 8:* +hus theanterior decision of this Court must yield to this subse2uent le islati%e fiat*

35 hili((ine ress #nstitute vs. Commission on :lections [GR 119&94, ++ May 1995 Reso'ution En Banc, Fe'iciano (J): 2 concur, on 'eave

!acts" On 0 March 199E, the Commission on @lections (Comelec) promul ated "esolution 0 0, &hichpro%ided that (1) the Commission shall procure free print space of not less than 1 0 pa e in at least onene&spaper of eneral circulation in e%ery pro%ince or city for use as ?Comelec 5pace? from 6 March until 10May 199E/ and that in the absence of said ne&spaper, ?Comelec 5pace? shall be obtained from any ma a#ineor periodical of said pro%ince or city/ (0) that ?Comelec 5pace? shall be allocated by the Commission, free ofchar e, amon all candidates &ithin the area in &hich the ne&spaper, ma a#ine or periodical is circulated toenable the candidates to ma e no&n their 2ualifications, their stand on public issues and their platforms andpro rams of o%ernment/ and that the ?Comelec 5pace? shall also be used by the Commission fordissemination of %ital election information amon others* $pparently in implementation of the "esolution,Comelec throu h Commissioner "e alado @* Maambon sent identical letters, dated 00 March 199E, to%arious publishers of ne&spapers li e the 'usiness orld, the .hilippine 5tar, the Malaya and the .hilippine+imes 4ournal, all members of .hilippine .ress Institute (..I), ad%isin the latter that they are directed topro%ide free print space of not less than 1 0 pa e for use as ?Comelec 5pace? or similar to the print support&hich the latter ha%e e!tended durin the 11 May 1990 synchroni#ed elections &hich &as 0 full pa es for



28/50


each political party fieldin senatorial candidates, from 6 March to 6 May 199E, to ma e no&n to their2ualifications, their stand on public issues and their platforms and pro rams of o%ernment* ..I filed a.etition for Certiorari and .rohibition &ith prayer for the issuance of a +emporary restrainin order before the5upreme Court to assail the %alidity of "esolution 0 0 and the correspondin directi%e dated 00 March199E*

#ssue" hether there &as necessity for the ta in , i*e* compellin print media companies to donate QComelecspace*R

$el%" +o compel print media companies to donate ?Comelec space? of the dimensions specified in 5ection 0of "esolution 0 0 (not less than 1 0 .a e), amounts to ?ta in ? of pri%ate personal property for public use orpurposes* 5ection 0 failed to specify the intended fre2uency of such compulsory ?donation*? +he e!tent of theta in or depri%ation is not insubstantial/ this is not a case of a de minimis temporary limitation or restraintupon the use of pri%ate property* +he monetary %alue of the compulsory ?donation,? measured by thead%ertisin rates ordinarily char ed by ne&spaper publishers &hether in cities or in non=urban areas, may be%ery substantial indeed* +he ta in of print space here sou ht to be effected may first be appraised under thepublic of e!propriation of pri%ate personal property for public use* +he threshold re2uisites for a la&ful ta in

of pri%ate property for public use need to be e!amined here one is the necessity for the ta in / another is thele al authority to effect the ta in * +he element of necessity for the ta in has not been sho&n by theComelec* It has not been su ested that the members of ..I are un&illin to sell print space at their normalrates to Comelec for election purposes* 5imilarly, it has not been su ested, let alone demonstrated, thatComelec has been ranted the po&er of imminent domain either by the Constitution or by the le islati%eauthority* $ reasonable relationship bet&een that po&er and the enforcement and administration of electionla&s by Comelec must be sho&n/ it is not casually to be assumed* +hat the ta in is desi ned to subser%e?public use? is not contested by ..I* Only that, under 5ection of "esolution 0 0, the free ?Comelec space?sou ht by the Comelec &ould be used not only for informin the public about the identities, 2ualifications andpro rams of o%ernment of candidates for electi%e office but also for ?dissemination of %ital electioninformation? (includin , presumably, circulars, re ulations, notices, directi%es, etc* issued by Comelec)* Itseems to the Court a matter of 3udicial notice that o%ernment offices and a encies (includin the 5upreme

Court) simply purchase print space, in the ordinary course of e%ents, &hen their rules and re ulations,circulars, notices and so forth need officially to be brou ht to the attention of the eneral public* +he ta in ofpri%ate property for public use it, of course, authori#ed by the Constitution, but not &ithout payment of ?3ustcompensation*? +hus, althou h there is nothin at all to pre%ent ne&spaper and ma a#ine publishers from%oluntarily i%in free print space to Comelec for the purposes contemplated in "esolution 0 0/ 5ection 0 ofresolution 0 0 does not pro%ide a constitutional basis for compellin publishers, a ainst their &ill to pro%idefree print space for Comelec purposes* 5ection 0 does not constitute a %alid e!ercise of the po&er of eminentdomain*

3& 6), alle in that $ssociacion'ene%ola de Cebu &as the claimant o&ner of Aot 1:>=C located in the 'anilad @state, Cebu City/ that@n racia rot &as the claimant o&ner of Aots 1:>=F, 1:>=I, 1:>=;, 6:19=$ and 6:1 =$, all of the 'anilad@state/ that the


29/50


properties of the heirs of Isidro ;ui%elondo* +hereafter, the trial court appointed Commissioners to ascertainthe correct and 3ust compensation of the properties of the


30/50


plaintiff has a la&ful ri ht to ta e the property sou ht to be condemned, for the public use or purposedescribed in the complaint, upon the payment of 3ust compensation to be determined as of the date of thefilin of the complaint*? $n order of dismissal, if this be ordained, &ould be a final one, of course, since itfinally disposes of the action and lea%es nothin more to be done by the Court on the merits* 5o, too, &ouldan order of condemnation be a final one, for thereafter, as the "ules e!pressly state, in the proceedin s before

the +rial Court, ?no ob3ection to the e!ercise of the ri ht of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall befiled or heard*? +he second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned &ith the determination by theCourt of ?the 3ust compensation for the property sou ht to be ta en*? +his is done by the Court &ith theassistance of not more than three ( ) commissioners* +he order fi!in the 3ust compensation on the basis ofthe e%idence before, and findin s of, the commissioners &ould be final, too* It &ould finally dispose of thesecond sta e of the suit, and lea%e nothin more to be done by the Court re ardin the issue* Ob%iously, oneor another of the parties may belie%e the order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the e%idence or findin sof fact or other&ise* Ob%iously, too, such a dissatisfied party may see a re%ersal of the order by ta in anappeal therefrom*


31/50


compensation for the ta in of her property considerin that she secured title o%er the property by %irtue of ahomestead patent under Common&ealth $ct 181* On 1> October 199 , the trial court rendered a decision,orderin the 7I$ to pay to De Onorio the sum of .1: ,E1 *6: as 3ust compensation for the 2uestioned area of08,66: s2uare meters of land o&ned by De Onorio and ta en by the 7I$ &hich used it for its main canal pluscosts* On 1E 7o%ember 199 , the 7I$ appealed to the Court of $ppeals &hich, on 1 October 0:::, affirmed

the decision of the "e ional +rial Court* 7I$ filed the petition for re%ie&*

#ssue" hether the %aluation

eminent domain case digests

Documents