Power of Eminent Domain
Fair exchange for what industry gets.
1. Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Jr., February 25,
2010
Lot 88; Expropriation proceedings, project improvement and expansion plan
of old Lahug Airport; not pursued; recovery of property – yes. Fail to file new
petition for part pub purpose
2. Republic vs. Lim, GR No. 161656, June 29, 2005
Expro of land, Cebu, mil reservation of Phil Army; Denzon successor Valde
Pane, expressed to claim, Rep not yet pay, recovery with damages, Title
issued, owners, but annotation, mortgage, Lim, owner of lot, quieting the
title against NAC – no. doctrine; non-payment, recover, government failed
pay JC within 5 years; recovery of right of posession
3. National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, 656 SCRA
60 (2011)
Agus Hydro Electric Power Plant Project, construct of several underground
tunnels; resp recovery of damages, the operation of project traversed their
land, without knowledge and consent, deprive them; NPC, no right to comp
mere legal easement on land was established; JC, yes. Evidence on tunnel
substantial topographic survey map; existence of tunnel traversing the entire
and whole length of property; construct of tunnel; NPC first move to acquire
land either by voluntary tender to purchase or through expropriation
proceedings. Either, NPC liable to pay for fair market value.
4. Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, 328 SCRA 137, March 14,
2000
Mandaluyong; Expansion of city hospital, buy peti land. Refused; SP
resolution Mayor, file expro case. RTC allowed; Manda took possession; in
contravention with LGC, ordinance is requisite for valid expro of property by
LGU. No. Requisites of valid exer by LGU, ordinance enacted by LLC, behalf of
LGU, exer for pub use, payment of JC, and valid and definite offer, not
accepted. Manda expro property on basis of mere reso, in contravention
with first requisite. Not VALID.
5. SMI Development Corporation v. Republic, 323 SCRA 862, Jan. 28, 2000
RP DOH National Children Hospital; complaint for eminent domain against
SMDC for purpose of expro lands. Def alleged that complaint lacked
sufficient cause of action, yes. Complaint stated cause of action for ED.
Necessity public use payment of JC alleged complaint. Use to improve
delivery of health services satisfied req of nece and pub use. RAC, Pres
determine when necessary or advantageous exer power of eminent domain,
provision not require prior unsuccessful negotiation as a condition precedent
for the exer of ED, additional requirement. In case, no such voluntary
restriction imposed.
6. PPI v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119694. May 22, 1995
Comelec space, free print space; one newspaper of gen in every prov or city;
obtained from any mag or periodic, in line with election. PPI petition, declare
Reso unconsti; taking of priv property for pub use without JC. No. –taking of
priv prop authorized; necessity of paying comp; Reso not provide consti basis
for compelling publishers, against their will, to provide free print space for
COMELEC purposes, hence, not valid.
7. TELEBAP, Inc. v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337, April 21, 1998
TELEBAP; org of lawy of radio and tv broad companies, no legal standing;
one, GMA, bring consti challenge. BP Blg. 881, requiring TV and radio to
provide free airtime to COMELEC for use of cand for campaign or other pol
purp. Takes prop without just comp. Yes. All broad, radio or tv is licensed by
govt. Airwave freq, not owned by them, merely given temp priv to use them.
Such priv, fair exchange, burden of doing some pub serv. No priv prop was
taken by requirement of COMELEC to stations.
Regulation of broadcast industry; spending of public funds, not in case of PM.
8. NPC v. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1
NPC, Mexico-Limay Transmission lines, pass lands of respondents.
Unsuccessful, file eminent domain proc. Lower court ordered pay def 10
pesos per sq. for right of way easement of affected area. NAPOCOR MR CA
erred petitioner liable for payment of full market value land, mere simple
right-of way easement transmits no right, except easement. Yes. Easement
taking under power of ED. Nature and effect of installation of transmission
lines; limitation imposed by NPC against use of land (no plant higher than 3m
allowed below lines) for an indefinite period deprives priv prop for ord use.
Entitled to JC, not be more nor less.
9. Republic v. Salem Investment Corporation, G.R. No. 137569, June 23, 2000
BP 340, expro of land of defendants, including land owned by De la Ramas.
Latter entered contract with Guerrero, G RTC speci perf, Pending, RP filed
expro, wherein land of De la Ramas part, G motion intervene De la Ramas sell
lot, SP filed by him, TC uphold validity of contract to sell, De la Ramas execute
deed of sale, G, JC deposited in court, enjoin RP paying D any amt expro
prop. Declared that G is rightful owner of the expro prop, payment of JC for
taking of land. Yes. Expropriation 2 stages: determ autho, payment of JC,
completion of 2 stages, expro completed, title of prop passes to govt. until
action of expr not been comp, ownership of prop remains with registered
owner, owner can exer all rights, dispose prop. BP did not effectively
expropriate land of D.
10. Secretary of the DPWH vs. Spouses Tecson, G.R. No. 179334. July 1, 2013
Heracleo, owners land, Malolos, taken govt, without owners consent and
necessary expro procee, construction of McArthur Highway, demanded
payment to Contreras, Engineer of peti DPWH, pay 0.70 per sq, PAC.
Unsatisfied, return of their property or payment of comp at current fair
market value. TC dismissed comp, CA reversed and remanded case to TC for
determ JC. Branch clerk of court appointed as chairman determ JC, case
referred to PAC for submission of recommend report, 1,500 per sq. JC. No.
Petitioners acted in disregard of resp prop rights; resp entitled to adequate
compen; actual and compensatory damages (6% per annum at the time of
taking until full payment) 0.70 + interest of 6%
11. Secretary of the DPWH vs. Spouses Tecson, January 2015, Resolution to
the MR
Second look, Respondent filed MR decision of 2013, payment of JC, SC
division reversed ruling of CA (1,500 +6%) and held that computation should
be based at the time the prop was taken in 1940; 0.70/sq.m. Case en banc
for resolution. Yes. Appear inequitable to receive an outdated valuation,
long-established rule, fair equivalent of prop computed not at time of
payment, but time of taking. Just compen, not to reward owner for the
property, compensate him for the loss. Maintain decision 2013 with
modification on amt of int involved/awarded, additional grant of damages
and fees.
11. Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)
PTA 4 eminent domain; expro of rolling land, Malubog/Babag Cebu, PD 564
devt into integ resort complexes for use of public/sports complex,, heirs of
ardona, not public use, no specific provision authorize taking for tourism
purposes. Tourism purposes by PTA considered pub use? Yes. Concept of pub
use not anymore traditional, public use, limited “use by pub” discarded. PTA,
devt of 808 hec expro, plans give Heirs et al, productive employment,
income, water and elec facilities and better living standard, right of PTA to
expro fit for resort to promote tourism, sustained.
12. EPZA (now PEZA) vs. Pulido, 656 SCRA 315 (2011)
Three parcels of irrigated riceland situated in Rosario, Cavite; lot 1406, 1408
and 1409 B-2, pendency, 1406 was subdivided into A and B. reconsidered, A
was released from expro. Petitioner and Estate of Salud, entered compro
agreement, petitioner failed to transfer title of Lot 434, Motion to partially
annul the order return lot B. Petitioner, JC, 41K, equivalent of the zonal
valuation in 1981, Estate maintain that JC based on the value of prop in 1993
when parties entered into Comp agreement. 1993, court upheld annulment
of Compro Agreement, mode of payment was cancelled. Court mentioned
nothing about the invalidation of the amt of JC corres to the mode of
payment silence court acknowledged parties understood and accept,
2,600/sq.m correct JC; entitled to 12% interest per annum, petitioner solely
responsible for the delay. Estate was compelled to seek rescission of the
CAgr, which prolong more the delay in payment of JC. CA’s legal int of 6%
should be corrected, 12%, for long delay of payment.
13. The Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land Incorporated, G.R. No.
177056, September 18, 2009
Respondent, operators of shopping mall that have parking facilities, Senate
Committee on trade and on justice conducted joint inves re legality of
parking fees; basis and reasonableness. Concluded contrary to NBC; interp of
code; spaces are for free; recommended OSG to enjoin collec of parking fee;
NBC has ‘expro’ land for parking.
b. Taxation
i. Requisites for valid exercise
POWER OF TAXATION
It is the inherent power of the state to raise revenues to defray the
expenses of the government or for any public purpose. This can be done
through the imposition of burdens or imposition on persons, properties,
services, occupations or transactions.
The importance of taxation derives from the unavoidable obligation of
the government to protect the people and extend them benefits in the form
of public projects and services. Taxation is based on necessity and the
reciprocal duties of protection and support between the state and those that
are subject to its authority.
Who may exercise the power of taxation?
It is the Congress who exercises the plenary power to tax. However, it may
be delegated by congress to local government units under such terms and
conditions as may prescribed by law.
The following are the requisites or limitations on the power to tax:
1. Public purpose;
2. Territoriality;
3. Uniformity;
4. Due process and equal protection clause;
5. Constitutionally exempt properties cannot be taxed;
6. In the assessment and collection of certain kinds of taxes, notice and
opportunity for hearing must be provided.
2. THE BILL OF RIGHTS
a. (1) Due process – Right to life, liberty and property
i. Doctrine of Relative Constitutionality
1. Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. vs. Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas, 446 SCRA 299 (2004)
ii. Hierarchy of rights
1. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Philippine
Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189 (1973)
iii. Property right
1. Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534 (2004)
iv. Constitutional vs. Statutory Due Process
1. Agabon vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004
v. Aspects of due process
1. Substantive due process - prohibition against arbitrary laws.
a. Requisites
1. The INTERESTS of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, requires the interference by the government and
2. The MEANS employed are necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
b. Void-for-vagueness Doctrine, Overbreadth Doctrine and facial challenges
1. When it lacks COMPREHENSIBLE STANDARDS
2. That men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily GUESS as to its meaning
3. And differ as to its application
i. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148560, November 19, 2001
2. Procedural due process - refers to the mode of procedure which
government agencies must follow in the enforcement and application of
laws.
a. Requisites
Requisites of PROCEDURAL due process:
For JUDICIAL proceedings: CODE: C J N O H
1. A court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the
matter before it.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant
or over the property which is the subject of the proceedings.
3. The defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
4. Judgment must be rendered upon a lawful hearing.
For ADMINISTRATIVE proceedings: CODE: H E D S H I P
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and
submit evidence in support thereof.
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
3. The decision must have something to support itself.
4. Evidence supporting the conclusion must be substantial.
5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing or
at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its
decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved and the reasons for the decision rendered.
b. Fabella vs. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 256 (1997)
Fabella v. CA – public school teachers striking – DUE PROCESS IN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS –
Requisites: 1) actual or constructive notice of the institution of the
proceedings which may affect one’s legal rights;
2) Real opportunity to be heard personally or with counsel;
3) To present witnesses and evidence is one’s favor and to defend his rights;
4) tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction – reasonable guarantee of
honesty and impartiality;
5) Finding is supported by substantial evidence – Contained and made known
to the parties
vi. Standards of judicial review
1. White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila, GR No. 122846, January 20, 2009\
A law which hears before it condemns. Due process of law contemplates
notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered affecting
one’s person or property (Lopez v. Dir. of Lands)
Due process depends on circumstances; it varies with the subject matter and
the necessities of the situation.
Note: What is required is not actual hearing, but a real opportunity to be
heard.
The requirement of due process can be satisfied by subsequent due hearing.
Violation of due process: when same person reviews his own decision on
appeal.
Notice and hearing are required in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, but
not in the promulgation of general rule.