This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
City of Pasig The taking is done for the benefit of a small community which seeks to have its own sports and recreational facility, notwithstanding that there is such a recreational facility only a short distance away, such taking cannot be considered to be for public use. Its expropriation is not valid. Power of eminent domain - the right of a government to take and appropriate private property to public use, whenever the public exigency requires it, which can be done only on condition of providing a reasonable compensation therefor. It has also been described as the power of the State or its instrumentalities to take private property for public use and is inseparable from sovereignty and inherent in government. The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of the government. It delegates the exercise thereof to local government units, other public entities and public utility corporations, subject only to Constitutional limitations. Local governments have no inherent power of eminent domain and may exercise it only when expressly authorized by statute. [Sec. 19 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160)] Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited to the following areas of concern: (a) The adequacy of the compensation, (b) The necessity of the taking, and (c) The public use character of the purpose of the taking Ruling: There is no “genuine necessity” to justify the expropriation. The right to take private property for public purposes necessarily originates from “the necessity” and the taking must be limited to such necessity. The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that necessity must be of a public character. Moreover, the ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany and not follow, the taking of the land. Necessity within the rule that the particular property to be expropriated must be necessary, does not mean an absolute but only a reasonable or practical necessity, such as would combine the greatest benefit to the public with the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and the property owner consistent with such benefit. Brgy. Sindalan vs. CA Expropriation, if misused or abused, would trench on the property rights of individuals without due process of law. The exercise of the power of eminent domain is constrained by two constitutional provisions: (1) That private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation under Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 9 (2) That no person shall be deprived of his/her life, liberty, or property without due process of law “Public use” is defined as whatever is beneficially employed for the community - The number of people is not determinative of whether or not it constitutes public use, provided the use is exercisable in common and is not limited to particular individuals Requisites for a valid exercise of Eminent domain: 1. Expropriation is for a public use 2. The payment of just compensation to the property owner. a. it must be real, substantial, full, and ample b. should be made within a “reasonable time” from the taking of the property c. any further delay in the payment will result in the imposition of 12% interest per annum. On the matter of due process The property owner must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the issues of public use and just compensation and to present objections to and claims on them Taking of property for a private use or without just compensation is a deprivation of property without due process of law Issues: Whether the taking of the land was for a public purpose or use. Whether private property can be taken by law from one person and given to another in the guise of public purpose. Ruling: NO 1.) The expropriation will actually benefit the subdivision’s owner who will be able to circumvent his commitment to provide road access to the subdivision in conjunction with his development permit and license to sell from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, and also be relieved of spending his own funds for a right-of-way. The expropriation of respondents’ lot is for the actual benefit of the Davsan II Subdivision owner, with incidental benefit to the subdivision homeowners.
the law governing the expropriation of property for urban land reform and housing. 1995 a complaint for eminent domain (expropriation) of the properties of petitioners. (c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands. When it expropriated the subject properties. 7279 (The Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) Ruling: Before respondent City can exercise its power of eminent domain. The complaint was based on Ordinance No. The Court of Appeals was likewise silent on this specific jurisdictional issue. To deprive respondents of their property instead of compelling the subdivision owner to comply with his obligation under the law is an abuse of the power of eminent domain and is patently illegal. In this proposed condemnation. – The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include xxx and expropriation: Provided. or agencies. 10. Sec. a local government unit can only exercise powers granted to it by the legislature. Such is the nature of the constitutional power of control of Congress over local government units. government funds would be employed for the benefit of a private individual without any legal mooring. the latter being mere creations of the former. Whether or not respondent City’s act of expropriation is illegal because it did not comply with Sections 9 and 10 of Republic Act No. Modes of Land Acquisition. expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. 1993 authorizing the City Mayor of Manila to expropriate certain parcels of land. respondent City relied on its powers granted by Section 19 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and RA 409 (The Revised Charter of the City of Manila). Estate of Heirs of the late Ex-justice JBL Reyes vs. Even in the Court of Appeals. Respondent City neither alleged in its complaint nor proved during the proceedings before the trial court that it complied with said requirements. however. 9.) Public funds can be used only for a public purpose. That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted: xxxx Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. 7818 enacted on November 29. Respondent City. . Priorities in the acquisition of Land – Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order: (a) Those owned by the Government or any of its sub-divisions. (d) Those within the declared Areas of Priority Development. Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279 specifically provide that: Sec. (e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired. and (f) Privately-owned lands.) The residents who need a feeder road are all subdivision lot owners. including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. is also mandated to follow the conditions and standards prescribed by RA 7279 (the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992). it is the obligation of the Davsan II Subdivision owner to acquire a right-of-way for them. instrumentalities. According to the ordinance. In the same vein. This is a clear violation of the right to due process of the petitioners. the same must be sanctioned and must not violate any law. Zonal Improvement sites. who were “the occupants of the said parcels of land who (had) been occupying the said lands as lessees or any term thereof for a period of at least 10 years.” Issues: Whether or not Ordinance 7818 is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution and for abridging the “contracts” between petitioners and prospective buyers of the subject parcels of land. respondent City filed on April 25. (b) Alienable lands of the public domain. the said properties were to be distributed to the intended beneficiaries. Respondent City failed to prove strict compliance with the requirements of Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Being a mere creation of the legislature. City of Manila During the pendency of the two ejectment cases [filed by JBL reyes] against respondents Abiog and Maglonso [former’s tenants]. and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired. respondent City in its pleadings failed to show its compliance with the law. 3. however.2. The latter specifically gives respondent City the power to expropriate private property in the pursuit of its urban land reform and housing program.
The transcendental importance of the issues raised and the magnitude of the public interest involved will have a bearing on the country’s economy which is to a greater extent dependent upon the mining industry. By the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the challenged act. Act No. Gozun Constitutionality of Republic Act No. Actual eviction of the land owners and occupants need not happen for this Court to intervene. Indeed.) The issue of eminent domain is not a justiciable controversy which this Court can take cognizance of. mining is an industry which is of public benefit. Even as the executive department or the legislature may make the initial determinations. Also affected by the resolution of this case are the proprietary rights of numerous residents in the mining contract areas as well as the social existence of indigenous peoples which are threatened. in violation of Section 9. the same cannot prevail over the court’s findings. The 4 conditions of judicial review are present. Determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. Taking in Eminent Domain vs Regulation in Police Power Taking under Police Power Taking under Eminent domain . Mining industry plays a pivotal role in the economic development of the country and is a vital tool in the government’s thrust of accelerated recovery. vs. this does not mean that it is unconstitutional on the ground that it allows taking of private property without the determination of public use and the payment of just compensation. Public respondent’s contention: 1. Issues: Whether or not Republic Act No. 7942 otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial controversy even without any other overt act. Based on these considerations. The court cannot await the adverse consequences of the law in order to consider the controversy actual and ripe for judicial intervention. The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts to decide determination of just compensation remains intact despite the preliminary determination made by the administrative agency.) Petitioners’ eminent domain claim is not ripe for adjudication as they fail to allege that CAMC has actually taken their properties nor do they allege that their property rights have been endangered or are in danger on account of CAMC’s FTAA.Didipio Earh-savers’Multi-purpose Assoc. Irrefragably. Article III of the Constitution. There is nothing wrong with the grant of primary jurisdiction by the Panel of Arbitrators or the Mines Adjudication Board to determine in a preliminary matter the reasonable compensation due the affected landowners or occupants. The jurisdiction of the Court is not any less "original and exclusive" as the judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination. It is contended that Rep. this Court deems it proper to take cognizance of the instant petition. 7942 and Section 107 of DAO 96-40 encroach on the power of the trial courts to determine just compensation in eminent domain cases inasmuch as the same determination of proper compensation are cognizable only by the Panel of Arbitrators. 7942 and the CAMC FTAA are void because they allow the unjust and unlawful taking of property without payment of just compensation . Ruling: NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL While the Court declares that the assailed provision is a taking provision. even a singular violation of the Constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial duty 2.
should be considered. Tianco and Nestor S. Aurellano S. Should NPC pay for the value of the land being taken. the respondents should be paid the value of the property as of the time of the filing of the complaint which is deemed to be the time of taking the property. For purposes of just compensation. an easement of a right-of-way transmits no rights except the easement itself. or should it be limited to what is provided for under P. Tianco Issue: With respect to the amount of just compensation that must be paid the respondents for the expropriated portion (19. health. material impairment of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was intended such as the establishment of an easement. would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. (1) In eminent domain cases. and the respondents would retain full ownership of the property taken. the time of taking is the filing of the complaint. the acquisition of such easement is not gratis (free).A property interest is merely restricted because the continued use thereof would be injurious to public welfare. If the easement is intended to perpetually or indefinitely deprive the owner of his proprietary rights through the imposition of conditions that affect the ordinary use. but the owner’s loss. the value of the property at the time of the filing of the complaint on November 20. Hence. then the owner should be compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land . The deprivation of use can in fact be total and it will not constitute compensable taking if nobody else acquires use of the property or any interest therein. NAPOCOR vs. this simply means the property’s fair market value at the time of the filing of the complaint. devoting it to a public use. The . (2) True. Informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as to substantially oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.423 square meters) of their property: 1. or "that sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy. Tianco. Lourdes S. Is it to be based on the 1984 or the 1993 valuation? 2. In this case. or where property is destroyed because its continued existence would be injurious to public interest Use of the property by the owner was limited. considering that the purpose for which the property is being taken is merely for the establishment of a safe and free passage for its overhead transmission lines? Ruling: Neither of the two determinations made by the courts below is therefore correct. death upon or destruction of life and property found on the land is necessary. The entering upon private property is for more than a momentary period. and. and prosperity of the state. as well as its improvements and capabilities. 938.00 per sq m based on the fact that it paid a similar rate to the other landowners whose properties were likewise acquired by petitioner." The measure is not the taker’s gain. 1990 should be considered in determining the just compensation. create or increase the probability of injury. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings. but no aspect of the property is used by or for the public. Nonetheless.D. Bongbong Issue: Whether the procedure laid down in Rule 67 should be followed in determining just compensation Ruling: The trial court erred in the determination of just compensation at P300. The nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner. ten per cent (10%) of its market value as declared by the owner or the assessor (whichever is lower). The deprivation is with compensation Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner. free enjoyment and disposal of the property or through restrictions and limitations that are inconsistent with the exercise of the attributes of ownership. under the warrant or color of legal authority. that is. and an owner willing but not compelled to sell. Property rights of private individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort. by their nature. if there was no actual taking prior thereto. or when the introduction of structures or objects which. NAPOCOR vs.
. Thus. In this case.] Heirs of Pidacan vs. it is the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling for purposes of compensation Reason for such rule: The owner of private property should be compensated only for what he actually loses. It is as of that time that the real measure of their loss may fairly be adjudged. To peg the value of the property at the time of taking in 1948. ATO Private property converted into airport. Petitioners claim that. Note that the ATO had been using petitioners’ property as airport since 1948 without having instituted the proper expropriation proceedings. despite the exponential increase in its value considering the lapse of over half a century. the value of petitioners' property must be ascertained as of 1960 when it was actually taken. When a government agency itself violates procedural requirements. We cannot allow the ATO to conveniently invoke the right of eminent domain to take advantage of the ridiculously low value of the property at the time of taking that it arbitrarily chooses to the prejudice of petitioners. and damages. not the value at the time of the taking as the RTC and CA held. The subject property is "agricultural. justice and equity demand that the value at the time of actual payment should be the basis. And what he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it is taken. City of Surigao Property taken used as City road. it is not intended that his compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury. Nepomuceno vs. Under these circumstances. Actual taking preceeded the filing of the expropriation proceeding [years later] Issue: When should the subject property be valued for the determination of just compensation Ruling: As a rule. Maglasang Expropriation proceeding filed first before actual taking Subject properties to be used in the construction and operation of geothermal plant project. Ruling: Where actual taking is made without the benefit of expropriation proceedings and the owner seeks recovery of the possession of the property prior to the filing of expropriation proceedings. it waives the usual procedure prescribed in Rule 67. would be iniquitous." Rule 67 need not be followed where the expropriator has violated procedural requirements . however. there is no need for appointment of commissioners [who would examine and evaluate the subject property for the determination of just compensation. Respondent’s complaint is an ordinary civil action for the recovery of possession of the Property or its value. The present case is not an action for expropriation.nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner. a trial before commissioners is not necessary No expropriation proceeding was filed. The appropriate reckoning point for the valuation of petitioners’ property is when the trial court made its order of expropriation in 2001. application of the said rule would lead to grave injustice. Phil. in fixing the value of their property. Nat’l Oil Company vs. the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is reckoned from the time of taking.
3267-O. the determination of just compensation should be reckoned prior to the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation. No. 1992. as here. the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of the filing of the complaint Petitioner filed a complaint for the acquisition of an easement of right-of-way over three (3) lots belonging to respondent. in connection with the construction of its transmission lines for its Lahar Affected Transmission Line Project (Lahar Project). Whether what should be paid is the full fair market value of the property or a mere easement fee. it is liable to pay the full market value upon proper determination by the courts. Act. Petitioner is thus liable to pay respondent the full market value of the property. the date of the filing of the complaint although the plaintiff took possession of the property in 1991 due to a lease contract executed between plaintiff and defendant yet the intention to expropriate was manifested only upon the filing of the complaint NAPOCOR vs Co Where the institution of the action precedes entry into the property." applicable to actions for eminent domain filed by the Napocor pursuant to its charter (Rep. petitioner took possession of the land on January 1. 8974 should govern the expropriation of respondent's property since the Lahar Project is a national government project. as provided in Rule 67. whichever came first. According to petitioner in Civil Case No. Petitioner contends that the computation should be made as of 27 June 2001. a project for public use. site or Location for National Government Infrastructure Projects and for other purposes. Ruling: we rejected the State’s contention that a lease on a year to year basis can give rise to a permanent right to occupy. 6395. as amended) for the purpose of constructing power transmission lines on the properties subject of said actions? YES Petitioner expropriated respondent’s property for its Lahar Project. otherwise known as "An Act to Facilitate the Acquisition of Right-ofWay. on October 24. should have been reckoned from January 1. 1994. 8974 covers expropriation proceedings intended for national government infrastructure projects R. We agree.” [GENERAL RULE] . For Lot 11900. R. for purposes of computing just compensation. At the same time. When petitioner takes private property to construct transmission lines.Petitioner insists that contrary to the findings of the two courts below. Section 14 of the Implementing Rules recognizes the continued applicability of Rule 67 on procedural aspects. Where. Act No. Issues: Is Republic Act No. the owner was compensated and not deprived of the ordinary and beneficial use of his property by its being diverted to public use. No.A. Thus. 1992 when PNOC leased the same from its administrator as evidenced by a Lease Agreement for the period of January 1. Reckoning date for the determination of just compensation. 1992. The time of the taking may be reckoned in 1994. 1992 to December 31.A. No. ceases upon the day fixed. there is no taking within the constitutional sense. Construction of the transmission lines will definitely have limitations and will indefinitely deprive the owners of the land of their normal use. 8974 to supersede the system of deposit under Rule 67 with the scheme of "immediate payment" in cases involving national government infrastructure projects. 8974 (2000). taking. since by express legal provision a lease made for a determinate time. Rule 67 The value of just compensation shall "be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint. Neither can it be said that the right of eminent domain may be exercised by simply leasing the premises to be expropriated. It is the plain intent of Rep. the date when it filed the expropriation complaint. without need of a demand.
or executive order can mandate its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings. can not. or large expenditures have been made thereon upon the faith of his . Forfom vs Phil Nat’l Railways President Ferdinand E. who stands by. without objection. The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. it has waived its right and is estopped from assailing the takeover of its land on the ground that there was no case for expropriation that was commenced by PNR.Exceptions: Grave injustice to the property owner The taking did not have color of legal authority. after the road is completed. The taking of the property was not initially for expropriation The owner will be given undue increment advantages because of the expropriation. Defendant neither commenced an expropriation proceedings nor paid just compensation prior to its occupation and construction of railroad lines on the subject property. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation. It will readily be seen that the interruption of the transportation service at any point on the right of way impedes the entire service of the company and causes loss and inconvenience to all passengers and shippers using the line. if not public necessity. The primary reason for thus denying to the owner the remedies usually afforded to him against usurpers is the irremedial injury which would result to the railroad company and to the public in general. During the construction of said commuter line. Public policy. no statute. Issue: Can petitioner Forfom recover possession of its property because respondent PNR failed to file any expropriation case and to pay just compensation? Ruling: NO Plaintiff's prayer to recover the property cannot be granted. The executive department or legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. The San Pedro-Carmona Commuter Line Project was implemented with the installation of railroad facilities and appurtenances. Marcos approved the Presidential Commuter Service Project. Forfom's inaction for almost eighteen (18) years to question the absence of expropriation proceedings and its discussions with PNR as to how much petitioner shall be paid for its land preclude it from questioning the PNR's power to expropriate or the public purpose for which the power was exercised. The owner of land. Forfom accepted the fact of the taking of its land when it negotiated with PNR for just compensation. more commonly known as the Carmona Project. individuals/corporations were traversed as right-of-way. knowing fully well that there was no expropriation case filed at all. decree. several properties owned by private Forfom filed a complaint for Recovery of Posssession of Real Property and/or Damages. demands that the owner of the land be denied the ordinarily remedies of ejectment and injunction. and sees a public railroad constructed over it. In other words.
and the owner sought recovery of the possession of the property prior to the filing of expropriation proceedings. The non-filing of the case for expropriation will not necessarily lead to the return of the property to the landowner. When just compensation should be fixed. reclaim the land. or enjoin its use by the railroad company. at the time when the price is actually paid? Where actual taking was made without the benefit of expropriation proceedings. the PNR's occupation of Forfom's property for almost eighteen (18) years entitles the latter to payment of interest at the legal rate of six (6%) percent on the value of the land at the time of taking until full payment is made by the PNR . the Court has invariably ruled that it is the value of the property at the time of taking that is controlling for purposes of compensation. Is it at the time of the taking or. In such a case there can only remain to the owner a right of compensation. Admittedly. as Forfom maintains.apparent acquiescence.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.