EMINENT DOMAIN

Definition: Inherent right of the State to condemn private property to public use upon payment of just
compensation.
Judicial Term: Power of Expropriation

Basis of Eminent Domain: Regalian Doctrine, the State is the owner of all properties within the territory

American Print Facts:

Works v. 1. It was alleged that Lawrence with force and arms did blow up by gunpowder, burn and
Cornelius destroy divers goods, wares and merchandises of American Print Works. American Print
Lawrence Works brought the matter before the court to ask for damages
2. Legislature passed an act which aimed to regulate the destruction buildings, whenever such
destruction should become necessary, to prevent the spread of conflagration in New York
City, and to save other buildings and property from taking fire and being consumed by it.

Held: Basis of absolving Lawrence from liability: Self-Preservation or Law of Necessity

The destruction of property does no come under the right of eminent domain, but
under the right of necessity, or self-preservation.
That any individual, in a case of actual necessity, to prevent the spreading of a fire,
may lawfully destroy the private property of any one for the safety or protection of
the many, without subjecting himself to personal responsibility for the damages
which the owner has sustained
The defendant acted as a public officer in the lawful discharge of his duty in blowing
up the buildings; and if in doing this, he has unintentionally and necessarily injured
the plaintiffs by the destruction of their goods in the building so lawfully destroyed,
he is not answerable therefor.
that the act of destruction of the building being lawful, all the incidents necessarily
resulting therefrom are also lawful, and that the defendant cannot be held
responsible for the consequences necessarily and unavoidably resulting from a
lawful act.

Kohl v. United Facts:

States 1. This was a proceeding instituted by the United States to appropriate a parcel of land in the
city of Cincinnati as a site for a post-office and other public uses.
2. There are three acts of Congress which have reference to the acquisition of a site for a post-
office in Cincinnati.

Held:
It is necessary for the government to be able to seize property for its uses, such as creating
infrastructure, which ultimately are determined by the legislature and not the judiciary. This
essentially gives the government ultimate ownership over all property, because it is not viable
for the government to hold out against the obstinance of private individuals to appropriate
land for government uses.
This power of eminent domain is not only a privilege of the federal, but also state
governments. While the petitioners protest that no act of the United States Congress was used
to determine the details of the acquisition, the Court ruled such legislation appropriate but
 unnecessary; it did not prevent the right to acquire land from being vested in the United States
Secretary of the Treasury.

Lorio v. Sea Isle 1. Sea Isle City erected a sand dune barrier along a fivemile strip of ocean front land after a
City storm. This dune was erected over plaintiffs' lands without the institution of condemnation
proceedings
2. Plaintiffs seek to compel the City to institute condemnation proceedings and demand to be
compensated
3. City contends that the placement of dune did not constitute a taking but rather a
regulation under police power for the storm created a condition of imminent peril
necessitating emergency protective measures.

Held:

The imminent peril in this case occurred prior to the storm not after. At the time the dune
was erected the necessity was no longer "immediate" or "imperative."
The dune has been occupying their land and there is little likelihood of its removal in the
immediate future. Plaintiffs have been denied all us of their property.
Consequently, the dune represents an appropriation to public use rather than a "regulation"
under the police power. As such, Sea Isle City must institute condemnation proceedings
and plaintiffs must be compensated

Constitutional Limitation of Eminent Domain:

Sec 9, Art III of the Constitution: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation; against arbitrary exercise of governmental powers to the detriment of individual rights

What is the Attitude of the Court towards Eminent Domain:

Court is duty bound to determine the amount of just compensation to be paid for the property
Determine the issue of ownership of the land sought to be condemned and to determine who is
entitled to be indemnified by the expropriation
Must be strictly construed against the expropriator and liberally in favor of the property owner

Elements of Eminent Domain

1. Necessity
2. Private Property
3. Taking in the constitutional sense
4. Public Use
5. Just Compensation

Who exercise this power

1. Congress,
2. the president,
3. various local legislative bodies
4. certain public corporations
5. quasi public corporations

What are the two stages of expropriation proceedings?

1. Authority/Necessity
2. Just Compensation
 Municipality of 1. Pursuant to a resolution passed by the Sangguniang Bayan, Municipality filed a complaint
Paranaque v. for expropriation against VM Realty over 2 parcels of land for the purpose of alleviating the
VM. Realty Corp living conditions of the underprivileged by providing homes for the homeless through a
socialized housing project
2. Complaint was filed pursuant to a resolution and not to an ordinance as required by the
Local Government Code

Held: Sec 19 of RA 7160 lays down the parameter of the exercise.

A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an
ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare
for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant
to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws.
Resolution and ordinance are also different:
An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion
of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general and
permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two are
enacted differently a third reading is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a
resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members. If the
legislature intended for it to be a resolution, they could have easily done so.
the power of eminent domain delegated to an LGU is in reality not eminent but "inferior"
domain, since it must conform to the limits imposed by the delegation, and thus partakes
only of a share in eminent domain.

NECESSITY OF TAKING
- reasonableness or soundness of the taking
Essentially political when decided by the national legislature and are not usually subjected to
judicial review. Such matters may only be decided by the national legislature alone in its own
discretion
If delegated, the judiciary has assumed power to inquire into whether the authority conferred
upon such delegate has been correctly exercised. Wisdom not transferrable to the delegate

City of Manila v. 1. City of Manila prayed that certain lands be expropriated for the purpose of constructing a
Chinese public improvement.
Community of 2. Chinese Community of Manila assailed that it was either necessary or expedient that the
Manila parcels of land be expropriated for street purposes for there were other roads available. The
land was a cemetery which had been used for so many years

Held:
If the legislature under proper authority should grant the expropriation, courts would be
without jurisdiction to inquire into the purpose of that legislation
If Legislature should grant general authority to a municipal corporation to expropriate
private land for public purposes, the courts have ample jurisdiction to make inquiry and
to hear proof concerning whether or not the lands were private and whether the purpose
was in fact public
The right of expropriation is not an inherent power in a municipal corporation, and before
it can exercise the right some law must exist conferring the power upon it
The city of Manila can only expropriate private property, not properties who are already
used for public purpose
Record contains no proof of the necessity of opening the street through the cemetery
The taking of private property for any use which is not required by the necessities or
convenience of the inhabitants of the state, is an unreasonable exercise of the right of
 eminent domain, and beyond the power of the legislature to delegate.

What kind of property may be subject to expropriation?

All private property capable of ownership may be expropriated except money and choses in action. Even
services may be subject to eminent domain.

Assoc of Small 1. These are four consolidated cases questioning the constitutionality of the Comprehensive
Land Owners v. Agrarian Reform Act
Sec of DAR 2. The Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. sought exception from the
land distribution scheme provided for in R.A. 6657.
3. They invoke that since their landholdings are less than 7 hectares, they should not be forced
to distribute their land to their tenants under R.A. 6657 for they themselves have shown
willingness to till their own land.

Held: EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN, NOT POLICE POWER

Property condemned under the police power is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose.
The confiscation of such property is not compensable, unlike the taking of property under the
power of expropriation, which requires the payment of just compensation to the owner.
Measures in question prescribe retention limits for landowners, which is an exercise of
the police power for the regulation of private property
But where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners
of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is
definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just
compensation is imperative.
The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required
is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial
rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-beneficiary.

What kind of property cannot be expropriated?

All property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate of legislature acting under
a general grant of authority

RP vs. PLDT 1. PLDT entered into an agreement with RCA Communications Inc., whereby telephone
messages coming from the US and received by RCAs domestic station, could automatically
be transferred to the lines of PLDT, and vice versa.
2. Plaintiff, after having set up its own Government Telephone System, by utilizing its own
appropriation and equipment and by renting trunk lines of the PLDT, entered into an
agreement with RCA for a joint overseas telephone service.
3. PLDT notified the former and receiving no reply, disconnected the trunk lines being rented
by the same; thus, prompting the plaintiff to file a case praying for judgment commanding
PLDT to execute a contract with the Bureau for the use of the facilities of PLDTs telephone
system, and for a writ of preliminary injunction against the defendant to restrain the severance
of the existing trunk lines and restore those severed.

Held:

Yes, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, the Republic may require
the telephone company to permit interconnection as the needs of the government service
 may require, subject to the payment of just compensation. The use of lines and services to
allow inter-service connection between the both telephone systems, through expropriation
can be a subject to an easement of right of way.
If, under section 6, Article XIII, of the Constitution, the State may, in the interest of
national welfare, transfer utilities to public ownership upon payment of just compensation,
there is no reason why the State may not require a public utility to render services in the
general interest, provided just compensation is paid therefor. Ultimately, the beneficiary of
the interconnecting service would be the users of both telephone systems, so that the
condemnation would be for public use
PLDT vs. 1. ETCI obtained from Congress Republic Act No. 2090 a franchise to establish radio stations
National for domestic and transoceanic telecommunications.
Telecommunicat 2.ETCI filed an application for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and
ions Commission necessity to operate, etc. a Cellular Mobile Telephone System xxx
3. NTC granted ETCI provisional authority to install, operate, and maintain a cellular mobile
telephone service initially in Metro Manila subject to the terms and conditions set forth in its
order, including an interconnection agreement to be entered with PLDT.

Held:

NTC merely exercised ts delegated authority

What interconnection seeks to accomplish is to enable the system to reach out to the greatest
number of people possible in line with governmental policies. With the broader reach, public
interest and convenience will be better served. Public need, public interest, and the common
good are the decisive, if not the ultimate, considerations. To these public and national
interests, public utility companies must yield.
The PLDT cannot justifiably refuse to interconnect. The interconnection which has been
required of PLDT is a form of intervention with property rights dictated by the
encompassing objective for the common good.
The NTC, as the regulatory agency of the State, merely exercised its delegated authority to
regulate the use of telecommunications networks when it decreed interconnection.

PUBLIC USE - modern and old definitions provided in the doctrine of the cases
Fermin Manapat 1. This is a consolidated case of expropriation proceedings filed by the NHA. RCAM allowed
vs. CA a number of individuals to occupy the Grace Park Property on condition that they would
vacate the premises should the former push through with the plan to construct a school in the
area which did not materialize
2. Tenants could not afford the proposed price, so they petitioned for the acquisition of the
said property. Govt pushed through with the expropriation but was discontinued due to high
asking price of RCAM and budgetary constraints of RCAM
3. PD 1072 was issued appropriating 1.2M for the expropriation of Grace Park

Held:
Zonal Improvement Program is an integral part of the socialized housing program, deemed
compliant with with the public use requirement, it being a program devoted to a public purpes.
Housing is a basic human need etc gets niyo na yan kapag walang bahay di makakagawa ng
family at walang paglalagyan ng family at walang kwarto kung saan pwede gumawa ng
babies hahaha
That the public use requisite for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a
flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. At present, it may not be
amiss to state that whatever is beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the
requirement of public use
 the argument of Petitioner that the lots they own should not be expropriated because they
are very small in area, being already the subdivided portions of the original Grace Park
subdivision is untenable.
That the area of the land to be expropriated is never a factor to limit the exercise of the
power of eminent domain as well as to reduce its public use, so long as it inures to the benefit
and advantage of the public
GUIDO vs. Rural 1. Petition for prohibition to prevent Rural Progress Administration from proceeding with
Progress expropriation of Guidos land
Administration 2. It was contended land sought to be expropriated is commercial and therefore excluded
within the purview of Act 539 which gives the President the authority to acquire private lands
through purchaser or farms for resale
3. Sec 4, Art. XIII of the Constitution: The Congress may authorize, upon payment of just
compensation, the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at
cost to individuals.

Held:

The size of the land expropriated, the large number of people benefited, and the extent of
social and economic reform secured by the condemnation, clothes the expropriation with
public interest and public use.
the destruction of congested areas and insanitary dwellings diminishes the potentialities
of epidemic, crime and waste, prevents the spread of crime and diseases to unaffected
areas, enhances the physical and moral value of the surrounding communities, and
promotes the safety and welfare of the public in general
The condemnation of a small property in behalf of 10, 20 or 50 persons and their families
does not inure to the benefit of the public to a degree sufficient to give the use public
character.
The expropriation proceedings at bar have been instituted for the economic relief of a few
families devoid of any consideration of public health, public peace and order, or other
public advantage. What is proposed to be done is to take plaintiff's property, which for all
we know she acquired by sweat and sacrifice for her and her family's security, and sell it
at cost to a few lessees who refuse to pay the stipulated rent or leave the premises.
If upheld, this case would open the gates to more oppressive expropriations. If this
expropriation be constitutional, we see no reason why a 10-, 15-, or 25-hectare farm land
might not be expropriated and subdivided, and sold to those who want to own a portion
of it.
CITY OF 1. Section 1 of RA 267 empowers cities to purchase but not to expropriate lands for the
MANILA v. purpose of subdivision and resale, and so dismissed the present action, which seeks to
ARELLANO condemn, for the purpose just stated, several parcels of land situated on Legarda Street, City
of Manila

Held:
We are inclined to believe that Act No. 267 empowers cities to expropriate as well as
to purchase lands for homesites.
To authorize the condemnation of any particular land by a grantee of the power of eminent
domain, a necessity must exist for the taking thereof for the proposed uses and purposes
Modern view of necessity- 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 property owner consistent with such
benefits.
Necessity for the condemnation has not been shown in this case. The land in question has
 cost the owner P140,000. The people for whose benefit the condemnation is being undertaken
are so poor they could ill afford to meet this high price, unless they intend to borrow the
money with a view to disposing of the property later for a profits.
And again, while a handful of people stand to profits by the expropriation, the
development of a university that has a present enrollment of 9,000 students would be
sacrificed. Any good that would accrue to the public from providing homes to a few families
fades into insignificance in comparison with the preparation of a young men and young
women for useful citizenship and for service to the government and the community, a task
which the government alone is not in a position to undertake
Province of 1. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129,
Camarines Sur v. Series of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property
CA contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and
non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees
2. the dismissal of the complaints for expropriation on the ground of the inadequacy of the
compensation offered for the property

Held:

Modernly, there has been a shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of "public
purpose" or "public use" for which the power of eminent domain may be exercised. The
old concept was that the condemned property must actually be used by the general public
(e.g. roads, bridges, public plazas, etc.) before the taking thereof could satisfy the
constitutional requirement of "public use".
Under the new concept, "public use" means public advantage, convenience or benefit,
which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole
community, like a resort complex for tourists or housing project
The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned resolution is for a
public purpose.
The establishment of a pilot development center would inure to the direct benefit and
advantage of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once operational, the center
would make available to the community invaluable information and technology on
agriculture, fishery and the cottage industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of the farmers,
fishermen and craftsmen would be enhanced. The housing project also satisfies the public
purpose requirement of the Constitution.

TAKING
-Imports a physical dispossession of the owner, as when he is ousted from his land or relieved of his
watch or his car and is thus deprived of all beneficial use and enjoyment of his property.
-When the title is transferred to the Republic.

RP vs. PLDT is this considered as taking?

Yes. Services were considered embraced in the concept of property subject to taking under the power of
eminent domain. The beneficiary of interconnecting service would be the users of both telephone systems,
so that the condemnation would be for public use. (Cruz, p.138)
What is material impairment?

5 Elements of Taking
1. The expropriator must enter a private property
2. The entry must be for more than a monetary period
3. The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
 4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected
5. The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property

When does an Expropriator considered to have entered the property?

-Owner is deprived of the normal use and enjoyment of property

It is necessary that the owner be physically ousted to constitute taking?

-No. Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material impairment of the value
of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was intended.

US v. CAUSBY 1. Government planes fly over private property at such a low altitude as o practically touch
(book) the tops of the trees

Held:
There would be an intrusion into the superjacent rights of the owner as to entitle him to
payment of just compensation although again there is no divestiture of title.
(No expropriation means no issue of taking)

Taking in relation to Police Power

-Not every taking is compensable, as it may be justified under the police power.
-In cases of valid exercise of police power aimed at improving the general welfare, and whatever damages
are sustained are regarded as merely incidental to a proper exertion of such power. *altruistic feeling
chovalu*

Pennsylvania 1. Pennsylvania granted Mahon the surface of rights of a parcel of land but retained the
Coal Co v. mining rights to the land. Mahon waived all claim for damages resulting from mining below
Mahon the property
2. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed the Kohler Act which forbids the mining of
anthracite coal and provided notice to Mahon that it planted to mine for coal under the latters
habitation
3. Mahon brought suit to prevent the coal company from mining invoking the statute

Held:
The Kohler Act as applied to the property in question constitutes an exercise of eminent
domain, requiring compensation.
The damage done by the activity prohibited by the act is a private, not a public nuisance;
there is no public safety justification for the statute, as notice before mining would suffice to
protect public safety
The statute makes prohibitively expensive the mining of coal in these areas, and thereby
effectively destroys the right, after all owning coal is not worth anything if the coal cannot be
mined. The rights of the public to its streets and other property are rights paid for. If the
representatives of the public have been so shortsighted as not to pay for the mining rights of
the land as well, there is no authority to grant those rights without compensation.

Easement- A right of use over the property of another.

Richards v. 1. An exhaust fan installed in a tunnel to clear it of smoke after the passage of trains through
 Washington it blew most of the smoke directly into the house of the petitioner which sustained more than
Terminal the damage incurred by the other houses in the vicinity

Held:
There was as to Richards a taking under the power of eminent domain for which he was
entitled to just compensation

JUST COMPENSATION
-Full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private owner by the expropriator. Indemnify the
owner fully for the loss he has sustained as a result of the expropriation.
-Measure: not the takers gain but the owners loss.

The court should first determine the actual value of the property.
Entire property not expropriated- owners consequential damages added to the basic value after
deducting the consequential benefits (BASIC VALUE + DAMAGES BENEFITS)
o If benefits exceed damages, these items should be disregarded altogether as the basic
value of the property should be paid in every case
o
What is fair market value of the property?
-Price that may be agreed upon the parties willing but not compelled to enter into a contract of sale.
-Cost of acquisition, current value of like properties, size, shape, location and tax declarations are some of
the factors to consider in arriving at the fair market value of the property

-Just compensation simply means the propertys fair market value at the time of the filing of the
complaint, or the sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing
but not compelled to sell, would agree on as price to be given and received therefor.

Who determines just compensation?

-The determination of just compensation is clearly a judicial function. Any determination made by any
administrative body would be at best preliminary and should not be conclusive.

City of Baguio v. 1. Plaintiff a municipal corporation filed a complaint against defendant a public corporation,
NAWASA created under Act.1383. It contends that the said act does not include within its purview the
Baguio Water Works system, assuming that it does, is unconstitutional because it deprives
the plaintiff ownership, control and operation of said water works without just
compensation and due process of law.
2. It was contended that RA 1383 constitutes a valid exercise of police power rather than a
directive to expropriate the waterworks by the exercise of eminent domain

Held: Cannot be expropriated without just compensation.

R.A. 1383 does not constitute a valid exercise of police power. The act does not confiscate,
destroy or appropriate property belonging to a municipal corporation.
It merely directs that all water works belonging to cities, municipalities and municipal
districts in the Philippines to be transferred to the NAWASA. The purpose is placing
them under the control and supervision of an agency with a view to promoting their
efficient management, but in so doing does not confiscate them because it directs that
they be paid with equal value of the assets of NAWASA.
The Baguio water works system is not like a public road, the park, street other public
property held in trust by a municipal corporation for the benefit of the public. But it is a
property of a municipal corporation, water works cannot be taken away except for
 public use and upon payment of just compensation.

ASSOC of Small Held:

Land Owners Traditional medium for payment is money and no other
However, this a revolutionary kind of expropriation for it affects all private agricultural
lands wherever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum
retention limits allowed.
Such a program will involve not mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous
Framers were aware of the financial limitations of the govt and that there would be not
enough money to pay in case and in full for the lands they wanted to distribute to the
farmers.
if everything is in cash, then the government will not have sufficient money hence, bonds,
and other securities, i.e., shares of stocks, may be used for just compensation.

At which particular times is the property assessed?

-As of the time of the taking which usually coincides with the commencement of the expropriation
proceedings

Between the taking and commencement of the expropriation proceeding, which will be the basis of
the time when the property will be assessed?
-Where entry precedes the filing of the complaint, the assessment should be made as of the time of the
entry.
-Where the institution of the action precedes entry, the just compensation is to be ascertained as of the
time of the filing of the complaint.

J.M Tuazon Co 1. RA 2616 took effect without executive approval providing that the expropriation of Tatalon
v. Land Tenure Estate is hereby authorized. Respondent was directed by Executive Secretary to institute the
Administration expropriation proceedings
2. The SC is called upon to inquire how far the power of the Congress is under the constitution
to authorize upon payment of JC, the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots
and conveyed at cost to individuals
Held:
There should be no fear that the constitutional grant of power to expropriate lands is
limitless. There is to be just compensation. This means the equivalent for the value of the
property at its taking. The market value of the land taken is just compensation to which the
owner of the condemned property is entitled.

Republic of the 1. Property was enhanced because of the improvements introduced by the government during
PH vs. Castelvi the period it was in possession thereof under the contract of lease
2. Government argued that it should be assessed at the time of commencement of lease in
1947 to exclude the improvements

Held:
 5 requisites of taking were present. Therefore, taking of property for purposes of
eminent domain cannot be considered to have taken place in 1947 when Republic
commenced to occupy the property as lessee.
The property was taken only when the expropriation proceedings were commenced
in 1959, and it was as of that year that the just compensation was ascertained.
Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, 16 the "just compensation" is to be
determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint. This Court has ruled that
when the taking of the property sought to be expropriated coincides with the
commencement of the expropriation proceedings, or takes place subsequent to the
filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just compensation should be
determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.
EPZA v. Dulay 1. Proclamation No. 1811L: reserving a public land situated in the City of Lapu-Lapu, Cebu
for the establishment of an export processing zone by petitioner Export Processing Zone
Authority (EPZA). San Antonio claimed that the lands were expropriated wtihout them
reaching the agreement as to the compensation
2. Judge Dulay issued an order for the appointment of the commissioners to determine just
compensation
3. PD 1533, basis of just compensation shall be fair and according to the fair market value
declared by the owner of the propert sought to be expropriated, or by the assessor whichever
is lower.

Held:
The method of ascertaining just compensation constitutes impermissible encroachment to
judicial prerogatives. It tends to render the courts inutile in a matter in which under the
Constitution is reserved to it for financial determination.
The executive department or legislature may make the initial determination but when a
party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that the private party may
not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree etc. can mandate
that its own determination shall prevail over the court's findings.