Constitutional Law II
G a l e o n
!
Date: Dec. 5, 2016
CONS TITUTION
- a body of rules and maxims in accordance with which
the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised
[Cooley]
- written instrument enacted by direct action of the people
by which the fundamental powers of the government are
established, limited and defined, and by which those
powers are distributed among the several departments
for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the
body politic [Malcolm]
Primary Purpose:
- prescribe the permanent framework of a system of
government, to assign to the several departments their
respective powers and duties, and to establish certain
first principles on which the government is founded
- described a system of government. It lays down the
foundation of the government; it lays down certain
principles upon which the government obeys. It also
distributes or allocates to several departments the
powers of the state.
Classifications
1. Written or Unwritten
Written - one whose precepts are embodied in a
single instrument or a set of documents
Unwritten - not entirely unwritten; consists of rules
which have not been integrated into a single,
concrete form but are scattered in various source;
Example: UK, Australia, Israel, etc.
2. Enacted (conventional) or Evolved (cumulative)
4. Self-Executing as much as possible, we should
Enacted - one which is formally struck or adapted
off at a definite time and place following a
conscious or deliberate effort taken by a
constituent body or ruler
Example: In the past the constitution of Japan
was imposed by the US after the war. An
enacted one is formerly made in a definite time
and place.
Evolved - one which is a product of time; result of
political evolution, not inaugurated at any specific
time but changing by accretion rather than by any
systematic method
3. Rigid or Flexible
payment of just compensation
Rigid - one that can be amended only by a formal
and usually difficult process
Example: 1987 constitution an enacted,
written and rigid constitution (thus you can
amend by following strict procedures under art
17).
ADVANTAGE: (1) Difficult to amend; (2) has the
capacity to withstand capricious changes
DISADVANTAGE: When there is a need to
change the constitution, then the constitution
would rather impede progress.
Flexible - one that can be changed by ordinary
legislation
- Normally, an unwritten is an evolved constitution
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y.
Good written constitution
1. Broad - not only the entire government, but covers all
things, able to anticipate the future; not like a history
book
2. Brief - must confine itself to basic principles and
policies for the governance of the state
3. Definite - provisions should be clear to prevent
ambiguity which could result in confusion and
divisiveness among the people
Essential Parts of Good Written Constitution:
1. Constitution of Liberty series of prescriptions
setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of
the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of
government as a means of securing the enjoyment of
those rights (e.g. Art. 3)
2. Constitution of Government series of provisions
outlining the organization of the government,
enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules
relative to its administration, and defining the electorate
(e.g. Art.s 6-9)
3. Constitution of Sovereignty outlines the process
for amendments or revisions; pointing out the mode or
procedure in accordance with which formal changes in
the fundamental law may be brought about (e.g. Art
17)
Interpretation or Construction of the Constitution
1. Verba Legis the words must be given their ordinary
meaning
2. Ratio Legis et anima when there is doubt or
ambiguity in the interpretation, it should be interpreted
with the intention of the framers
3. Ut Maais Valeat Adam Pereat constitution to be
interpreted as a whole
interpret as self-executing except when
All laws of the congress must conform with the mandates
the constitution.
Constitution is the fundamental law of the land
Powers the State may exercise which are not expressly
granted by the Constitution; independent of the constitution
1. Police Power - as the power of the state to regulate
properties, liberty and rights of the citizens for the
promotion of the general welfare
2. Eminent Domain - refers to the power of the state to
take away private properties for public purpose upon
3. Power of Taxation - power of the state to demand
Similarities on the Powers
1. INHERENT:
- regarded to be inherent in the state - in the sense
that they may be exercised by the state without
being conferred by the constitution
Limitations of the Powers of the State:
Police Power - Article 3, Section 1 - right, liberty;
Eminent domain Article 3, Section 9 - private
property must have just compensation;
Taxation - Article 6, Section 8 - exempt from
taxation;
Page 1
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

2. INDISPENSABLE:

- these powers are not only necessary, but are Is it possible that a beneficial property be taken by the
indispensable - in a sense that without these powers of police power?

powers, the state may not function effectively General Rule: Properties must be disposed or destroyed
Police Power: state cannot enact criminal laws because they are noxious or hazardous
or revised penal code EXCEPT: when police power using as a tool of
Eminent domain: state may not be able to eminent domain or taxation in order to take beneficial
construct roads property
Taxation: where state cannot collect taxes;
cannot provide free education or basic
healthcare POLICE P OWER
3. INTERVENE PERSONAL RIGHTS:
- is an inherent power of the State which promotes the
- the means or methods by which the state can welfare of society by restraining and regulating the use
effectively intervene personal rights of liberty and property.
Police Power: - inherent - can be exercised without the constitution
Eminent domain: taking of private property - Regarded to be the:
Taxation: where state cannot collect taxes; - most pervasive,
cannot provide free education or basic
healthcare
- least limitable and
- most demanding of them all
4. PRIMARILY VESTED IN CONGRESS:

- all of them are primarily lodged or vested in the

congress; but may be delegated What serves as the basis for exercising police power?

Salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the

5. PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION:

people is the supreme law of the land

- the exercise thereof presupposes payment of just
compensation Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas a person must
use his own property so as not to injure another
Example: you cannot set your house on fire, if in the
Distinctions on the powers process, you will also damage your neighbors, but it
(1) Police power involves both liberty and property is a different thing if you are living in an desolate
Taxation and Eminent Domain affects only property island inhabited by you alone
rights Example: you own your own karaoke unit, you can
(2) Police and taxation power exercised only by the sing your heart out, but you cannot do it in the
government middle of the night because it would disturb your
Eminent Domain may be exercised by private neighbors these examples show why the state
entities upon delegation should limit ones rights if it would prejudice others
(3) Police Power Property taken has to be destroyed for right
it is regarded as noxious or hazardous
Eminent property is wholesome and must be
devoted for a public use or purpose
Scope/Characteristics
(4) Taxation the protection given and/or public 1. Most pervasive, least limitable and most demanding
improvements instituted by government for the taxes of them all the powers

paid - Why? Because while the other two involved only

Eminent Domain full and fair equivalent of the property rights, this one involves property rights and
property taken liberty of individual. Also it covers all human activity
Police Power power entails payment of just (from womb to tomb, like we have laws dealing with
compensation but would be intangible; consists that abortion for example, all in the name of police power.
altruistic feeling that you have contributed to the public There also laws in the disposition of ones remains,
good under the laws of succession, and laws dealing with
the burial, laws dealing with marriage, contracts,
etc.). so police power therefore is wider in scope than
Eminent
Police Power Taxation the other two powers.
Domain

regulates both
As to regulation liberty and regulates property rights only 2. Cannot be bargained away

property - Cannot be bargained away with through the medium

of a treaty or contract
government and Echoing vs Hernandez: There was a law that was
As to who may only the only the
some private
exercise government government enacted in the past (retail trade nationalization law)
entities
prohibiting aliens from engaging in a retail trade
destroyed business. Echiong was convicted, a Chinese, and
because it is supposedly violated the retail trade nationalization
As to the property
noxious or
- wholesome
taken - taken for a public use or purpose law. Gabaligya gihapon siyag ngohiong. Echoing
intended for
noxious purpose appealed his conviction saying that RTN law was in
violation of the treaty entered into by the Philippines
intangible and China (Treaty of amity). The SC said that our
altruistic feeling full and fair protection and RTN law was not in conflict of the treaty of amity
As to that the person equivalent of the public between Phil and China, but if such would be in
compensation has contributed to property improvements for
the general expropriated the taxes paid conflict, Phils laws should prevail (enacted through
welfare police power). But now, our SC has shifted and is

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 2
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II
!
saying that Phil should now, as a rule, comply with
its treaty obligations)
__ Bank v. Commissioner of internal revenue:
enjoined the state to strictly comply with its treaty
obligations and SC even enjoined he govt to make
changes in our law independently of the
constitution to ensure that we would comply to our
contractual obligations, BUT the fact remains that
there is truly conflict between Treaty and our local
laws, then our local laws should prevail in the name
of police power.
- Since it cannot be bargained away through the
medium of a treaty, them much more, it cannot be
bargained away through the medium of a domestic
contract
Ortigas v. CA: Hermoso bought a parcel of land
from Ortigas and in the contract of sale there was a
stipulation that the property subject matter of such
sale could only be utilized for residential purposes,
but it was placed to Matay who constructed a
commercial building thereon. But Matay defended
his action by invoking a zoning ordinance that
reclassified the land from residential to commercial.
But then Ortigas argued that such resolution could
not have a retroactive effect so as to impel the
obligation on the contract that was entered into
prior to the passage or enactment of the ordinance.
The ruling of the SC said that the police power of
that ordinance is superior compared to the contract
that was entered years before its enactment. In
other words, the exercise of police power my even
violate or change or modify or alter obligations
contracted through the medium of contract.
MMDA vs Garin: confiscation of drivers license.
Garin said that he had property rights over his
drivers license and that it was granted to him by
the state. Such grant took effect through the nature
of a contract. SC said that the granting of DL is
nothing but a privilege and the same can be
suspended, revoked or confiscated by the state, all
in the name of police power, although at that time
MMDA had no such authority to confiscate the DL
absent any law authorizing or enforcing it to do the
same. Thus, police power may even impair the
obligations in a contract, notwithstanding the
provisions under sec 10 article 3 that no law under
the obligation of a contract shall be passed
Chavez v. Romulo: involves the revocation of the
permit to carry firearms a regulation which was
enacted by the state canceling permits of persons
to carry firearms outside their residences. Chavez
questioned the validity of this law, contending that
he had vested rights or property rights to carry
firearms outside his residence. But SC said that
what he has is only a permit to carry firearms,
nothing but a privilege like the Drivers license, thus
it could be revoked or suspended by the state in
the name of police power
Stone v. Mississippi: there was a grant of franchise
in favor of few persons for a consideration for them
to operate lottery for a period of 25 long years, but
after the years, that was cancelled by the state.
That cancellation was questioned before the court.
The US SC decreed that such franchise could be
cancelled, all in the name of police power.
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y. G a l e o n
Oposa vs Facturan: our SC cancelled or revoked
the concessions granted for the cutting of lumber. It
was argued that such concessions constitute as
property rights. The SC said that such could be
revoked again in the name of police power.
3. Dynamic
- Not static; changes with time and along with the
society; and must move with the moving society it is
supposed to regulate
Example: in the past, the operation of vital utilities is
performed or undertaken by the state, but at
present, there is now a move to privatize the
operation of public utilities, like electric plants
Example: that is why NPC is now privatized, as well
as PNB
Example: in the past during time of atty. Gravador
and atty. Torregoza there is no such thing a cyber
crime law, but in my time, there is already a cyber
crime law (it changes with time)
4. Utilize the Power of Taxation as an implement
- May utilize the Power of Taxation as its tool or as an
implement thereof
Example: Sin tax law is enacted not only pursuant to
the power of taxation, but also pursuant to the police
power of the state. More importantly that is pursuant
to the police power of the state using as a tool or an
implement thereof the power of taxation
- it imposes a higher tax, in the hopes of
dissuading the people from smoking or from
drinking alcohol which could be bad for the
health
Carlos super drug: where the SC justified such
imposition or giving of discounts under police
power using power of taxation as a tool or an
implement in the exercise thereof
Luke v. Araneta: there was a law that was enacted
that imposing special tax on sugar and that was
imposed for the rehabilitation for the sugar industry.
That imposition was question but the SC said that
such implementation was valid because that
imposition was enacted pursuant to the police
power of the state to rehabilitate the sugar industry
by using the power of taxation as an implement
thereof.
5. Utilize the Power of Eminent Domain as an implement
- May utilize the Power of Eminent Domain as its tool
or as an implement thereof
Carlos super drug v. Dswd: the SC said that there
could be taking of beneficial properties like profits
all in the name of police power using the other
power, that is the power of eminent domain.
CARP (comprehensive agrarian reform programs):
where the state could take private properties,
agricultural lands to be distributed to farmer
beneficiaries. So, the extent of the law on CARP of
distributing land to the landless, there is eminent
domain, to the extent that private lands would be
taken away for the purpose of giving it to landless
farmers who needs those lands for a living. BUT to
the extent that the CARP would prescribe
Page 3
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II
!
limitations or retention of ownership then there is
regulation of property and liberty in the name of
police power
Again, what are the essential characteristics of police
power? Pervasive, less limitable, demanding, it cannot be
bargained away with through the medium of a treaty or
contract, dynamic, it may utilize other powers as a tool or
an implement thereof.
Again, where police power uses any of the two other
powers, there may be taking of beneficial properties.
Philippine press institute v. Comelec: There was an
attempt on the part of the state through the sol-gen
to justify comelec resolution 2772 (?) as a valid
exercise of police power. The resolution is directing
that publishers should provide a free print space.
When it was questioned, sol-gen wanted to justify its
resolution by invoking the police power of the state,
but it was not further elaborated by the sol-gen. that
is why as to the question, probably it was correct,
because the exercise of police power utilizes as a
tool thereof the power of taxation and power of
eminent domain, that such exercise may involve
taking of beneficial properties. Only in this case, it
was not elaborated any further by the sol-gen.
Which is why it was declared as invalid, because SC
said that the resolution because it would amount to
taking of private property without payment of just
compensation.
Telecommunications and Broadcast Authorities of the
Phils. v. Comelec: which was the validity of the law
sec. 92 of BP 881 mandating the registration that
would provide free air time to the candidates. It was
said to be invalid, because it was contended that it
would amount to taking of private property without
payment of just compensation. The SC sustained
the validity of sec. 92 BP 881 as a valid exercise of
Police Power.
Why the difference? How can you reconcile these 2
cases?
It because what was involved in the PPI was a tangible
object (print space), while in the other one was
intangible (air space/air time), but far more important it
because what was involved in the 2nd case was a
franchise, a franchise to operate a telecommunications
business. Recall that under sec 17 art 12 the grant of
any such franchise is subject to a condition that it can
be modified, altered, repealed, and suspended by the
state BUT you dont need a legitimate franchise to be
engaged in a publishing business. That is how to
distinguish the two cases.
Again, underscore the fact that as construed in the case of
Small land owners of the Philippines v. Executive of
Agriculture the exercise of the state to distribute land to
the landless under the CARP is justified under police power
using as an implement thereof the power of eminent
domain. Take note of that case again of Ortigas v. CA
where SC said that the enactment of the zoning ordinance
is that, not pursuant to eminent domain but pursuant to
police power, because zoning ordinance would not involve
taking of property it merely involves reclassification of the
use of the classification of property from residential to
commercial.
Police power legislation is applicable not only to future
contracts, but equally to those already in existence.
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y. G a l e o n
Non-impairment of contracts or vested rights clauses
will have to yield to the superior and legitimate exercise
by the State of the police power [Ortigas & Co. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000]
Thus, despite the retroactive effect of PD 957
(Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective
Decree), there is no violation of the non-impairment
clause, because the decree is a valid exercise of the
police power, and police power prevails over contracts
[PNB v. Office of the President, 255 SCRA 5]
As to the constitutional right of every citizen to select a
profession or course of study subject to fair, reasonable
and equitable admission and academic requirements,
their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the
police power of the State to safeguard health, morals,
peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare
of the people. This regulation assumes particular
pertinence in the field of medicine, to protect the public
from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and
ignorance [Professional Regulation Commission v. De
Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004].
The right to bear arms is merely a statutory privilege.
The license to carry a firearm is neither a property or a
property right. Neither does it create a vested right. A
permit to carry a firearm outside ones residence may be
revoked at any time. Even if it were a property right, it
cannot be considered as absolute as to be beyond the
reach of the police power [Chavez v. Romulo, 431 SCRA
534].
A license to operate a motor vehicle is not a property
right, but a privilege granted by the State, which may be
suspended or revoked by the State in the exercise of its
police power, in the interest of public safety and welfare,
subject to the procedural due process requirements
[Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin,
G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005].
R.A. 9257, otherwise known as the Expanded Senior
Citizens Act of 2003, is a legitimate exercise of police
power. Administrative Order No. 177 issued by the
Department of Health, providing that the 20% discount
privilege of senior citizens shall not be limited to the
purchase of unbranded generic medicine but shall
extend to both prescription and non-prescription
medicine, whether branded or generic, is valid. When
conditions so demand, as determined by the legislature,
property rights must bow to the primacy of police power
because property rights, though sheltered by the due
process clause, must yield to the general welfare
[Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWD, etal., G.R. No.
166494, June 29, 2007].
Who can exercise Police Power?
1. Congress; the Legislature - inherent and primarily
lodge in the congress; given the discretion whether to
act or not and remedies of it
2. President, LGUs, Private Bodies - must have delegation
by congress
The Police power of the state is primarily lodged in
congress, so much so, that congress is given a
discretion whether or not to act on a given problem of
situation.
Example: in a problem of prostitution, if
congress act on it, then it is well and good, BUT
if congress will not act on it, congress cannot
Page 4
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II
!
be compelled by mandamus so as to act on
that problem. Because again, the exercise of
police power is primarily lodge in congress and
this is addressed to the sound discretion of
congress
If congress is to act on a situation, then the choice on
the remedy that is to be pursued is to be left to the
sound discretion of congress
Example: it is opined or suggested that
smoking cigarettes could cause lung cancer,
congress has the option on whether or not to
enact a law that would altogether banish
smoking or would just impose tax in the rates to
the people buying cigarettes. If congress would
pursue the first remedy, that is to ban altogether
the sale and disposition of cigarettes, then
generally that cannot be questioned.
Conversely when congress has just decided to
impose higher tax in the sale of cigarettes, then
that could not also be questioned.
Who can exercise Eminent Domain?
regulate that and cannot prohibit you form thinking that,
Ascertainment of Facts serve as basis for exercise
of this power is also left to the judicious or sound
discretion of congress
Example: congress chooses to enact a law
prohibiting the sale of cigars on the ground that
it could cause lung cancer then that should be
respected especially if such law is enacted with
a semblance of truth that cigar smoking is bad
for the health/ could cause lung cancer.
What is important is that there is a semblance of truth
to the remedy pursued by congress
Jacobson v. Massachusetts: it was decide by US
SC, where Jacobson was convicted for refused to
be vaccinated for small pox, because according to
him, he wanted to prove to the court, that small pox
vaccination is not really that effective or that it can
cause some kind of complications, but the US SC
did not allow him to do that, according to the US SC
the ascertainment of facts attendant to the exercise
of police power is left to the sound discretion of
congress. Such that where the action of the decision
of congress supported by semblance of truth is
required, then that can be justified. But it is different
if the action or the remedy pursued by congress has
no truth at all, in that situation, it can be regarded as
invalid.
Example: Congress would enact a law mandating
that bald people would be vaccinated, because
baldness is contagious. Would it be declared as
valid? With that kind of ascertainment of fact? NO,
because such action has no basis. But where an
action of congress is supported by a semblance of
truth, then generally then it is open for judicial
scrutiny.
Valid Exercise (Limitations):
authorizing the outright confiscation of carabaos that
1. Lawful subject interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class, require
the exercise of police power
2. Lawful means the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and
not unduly oppressive upon individuals
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y. G a l e o n
While it is said that police power is broad in scope and it
practically covers every human activity from womb to
tomb, however there are still other aspects of human
activity which may not be included into by the state
Example: right to privacy the exercise of police
power necessitates the existence of a lawful
subject, but can the state enact a law prohibiting us
from singing while taking a bath inside the confines
of our bathroom? NO, because that activity does not
affect the others, it is not imbued with public
interest, congress has no business to deal with a
person who wants to sing inside his bathroom. But it
is a different thing if you live in a glass house where
everything can be seen through. That is why there
are laws prohibiting the state from gathering data,
pertaining to a person, such as that you think that
you private data is gathered by the state you can
actually file an application for a writ of habeas data
As ___ as police power may be, fortunately for us, we
have the freedom to think, free to think that you are
handsome, no law can prohibit you from thinking that.
You may think that you are superman, the state cannot
but it is a different thing if you will act as superman
(acting it out). Again, it is a different thing if you practice
what you believe in.
The state can actually regulate your profession. The
case where passers from Fatima college were
prohibited from taking their oath, and the SC sustained
that decision of the PRC because the practice of the
medical profession can be regulated by the state. SC
said that the health of the citizens should not be
entrusted to incompetent physicians, likewise in the bar.
San Diego v. De Guzman: regulation on NMAT (the
medical field) was sustained as valid on the basis of
Police Power.
In like manner employment may also be regulated by
the state, all in the name of police power.
JMM case: regulation was sustained valid because
it was geared to the protection of or migrant
workers, our entertainers abroad. So that is why
police power can regulate the exercise of
profession. But we need to underscore that fact that
the exercise of police power necessitates among
others the existence of a lawful subject, and activity
of a thing that is imbued with public interest, absent
which, then that cannot be regulated by the state
even in the name of police power.
Another important criterion or valid exercise of police
power necessitates the employment of reasonable or
lawful means.
Example: the exercise of police power must
conform to the requirement on due process and
equal protection (enshrined in sec 1 of art 3)
Inot(?) v. Intermediate appellate court: involves a law
were transported from one province to another, it was
questioned by Inot who said that such law was not valid
because the confiscation was without the benefit of trial.
Indeed the law was decreed as invalid because SC said
that the confiscation did not use lawful means (as it was
without the benefit of trial). It was liked to a bill of
attainder, one which imposes or inflicts punishment
without the benefit of a trial
Page 5
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II
!
City of Manila v. Baguio: an ordinance prohibiting motels
in an specific area. city council of manila said that the
law was lawful, but it was decreed as invalid by the SC
because the means employed thereby were not lawful,
the means were confiscatory. The options given to the
owners of the establishments amounted to a taking of
property without payment of just compensation, it is not
enough that there is a lawful existence of a lawful
subject, it is not enough that the purpose of the
enactment of the law is noble, what is required is that the
methods used thereby should be lawful, so that the
exercise of police power maybe sustained as valid.
Villaviscencio v. Lukban: the mayor of manila rounded up
some hundreds of prostitutes and kicked them out of
manila to davao. The purpose of the mayor was plain
and obvious, it was to solve the problem on prostitution,
no doubt that it was noble, there was a lawful subject in
such situation. But the method employed was unjust. SC
said that prostitutes also have rights like ours, they
cannot be shipped from one place to another. So in this
case lead substance to the preposition that indeed,
police power necessitates employment of lawful
methods
SJS v. DSWD: Issue here was the validity of sec. 38 of
RA 9165 requiring, that a person could run for public
office especially for congress, that one has to undergo a
mandatory drug test. The purpose of the law was valid,
but SC said that the method employed was unlawful
because requirements to run for congress are set forth in
art 6 sec 3. SC said that the provision under that sec 3 of
art 6 could not be amended by a simple resolution.
Office of the Solicitor General v. ____: where the solgen
filed a case against the ayalas for asking parking fees
from customers. Solgen argued that in the national
building code requires mall owners to give a space as a
parking area. so it was argued by the solgen that as
much as that was a requirement under the code, then
the use thereof by the consumers or by the customers of
the mall should be provided for free. But the SC
disagreed, SC said that it would not be allowed because
such would be unjust and confiscatory, because it was
already unfair that the mall owners should allocate a
space for parking area, so in that context there is already
a restriction for the use of that area, such as it would be
if that area would be used for free by others that easily
City Government of Quezon v. ____: here was an
ordinance enacted by the city council of quezon to the
end that private owners or owners of private cemeteries
should allocate a space for ____ . the purpose of the law
was noble, but it was said to be confiscatory, because
there is taking of property without payment of just
compensation
So, the exercise of police power to valid:
of such property. If the owner agrees, there is no need of
Necessitates the existence of a lawful subject
Pertaining to an activity imbued with public interest
Requires or necessitates the employment of lawful
means or lawful methods
EXCEPTIONS:
Police power must be compliant with these for equal
process and equal protection among others. There has
to be prior hearing. However, such rule has some
exceptions.
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y. G a l e o n
Cabrerra v. ___: demolition of the fishpond of Cabrerra
w/out the court order. It was argued that it was denied
due process, but the SC disagreed. Sc noted that the
fishpond of cabrerra was a nuisance per se. Thus, it
could be taken in the name of police power. There was
an exception in this case pertaining to the requirement of
due process because the property of Cabrerra was
classified as noxious and hazardous.
Pollution adjudication board v. CA: there was a ___
disease order (?cant hear it?) prohibiting from using the
water in the lake, there was an order prior notice and
hearing but it was valid because it was by of exception
since of the provision in sec 7 PD 934 that allows the
PAB to issue exparte temporary restraining order even
before the matter could be heard. There will be a hearing
after the issuance of the TRO.
Another additional requirement of the valid exercise of
police power , but if this power is exercised by local
government units, such exercise therefore must be
authorized by law, after all, police power is primarily
lodged in congress. It can only be exercised by, say,
LGUs if there is proper delegation by congress in favor
of the LGUs. In the present, we have the local
government code which allowed LGUs to exercise the
delegated police power of the state. Then if this is to be
exercise by the LGUs, the exercise thereof must be
limited in application within the territorial jurisdiction of
the LGU concerned (ex. within the boundaries).
City of Manila v. ____: SC enumerated the requirements
for a valid exercise of a delegated police power by LGUs
(1) It should be compliant with the constitution or the law
(2) It must not be oppressive
(3) It must not be discriminatory
(4) It must not be unreasonable
(5) It must only regulate and not altogether prohibit
business
(6) It must be general application
(7) Must be consistent with public policy
Date: Dec. 9, 2016
EMINENT D OMAIN
DEFINITION
- also known as the POWER OF EXPROPRIATION
- inherent power of the State that need not be granted
even by the fundamental law
- The power of the state to take private property for public
use upon payment of just compensation. It is a coercive
power
- Before the state can exercise this power, it must first try
to negotiate with the property owner for a voluntary sale
to exercise the power of eminent domain.
Private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation, merely imposes a limit on
the governments exercise of this power and provides a
measure of protection to the individuals right to property
Eminent domain should be the last on the priority; the
government should exhaust all means provided by law
before resorting to expropriation. [Cases: Lagcao v.
Judge Labra, City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar]
Page 6
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

Sec 9, Art III, Constitution Can be subject for expropriation:

Real Property (land, Building) or

Private property shall not be taken for public use without
Personal Property (cars, computer, books)
just compensation.
Intangible Property (can be felt by the senses) or
Intangible property (cannot be felt by the senses;
ownership of a company)
SEC 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. Lands for
Properties owned by the church, even though they
socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order:
are exempted from payment of real property tax.
1) government lands;
Services, similar to Republic v. PLDT case.
2) alienable lands of the public domain;
Private property already devoted to public use:
3) unregistered or abandoned or idle lands; - Can be expropriated if directly done by
4) lands within the declared Areas for Priority congress.
Development (APD), Zonal Improvement Program - Cannot be expropriated by a delegate of
(ZIP) sites, Slum Improvement and Resettlement
congress acting under general grant of
(SIR) sites which have not yet been acquired;
authority (e.g. Local Government Code) but,
5) BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and can be expropriated if congress passes a
6) privately-owned lands specific law for such specific purpose.
Cannot be subject for expropriation:

Money
Police Power v. Eminent Domain Ones right to collect the debt of his debtor.
Police power is power of the state to promote public
welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty
and property, while If the private property already devoted for public use
Eminent domain is the inherent right of the state to (like private cemetery), it may be expropriated by the
condemn private property to public use upon payment powers congress itself. Private property already
of just compensation. devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a
delegate of legislature acting under a general grant of
authority [City of Manila v. Chinese Community, 40 Phil
Who can exercise Eminent Domain?
349]
1. Congress;
2. President ** Service may be expropriated by the state All private
3. Administrative Bodies** property capable of ownership may be expropriated,
4. Local Government Unites** except money and choses in action. Even services
5. Private enterprises performing public services** may be subject to eminent domain [Republic v. PLDT,
26 SCRA 620]
EXCEPT: Money; Chose in action (Collectibles)
** There must be valid delegation from the Congress
i.e. the right to bring an action to recover debt,
money or thing
Requirements for Eminent Domain

1. Necessity of taking
2. What is taken is a private property 2. Taking in the strict constitutional sense
3. It must be in strict constitutional sense - Taking deprivation of beneficial use and
4. Property taken must be for public use enjoyment of his property.
5. There should be payment of Just Compensation
6. Observance of Due process Requisites for taking: [Republic v. Castellvi]

1. expropriator must enter a private property

1. Necessity of the taking
- Taking must be impelled by necessity
- If power of eminent domain is exercised directly by
congress, it cannot be subject to judicial scrutiny or
review
EXCEPT: When it is in grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess,
judiciary may stop the taking through their
power of Judicial Review
When the power is delegated by congress, the
Supreme Court adapted that the courts can review
such necessity of the taking. [City of Manila v. Chinese
Community, 40 Phil 349]
2. entry must be for more than a momentary period
3. entry must be under the warrant of legal authority
4. entry is for public use
5. the owner is deprived of enjoying his property
*If taking is under police power, it is not
compensable
Actual physical dispossession is not required, it is
sufficient if the owner is deprived of the beneficial
enjoyment of the property or if he is burdened. (e.g.
transmission lines)
Police Power Eminent Domain

the prejudice suffered by the individual the individual suffers more than his
property owner is shared in common aliquot part of the damages, i.e. a
2. Private Property with the rest of the community special injury above that sustained by
- Property - anything that may come in the commerce the rest of the community

of man

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 7
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II
!
EXCEPTION:
Moreover, RA 7279 mandates that the rights of small-
In US v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, the US Supreme
Court held that there was taking of the property of
Causby, which is near an airport, because he cannot
construct a high rise building on such property due to
the danger of flying and landing airplanes. Causby
was allowed to recover just compensation
In People v. Fajardo, 104 Phil 44, the SC held that
there was taking of the property of Fajardo, which was
near the national highway, because the municipality
p ro h i b i t e d h i m t h ro u g h a n o rd i n a n c e f ro m
constructing any building that obstructs the view of
the public plaza from the national highway. Fajardo
was allowed to recover just compensation
However, not all taking of private property is
compensable. This is called Damnum Absque
Injuria (loss without injury). This happens when
the taking is pursuant to the Police Power or to the
principle of destruction by necessity under Art. 432
of the Civil Code. In destruction by necessity, the
aggrieved property owner can demand payment
from those who benefited and not from the State.
If the burden is shared equally by the members of
the community, it is not considered taking under
Eminent Domain. Thus, there is no payment of just
compensation. It is also Damnum Absque Injuria.
However, if there is one person who suffered more,
it is otherwise.
In Richards v. Washington Tunnel, 233 U.S. 546,
the US Supreme Court held the there was taking on
the house of Richards, which was near a
government tunnel, because of the smoke from the
tunnel that goes into Richards house as a result of
an exhaust fan which was installed in the tunnel.
Although other members of the community are also
burdened by the smoke, it was Richards who
suffered the most. Richards was allowed to recover
just compensation
4. Public Use
- is whatever may be beneficially employed for the
general welfare, including both direct or indirect
benefit or advantage to the public
- Public use meeting public need or exigency
- means that the converted property is directly
available to the general public as a matter of right or
redounds to their indirect advantage or benefit.
Synonymous with public welfare, public interest,
public health, and public safety.
Still public use even if it is not for free and even if
not everyone can avail or make use of the property.
Res communes subject to direct enjoyment by
any and all members of the public indiscriminately
(e.g. roads, bridges)
Not necessary everyone will benefit it is enough that
it will trickle down.
Lagcao v. Labra and City of Mandaluyong v. Francisco:
the SC held that if the public use of the Eminent Domain
is for resettlement or socialized housing, the State must
strictly comply with the provisions of RA 7279 wherein
private property is the last in order in the priority of the
acquisition of lands and that the Power of Eminent
Domain must be resorted to as a last recourse.
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y. G a l e o n
property owners must be respected
MCIAA vs Lozada: Abandonment by the State of the
public use of the property entitles the property owner to
file a case for recovery of the expropriated property but
should return the just compensation received with legal
interest from his default. If the State uses such property
for another public purpose, the property owner can file
an injunction against State and recover such
expropriated property. The State may then later institute
another expropriation case for such same property for
the new public use [See MCIAA vs Lozada]
Date: Dec. 12, 2016
5. Just Compensation
- Is fair and full equivalent payment for the loss
sustained, which is the measure of the indemnity, not
whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating
agency. It is not market value per se
- it is a sum of money which a person desirous but not
compelled to sell and another person willing but not
compelled to buy would agree on as price certain for
the property.
Sec 9, Art III, Constitution
Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation.
- Clearly mandates that there should be payment of just
compensation whenever a private property is taken for
public use or public purpose.
Art 435, Civil Code
No person shall be deprive of his property except by
competent authority and for public purpose and always
upon payment of just compensation
So, the payment of just compensation is not only
mandated under the constitution in like manner is also
required under Article 435 of the Civil Code
Form of Compensation: To be paid in form of money;
cash/check
EXCEPT: Agrarian Cases need not in form
of money; may take in the form of LBP funds
bonds or treasury bonds to be redeemed and
issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines
- in the implementation of the Agrarian
Reform Law, the payment of just
compensation may take in the form of
LBP Funds or funds to be redeem and
issued by the Land Bank of the
Philippines.
Who is entitled?
- One thing for sure is, the property owner.
Page 8
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II
!
If the State expropriates a parcel of land but then there is
an improvement there on like a building, and that building
is owned by another person because that person happens
to have a lease involving the land.
To whom shall the payment for the building go? Should it go
to the land owner or should it go to the lessee?
- Well, of course, the land owner would get the
payment for the land but how about the building?
Should the payment therefore be tendered to the land
owner? Or to the lessee?
- In our jurisdiction the term owner is given a broader
meaning (it could include also the lessee of a
particular property)
Land Bank vs AMS: at a glance, the case as quoted
therein it would readily appear that a lessee of an
agricultural land is not entitled to the payment of the
improvements that he may introduce thereon. There was
this parcel of land situated in Davao it used to be owned
by (Lavco)?? And then eventually was owned by Toto.
Then, these parcels of land were lease by AMS and
when Toto eventually became the owner of the property
AMS renewed the lease with Toto and the lease contract
was annotated at the back of the titles or certificates of
title covering the property. The respective lease contract
is filed and it was renewed by Toto and AMS but unlike in
the past the renewed contract of lease will no longer
annotated at the back of the certificates of title and fast
forward the parcels of land that were lease by AMS were
eventually taken in the concept of Agrarian reform and
the Land Bank of the Philippines paid for the value not
just of the land but also of the value of the crops or
growing crops thereon but the problem was the payment
not only for the land but also for the crops were given to
the land owner or the registered owner which was Toto.
So, the owner of the crops AMS demanded for the
payment saying that it was the owner of the crops which
was actually expropriated by the government and in that
case our SC said that LBP could not be faulted for
paying the just compensation including that of the
growing crops on the lands to TOTO because in the first
place the contracts of lease were not annotated at the
back of the title. So, LBP therefore had no knowledge
about the contracts entered into by Toto and AMS on the
other hand more than that according to the SC there is
nothing in the comprehensive Agrarian reform law which
provides that the States should pay also to the
agricultural lessee what the CARP provides is that the
payment of the land and for the growing crops should be
given to the land owner but in that case our SC
emphasizes that if at all AMS is entitled to the payment
for the crops growing on the lands that were
expropriated by the State then the right of action of AMS
should not be against LBP but as against Toto because it
was to whom the payment is made. Our SC, did not
actually say that AMS the agricultural lessee is not
entitled payment for the crops that it introduces on the
properties owned by Toto. What the SC said was that the
claim for just compensation should be file by AMS not
against LBP but against Toto the land owner of the
property and any such claim should be decided on the
basis of the civil code provision on lessee and not on the
provisions of the comprehensive agrarian reform
program.
Bana-ag vs AMS Farming Corp: it would appear that a
portion of the decision that was quoted therein lessee
is not entitled to be paid just compensation for the
crops that it introduces on the agricultural lands but
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y. G a l e o n
AGAIN that is not also accurate. Because what
happened in the case of TIRSO BANAAG was that AMS
was also leasing the parcels of land owned by Tirso
Banaag then the lands were expropriated by the
government for the implementation of CARP and then
there was a dispute as between Tirso Banaag on one
hand and AMS on the other hand, as to who owned
really the crops that were growing in the properties.
Because Tirso Banaag contented that the lease contract
that they entered into with AMS had already expired and
under the lease contract according to Tirso Banaag
there was an obligation on the part of AMS to remove
any and all improvements that it may have introduce on
the property otherwise such would become the
properties of the land owner. That was the argument of
Tirso Banaag. But AMS countered that there was no
such stipulation towards that end. And the Adjudicator
for the Agrarian reform program resolve such issue of
ownership. The Adjudicator ruled that AMS remain to be
the owner of the crops that were planted on the lands
owned by Tirso Banaag and as such AMS should be
paid just compensation for the ?? and bananas that it
planted on the properties of Tirso Banaag. And Banaag
of course filed an appeal before the SC and the SC
faulted the Adjudicator of Agrarian Reform for resolving
such issue of ownership. According to our SC, the
Agrarian Adjudicator had no authority to resolve any
such dispute because such issue will call upon the
application of the Civil Code provisions. Again, the
Adjudicator had no competence and authority to rule
upon. In other words, the SC ruled there the adjudicator
had no jurisdiction to resolve any such issue as regards
in ownership of the crops that were growing in the
properties of Banaag. The SC did not say that AMS is not
entitled to be paid of just compensation what it said was
that the claim of AMS should be resolve by the regular
courts by applying the provisions on lease or provisions
under the Civil Code. Then, again the SC also ruled that
if at all AMS is entitled to the payment of just
compensation then it is a matter between the landowner
and AMS itself to the exclusion of Land Bank. After all,
Land Bank had already paid the just compensation not
only for the land but also for the crops introduce thereon.
Summing it all up. The SC actually said that the lessee
of an agricultural land may still be entitled to the
payment of just compensation but any such action must
be directed against the landowner to whom the payment
for the land and for the growing crops on the arbitral
land should be paid pursuant to the CARP. So, Justice
Cruz quotation in the book is not really accurate.
If the government would take away your property without
however filing the necessary condemnation or
expropriation case. Can you file a case against the
government?
- Remember the principle that The State cannot be sued
without its consent Because the rule is we cannot
have a right against the authority which makes the laws
on which our rights depends.
Delos Santos v. IAC: which ruled where the State its
consent because State immunity from suit according to
our SC cannot be invoke to defeat or to trample upon
the rights of private citizens
Where will you file a case?
- Direct recourse is allowed before the courts of law.
You file a case directly in the regular courts
demanding payment of just compensation, you
need not present your claim first before the COA.
Page 9
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II
!
Notwithstanding the provision under the PD 327 as
amended by PD 1445
Spouses Campos v. MPC: where SC ruled that the
claim for the payment of just compensation will not
prescribe. Spouses filed the case after 26 long years
then SC said it was perfectly alright. Notwithstanding the
provision under Section 3(i) of RA 6395 (the charter of
the MPC) providing that the money claims against MPC
should be filed within the period of 5 years from the time
of the making. Because such provision of the charter of
MPC would only govern actions for damages.
Hon. Vicente v. Luis: what happened here was that the
City of Pasig entered into a portion of property owned by
Luis and then the property owner did not object to the
taking because there was an agreement that the
property owner would paying just compensation but after
a period of 8 years no payment of just compensation
was given because the government of Pasig, the
appraisal committee of the City of Pasig and the
landowners could not agree on the price for the property
that was taken. So, what the property owner did was to
file a case not for just compensation but for recovery of
their parcel of land. They said Well, our property was not
paid for. So it is only proper that it should be return to us.
That was of course the claim of the property owner. In
that case our SC DENIED the relief prayed for by the
property owners saying that the property owners were
already in estoppel because they already agreed to the
taking of the property. So, in that case our SC said that
the remedy of the owners would only be for the payment
of just compensation but what was applied in that case
was the principle on estoppel. Property owner is not
permitted to change his mind by asking for the recovery
of his property.
Cour t not bound to follow RAR (repor t and
recommendation) commissions
1. Illegal principle
2. Disregard rule of preponderance of evidence
3. Exclusively high or exclusively low
How to compute if the taken is not exactly the entire
property but only a portion thereof?
- The amount corresponding to the damages should
be added to the amount corresponding to the FMV
of the portion that was actually utilize for road
purposes. (The amount of damages + The
corresponding amount to the Fair Market Value of
the property)
What if the owner did not just suffer damages but also
benefits?
- Deduct the amount of benefit from the amount of
damages. Then, the difference will be added up to
the Fair Market Value of the property affected by
the expropriation.
What would happen if the amount of the benefit
exceeds the amount of damages?
- Just disregard all together all these variables.
Meaning just disregard the amounts
corresponding to the damages and benefits.
Because the property owner should not be made
to suffer more than what he already suffered. TN.
In expropriation is enforceable taking of ones
property in the first place the property owner does
not want to part with his property. So, where the
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y. G a l e o n
amount of the advantage is greater than the
amount of the damage then disregards all together
this variables pertaining to the damage and the
benefits.
Eminent Domain may be exercise by the congress
and by proper delegation of authority it can only be
exercise by the office of the President, LGUs, public
corporations, quasi-public corporations.
Who should determine just compensation?
Ipsa v. Dulay: SC said that the just compensation
should be determined by the courts of law. It should
not be fixed by the President. It should not be fixed
by the congress. So the rule now is: It is the court of
law which should determine the just compensation
for the property to be expropriated.
- We do have a law RA 6971, which expanded the
jurisdiction of the MTC. Such that if the action
involves title 2 or possession of real property like
lands then title thereon would be vested on the MTC
if the assess value of the property does not exceed
Php. 20, 000. Conversely if the property exceeds
Php 20, 000 then any question or any case involving
title 2 or possession thereof should be vested with
the higher court and that is the RTC.
Example: If the property to be expropriated by
the State has an assessed value of 18,000.
Where the case should be filed? Amount is less
than 20,000. The case should be filed with the
RTC, Notwithstanding the assessed value of the
property. Because it not acquiring title 2 or title
over the property but taking the property for a
public purpose. So as such the expropriation
case is regarded to be an action in capable of
pecuniary destination. So jurisdiction over the
same is vested with the RTC and not with MTC.
To simplify the rule: An expropriation case should be
filed always with the RTC regardless of the assessed
value of the property affected thereby.
Brgy. San Roque, Talisay v. Heirs of Francisco
Pastor: SC ruled, that jurisdiction over expropriation
cases is vested with the RTC regardless of the value
of the property affected thereby.
Under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court, if the
expropriator deposits to the court an amount
corresponding to the assessed value of the property as
indicated in the tax declaration then the court may
already issue a writ of possession allowing the
expropriator to utilize the property or to use the property
even if the case is yet to be decided by a trial court but
that could only happened to be if the expropriator can
deposit to the court an amount corresponding to the
assessed value of the property.
If the expropriator is an LGU, the amount to be
deposited in the court is only 15% of the assessed value
thereof. Because this is the provision under Section 19
under RA 7160 or the LGC.
- New law, RA 8974, which provides that if the
purpose of the expropriation is to implement a
National government infrastructure project like
electrification done by MPC what is required before
the court could issue a writ of possession is
payment not just deposit but PAYMENT of the
Page 1
! 0 o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II
!
amount corresponding to the BIR Zonal evaluation
of the property.
MPC v.CO: SC upheld the validity of RA 8974.
Provisions of RA 8974 will only apply if the purpose
of expropriation is for the implementation of the
national government infrastructure project. Under
the Rules of Court, the Court of Law may already
issue a writ of possession once the required deposit
of payment is done by the expropriator.
NPC v. Pobre: Supreme Court ruled that an
expropriator in eminent domain case or cases is not
allowed to unilaterally withdraw the expropriation
complaint. It is because the expropriator may
already be allowed to enter in the property even
before the case can be decided by the trial court.
That is the reason in the ruling of NPC v Pobre that
the court ruled that the eminent domain cases, the
expropriator has no right to withdraw or just move
the expropriation complaint because after all
damage may have been already caused to the
property.
Stages in Expropriation Cases
evidences submitted by the parties would prove
1. The necessity or propriety of taking
- If the expropriator has already made the required
deposit of payment and the Court determined that
the taking of property is for public purpose or
necessity then the court will issue the order of
expropriation. But that is not already the end of the
case. That only completes the first stage on which
the court determines that there is a need on the
part of the expropriator to take away a private
property
2. The payment of just compensation
- After the Court will issue an order of expropriation,
the Court will now determine the value of the just
compensation to be adjudged to the private
property owner. For that purpose, the Court would
normally constitute a Board of Commissioners.
- *The Board of Commissioners - composed of a
representative of the Court normally the Vice Clerk
of the Court, person to be designated by the
expropriator and the person designated by the
property owner.
NPC vs. Dela Cruz: the primary purpose of the
Board of Commissioners is to aid the Court in fixing
the amount of just compensation.
How? Under the Rules of Court, there should
be a hearing to be conducted by the Board
and the parties should be allowed to present
evidences regarding the valuation of the
property. Failing of that as in the case of NPC
vs. Dela Cruz, would be a denial of
p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s . M o re t h a n
conducting ocular inspections to the property,
the Board should conduct hearings and
allowing the parties to present evidence to
prove their contentions regarding the valuation
of the property. Otherwise, there would be a
denial of due process.
Is there any instances wherein the Court may not
constitute a Board?
expropriation complaint but in that case it was the
Sec. 5 of 1997 Rules of Court Procedure
EXCEPTIONS:
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y. G a l e o n
1. There is no question with regards to the valuation
of the property. The property owner agreed with
the valuation of the property as only there was a
dispute regarding the necessity of taking.
2. In Agrarian Cases because the constitution of the
Board is left to the sound discretion of the parties.
So when the parties decided not to constitute a
Board then the Special Agrarian Court RTC acting
as such or Special Agrarian Court may not or
cannot constitute a Board
If the Board has already come up with the valuation of
the property, they should submit it to the trial court. Is
the court duty bound to accept such report and
recommendation?
- NO! As what was ruled in the Case of NPC v.
DELA CRUZ, there are instances in which the
Court may disregard the reports and the
recommendation of the Board.
1. When the Board applies illegal principles in the
appreciation of evidence, inadmissible evidence,
or when the Board has clearly disregarded the
rule of preponderance of evidence even if the
that the value is really high but the Board would
insist that it should be given a lower valuation, then
that should not be allowed.
2. When the amount of valuation fixed by the Board is
either excessively high or excessively low. When
that happens the Court may recommend back the
same matter to the Board or on its discretion may
constitute another Board consist of different
members.
Assume that the Board has submitted a valuation report
to the Court and the Court already would want to fix the
amount of just compensation. What would be the
reckoning point in computing the just
compensation?
- In the case of REPUBLIC v. CASTELLVI, the
Republic would have wanted that the valuation
should be had as of 1947 and the Court said that it
should start at the date of the filing of the
complaint in the 1959. But in the case of
ESLABAN v. DE ONORIO of just compensation
should start at the date of taking. This obviously
preceded the date at the time of the filing of the
complaint.
Reckoning Point of Market Value of Property
Whichever comes first. Just compensation should
be computed as of the date of the taking of the
property or the date of the filing of the complaint
whichever comes first.
Heirs of Sangkay vs NPC: The NPC entered into the
property of Sangkay or Heirs of Sangkay without
their consent and knowledge because what NPC
did was to construct a tunnel without the knowledge
of the Heirs of Sangkay and when the latter
discovered, they filed a complaint for the payment of
just compensation, it was termed as reversed
condemnation proceedings. It is because normally
it should be the State first that would file an
property owner who files a case for the payment of
just compensation. In that case, NPC argued that
Page 1
! 1 o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II
!
the payment of just compensation should be
computed at the date they entered into the property
surreptitiously and the property owner wanted that it
should be computed at the date of the filing of the
complaint because the value would be much higher.
After all, Rule 7 is very clear that at the time of the
taking or at the time of the filing whichever comes
first. In here according to NPC, taking preceded the
filing of the complaint. The SC ruled that the
contention of the Heirs of Sangkay will be taken.
Because taking refers to under Rules 67 for the
purpose of determining the amount for the just
compensation is the taking which comprise the
requirements set forth in the case of Republic v.
Castellvi. One of the requirements is that such entry
must be a warrant or color of title but in the Case of
the Heirs of Sangkay, the entry was done
surreptitiously without the knowledge and
acquiescence of the property owner. So the rule that
the valuation of the property should be at the date of
taking or filing of the complaint presupposes that
such taking complies with the requirements set forth
in the case of Republic v. Castellvi.
EXCEPTION of the Reckoning Point of Market Value
the decision of the Court attains finality?
EXCEPTION: Local Government Unit. Valuation
should be computed at the time of the taking of the
property
City of Cebu v. Dedamo: The filing of the complaint
preceded the actual possession of the property
because the City of Cebu entered into the property
pursuant to the writ of possession but the SC ruled
that the valuation of the just compensation should
be at the date as of the actual taking. It is because
there is a provision under Sec. 19 of RA 7160 of the
Local Government Code which provides that the
valuation of the property taken or expropriated by
the LGU should be reckoned as of the date of actual
possession. In this case also, our SC ruled that it is
a substantive provision and it should prevail over the
rules of Court.
Entitlement of owner to interest.
Corporation, G.R. No. 137569, June 23, 2000].
As per BSP Circular No. 799, interest for forbearance of
money shall be reduced to 6%.
Should the Court awards interest? And if so, how much
should be awarded as interest? Should it be 6% as ruled in
the case of Castellvi and Eusebio v. Luis? Or should be
12% in NHA v. Reyes?
- Article 2209 of the Civil Code provides that the
payment of interest should be 6% per annum. If the loan
is in forbearance of money then the interest should be
12% per annum.
- In the case of NHA v. REYES, the court imposed 12% as
interest because it is by way of penalty. SC said that
normally what is awarded is 6% because it is not a loan
or a forbearance of money.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Apo Fruits && LBP v.
Ester Rivera: SC declared that the payment of
interest to be paid on top of the just compensation
should be computed at 12% per annum. In those
recent cases SC ordained that in any payment of
just compensation is a key to in forbearance of
money. However, our Central Bank issued Circular
No. 799 series of 2013 which provided that interest
for forbearance of money is reduced from 12% to
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y. G a l e o n
6%. It is because Court may award payment of
interest that the property owner cannot demand for
the payment of back rentals. The payment for
interest would take the place for the payment of
back rentals because the property owner cannot
demand for the payment of back rentals the moment
the expropriator entered into the property.
Court may award actual damages as in the case of
Eusebio v. Luis and attorneys fees.
Title to the property.
Title does not pass until after payment
Let us assume that there is an expropriation case and the
case was decided by the Court and the Court directed the
payment of just compensation to the property owner. When
should be the title of the property be passed on or
when will it be transferred to the expropriator? Is it upon
the payment of the zonal value of the property as
mandated by RA 8974 or is it at the deposit of the required
amount under Sec. 2 Rule 67 corresponding to the
assessed value of the property or should it happen once
Salem Investment: SC ruled that ownership of the
property would only be transferred from the property
owner to the expropriator as long as there was already a
full payment for the just compensation as adjudged
by the Court. Such that without the full payment of just
compensation the registration of the property would
remain in the name of the property owner.
Minueza: SC ruled that the property owner can still
mortgage the property or even dispose his property
by sale because it is only upon the payment of the full
amount of just compensation that the title will be passed
to the expropriator.
- Thus, the owner of land subject to expropriation may
still dispose of the same before payment of just
compensation [Republic v. Salem Investment
EXCEPTION:
EXCEPT: in Agrarian Reform Cases.
- ONLY, because in CARP, even if the farmer
beneficiary has not yet fully paid the just
compensation for the property then he is
already issued with the Certificate of Land
Award.
There is an expropriation case, the case was decided by
the Court and the Court ordered the expropriator to pay a
certain amount of money for and as just compensation but
notwithstanding the finality of the decision of the trial court,
the expropriator has failed to pay the amount of just
compensation. Can the property owner recover his
property?
Eusebio v. Luis: There was no actual expropriation
proceeding and here the situation is that the decision
was already rendered by the Court, the Court directed
already the payment of just compensation and the
decision of the trial Court had already attained finality.
Yet notwithstanding the finality of the decision the
expropriator has eagerly paid the just compensation
as adjudged by the Court.
Page 1
! 2 o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II
!
Can the property owner demand or claim for the recovery
of his property? Why qualified yes?
of the decision your recourse if you are the aggrieved
- Right of landowner in case of non-payment of just
compensation. As a rule, non-payment of just
compensation in an expropriation proceeding does
not entitle the private landowners to recover
possession of the expropriated lots, but only to
demand payment of the fair market value of the
property within 5 years. [Reyes v. National Housing
Authority]
Reyes v. NHA: SC cited the case of Baldebiza(?) v.
Republic, SC ruled that when there is no payment for just
compensation notwithstanding the rendition of
judgement by the Court, the only remedy of the unpaid
property owner is to demand the payment for the
unpaid balance of the just compensation. Recovery was
not allowed in the case of Baldebiza and Reyes v. NHA.
Republic v. Vicente Lim: SC allowed recovery. It was then
held that where the government fails to pav iust
compensation within five years from the finality of the
judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners
concerned shall have the right to recover possession of
their property.
How can we reconcile the case of Reyes vis--vis the case
of Lim?
after 2016, say 10 years thereafter 2026 the property was
- The case of Lim suggests that when there is no
payment of just compensation within 5 years
reckoned from the finality of the decision, then the
property owner may demand for the recovery of his
property.
- But WITHIN that 5-year period, the only remedy of
the unpaid property owner is to demand payment for
just compensation. Within the 5-year period, apply
the ruling in the case of Reyes but after the lapse of
the 5-year period, you then apply the ruling in the
case of Lim.
What should be the reckoning point in computing this 5-
year period?
allowed.
The 5-year period should be reckoned instead from the
decision attained finality. In cases like this, the
decision of Court would attain finality after the period
of 15 days from the receipt of the parties of copies of
such decision. And if no appeal is found by any of the
parties within 15 days from such receipt then the
decision would be final and executory after the lapse
of 15 days.
Expropriation complaint is filed in Feb. 14, Decision was
rendered on November 1, Copies of the November 1
decision was furnished to the expropriator and it was
received by the lawyer of the expropriator on November 5
and the copy was furnished to and received by the
property owner or the lawyer of the property owner on
November 5.
- Should the 5-year period reckon on the filling of the
complaint on Feb. 14, 2016? NO.
- Should it reckon on November 1, 2016 the date of the
rendition or decision judgment? NO.
- Should it be on November 5 the date that the copy of the
decision were furnished to and received by the lawyers
of the parties? NO.
In this situation, the decision attains its finality on
November 20, 2016. So the 5-year period enunciated in
the case of Vicente Lim should be reckoned on
SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen.
At t y. G a l e o n
November 20, 2016. Again, within 5 years from finality
property owner is to demand payment for just
compensation as adjudged by the Court by filing a
motion for the issuance of writ of execution pursuant to
Sec. 6 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. You do that within 5
years and if there was no payment that has been
made after the lapse of 5 years then you may now
want to recover your property pursuant to the ruling in
the case of REPUBLIC v. VICENTE LIM. TAKE NOTE
that the case of REPUBLIC v. VICENTE LIM allows the
recovery of the property by the property owner on the
ground of non-payment of just compensation.
Non-utilization thereof for the public purpose for which it
was expropriated
Expropriator paid the property in full within 5 years. Here,
after the decision attains finality on November 21, 2016 the
expropriator paid the just compensation as adjudged by
the Court. So in this situation, the property owner cannot
recover his property on the ground of non-payment of
just compensation because payment was made on
November 22, 2016. Can he recover his property if years
no longer utilize for the purpose for which it was
expropriated? Assume that the property was expropriated
for the construction of a road. The road was constructed in
2017 but in 2026 the government decided to just
abandoned the road that it found another road for the
purpose. The property was no longer utilize for the purpose
it was expropriated. Can the property owner recover his
property on the ground of non-utilization thereof for the
purpose which it was expropriated?
MCIA vs CA: Involving the property of Chongbian which
the SC ruled and cited the case of Ferry v. Municipality
of Cabanatuan said that where the acquisition of the
property is done in fee simple then recovery is not
Ferry v. Municipality of Cabantuan: If the property is
acquired with no conditions attached then the property
owner cannot recover his property. It is only when such
taking has a condition that if the property would not be
utilized for the public purpose then the property owner
would be allowed to recover. Absent of such condition,
as a rule, recovery is not allowed. This ruling was
reiterated in the case of MCIA v. CA involving the case of
Chongbian.
MCIA v. Lozada: SC came up with another ruling wherein
it allowed the recovery of expropriated property on the
ground of non-utilization thereof for the public purpose
for which it was expropriated. But TAKE NOTE, that the
case of Chongbian and the case of Lozada ousted
from the same decision but the SC came up with
different rulings. In the case of Chongbian, the SC
reviewing the decision in expropriation case found no
condition attendant to the taking of the property. SC said
that there is nothing in the decision which indicate that
there was a reservation with respect to the right of
recovery of property in case of non-utilization for the
public purpose in which it was expropriated. But reading
the same decision in the case of Lozada, the SC have a
change of heart. That it would appear that in the body of
the decision, the trial court granted or allowed the
expropriation on the supposition that Lahug airport
Page 1
! 3 o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

would continue to be in operation. SC said that if Lahug 6. Observance of Due Process

airport would not be in operation then it would be proper - The defendant must be given an opportunity to be
for the property owner to recover its properties. But even heard. In Belenv. Court of Appeals, supra., the
without such pronouncements our SC in the case of Supreme Court declared PDs 1670 and 1669
Lozada revisited its ruling in the case of Ferry. In doing unconstitutional for violating the due process clause
such, SC in the case of Lozada agree that every because the decrees do not provide for any form of
expropriation case has this built-in condition that the hearing or procedure by which the petitioners can
property expropriated thereby should be utilize for the question the propriety of the expropriation or the
very purpose for it was expropriated as stated in the reasonableness of the compensation to be paid for
complaint. Such that if the property is no longer utilize for the property. [See also Filstream International, Inc. v.
the very purpose for which it was expropriated as stated Court of Appeals]
in the complaint then in that situation, recovery by the
property by the property owner should be allowed. To
simplify, the ruling in the case of Lozada, the rule as it is
now is every expropriation case has this built-in
condition that the property should be devoted for the
very same purpose for which it was expropriated as
stated clearly or expressly in the complaint. Such that if
the property is no longer devoted for the same purpose
then recovery may be allowed with or absent of any
express condition granting such right to the property
owner.

Example: If your property is expropriated by the state for

the purposes of constructing a road thereon if then
subsequently the state abandon such road you may now
recover your property even without the decision stating
that you have such right because that condition is
already built-in that it should be devoted for road
purposes. Such that even if the state would want to
utilize your property no longer as a road but for a public
plaza according to the SC in the case of Lozada
recovery is still allowed and if the State really wants to
utilize the property for another public purpose then it has
to constitute another expropriation proceedings.
Because the property should be devoted for the very
purpose it was expropriated as stated in the complaint. If
it will be used for another purpose, then there is need to
expropriate the property but this time around for the
other purpose.

Let us assume from the previous example that the property

was expropriated for road expansion but the decision was
granted on November 1, 2016, it became final and
executory on November 20,2016 and on November 22,
2016 the expropriator paid in full the just compensation as
adjudicated by the Court but even before the lapse of 5
years reckoned upon the period of November 20 or even
after 2 years the government decided not to make use of
the property as what was the purpose for which it was
expropriated. Can the property owner recover his property?
Must the property owner still wait for the lapse of 5 years
reckoned from the finality of decision as enunciated in the
case of Lim before he can file a case for recovery?

- NO. It is because the 5-year period enunciated in the

case of Republic v. Vicente Lim would only govern if the
ground of recovery is non-payment of just compensation
but if your ground for the recovery is non-utilization of the
property for the public purpose of which it was
expropriated then you dont have to wait for 5 years to
file the said action. It is enough that there was a showing
or you can establish that your property was no longer
utilize for the very purpose for which it was expropriated.
So again, the 5-year period enunciated in the case of
Vicente Lim would only govern in a situation where the
ground of recovery is non-payment or non-full payment
of just compensation. Such would be wanting in
application if your ground for the recovery is non
utilization of the property for the purpose it was
expropriated in the first place.

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 1
! 4 o f !1 4