You are on page 1of 2


In 1977, respondent National Housing Authority WON, the The SC held in favor of the respondent NHA. Accordingly
(NHA) filed separate complaints for the expropriation judgment of petitioners cannot insist on a restrictive view of eminent
of sugarcane lands of the cadastral survey of expropriation provision contending that the contract for low cost housin
Dasmarinas, Cavite, belonging to the petitioners. was forfeited deviation from the stated public use. It is now a settled d
The stated public purpose of the expropriation was in the light of that the concept of public use is no longer limited to trad
the expansion of the Dasmarinas Resettlement the failure of purposes. The term public use has been held synonymo
Project , to accommodate the squatters who were the with public interest, public benefit, public welfare and pu
relocated from Metro Manila area Respondent convenience.
NHA to use the
The trial court ordered the expropriation of these lots expropriated The 1987 Constitution explicitly provides for the exercise
and the payment of just compensation. property for power of eminent domain over private properties upon p
the intended of just compensation. Article III Sec 9 states that private
For the alleged failure of the Respondent NHA to purpose property shall not be taken for public use without just
comply with the above order, Petitioners filed a compensation.
complaint for forfeiture of rights before the RTC of
Quezon City r 79. They alleged that NHA had not The taking to be valid must be for public use. Whatever
relocated squatters from Metro Manila area on the is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the ca
expropriated lands in violation of the stated public streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable
purpose for expropriation and had not paid the just
compensation fixed by the court. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to re
any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the
Respondent NHA averred that it had already paid a expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for
substantial amount to herein petitioners and that the at cost to individuals. The other is in the transfer , throug
expropriation judgment could not e executed in view exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enter
of several issues raised by NHA. the government. It is accurate to state then that at prese
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general w
The trial court dismissed the complaint finding that satisfies the requirement of public use.
the failure of the respondent NHA to pay just
compensation and of petitioners to pay the capital Wherefore, the appealed judgment is modified as follows
gains tax are both unjustified and unreasonable. 1. Ordering Respondent NHA to pay petitioners the am

57. Ordering petitioners to surrender to Respondent NH owners duplicate certificates of title of the expropr properties upon full payment of just compensation . 2. a 3. of 1.35 Php with legal interest thereon at 1 annum computed from the taking of the expropria properties in 1997 until the amount due shall have fully paid.218. Ordering petitioners to pay the capital gains tax .