CAMARINES SUR v.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993

Facts: The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed a resolution
authorizing the Provincial Governor to expropriate property near its capitol in order to establish a
pilot farm and develop a housing project for provincial government employees. The Governor
then issued two separate cases of expropriation against the San Joaquin’s wherein it they later
moved for dismissal for the compensation was unjustifiable. The lower court later take
possession of the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court. The San Joaquins filed a
motion for relief from the order, authorizing the Petitioner to take possession of their property
and a motion to admit an amended motion to dismiss but both motions were denied. The San
Joaquin’s, petitioned to the Court of Appeals wherein the province later answered that it has the
authority to initiate expropriation proceedings under the Local Government Code and that the
expropriations are for public purpose. The Solicitor General later explained that the province
need not to take permission from the President for it is an exercise of the right of eminent
domain. However, the Solicitor General stated, the province needs to gain the approval of the
Department of Agrarian Reform for its plans to expropriate the lands for the use of a housing
project. The Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the lower court and held that the
province needed to submit the requisite approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform for
transforming the agricultural lots into a non-agricultural one. Hence, this case.
Issue: WON the resolution passed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of
Camarines Sur is valid and it is for public purpose or public use?
Held: The Supreme Court granted the petition of the province. The resolution is valid and it is for
public use. Before the terms “public use” and “public purpose” were referred to as property
condemned that must be actually used by the general public, examples are bridges, roads and
parks. Under the new concept wherein it broadens the definition of “public use” and “public
purpose”, it now means public convenience, advantage or benefit, which contributes to the
general welfare and prosperity of the whole community, like a resort complex for tourists or a
housing project. Therefore, the province need not to take permission from the Department of
Agrarian Reform.