Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • (CONSTI 2) Power of Eminent Domain

    Uploaded by

    Abigael Severino
    29 views3 pages
    The City of Manila sought to expropriate land belonging to the Chinese Community of Manila to extend Rizal Avenue. The lower court denied the expropriation, finding no necessity. The issue on appeal was whether courts can inquire into the necessity of expropriation by a municipality. The Supreme Court held that while the legislature can grant municipalities the general power of eminent domain, courts can inquire whether a particular exercise of that power complies with the law. Specifically, courts can determine if the land is private and if the purpose is public. Since necessity was disputed in this case, the record did not conclusively establish it, so the expropriation was not properly exercised according to the law.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    [CONSTI 2] Power of Eminent Domain

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The City of Manila sought to expropriate land belonging to the Chinese Community of Manila to extend Rizal Avenue. The lower court denied the expropriation, finding no necessity. The issue on appeal was whether courts can inquire into the necessity of expropriation by a municipality. The Supreme Court held that while the legislature can grant municipalities the general power of eminent domain, courts can inquire whether a particular exercise of that power complies with the law. Specifically, courts can determine if the land is private and if the purpose is public. Since necessity was disputed in this case, the record did not conclusively establish it, so the expropriation was not properly exercised according to the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    29 views3 pages

    (CONSTI 2) Power of Eminent Domain

    Uploaded by

    Abigael Severino
    The City of Manila sought to expropriate land belonging to the Chinese Community of Manila to extend Rizal Avenue. The lower court denied the expropriation, finding no necessity. The issue on appeal was whether courts can inquire into the necessity of expropriation by a municipality. The Supreme Court held that while the legislature can grant municipalities the general power of eminent domain, courts can inquire whether a particular exercise of that power complies with the law. Specifically, courts can determine if the land is private and if the purpose is public. Since necessity was disputed in this case, the record did not conclusively establish it, so the expropriation was not properly exercised according to the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    CITY OF MANILA VS.

    CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA


    [G.R. No. 14355, October 31, 1919]

    FACTS:
    The plaintiff prayed that certain lands be expropriated for the purpose of constructing a public
    improvement into an extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila which is necessary for the plaintiff to
    exercise in fee simple of certain parcels of land. The defendant on the other hand, contends
    that the expropriation was not necessary as a public improvement and that the plaintiff has no
    right to expropriate the said cemetery or any part or portion thereof for street purposes. The
    lower court declared that there was no necessity for the said expropriation. Hence, this appeal.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Courts can inquire into the necessity of expropriation of delegate, such as
    the City of Manila?

    HELD:
    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 general power to exercise the right of eminent domain must not be confused with the right
    to exercise it in a particular case. The power of the legislature to confer, upon municipal
    corporations and other entities within the State, general authority to exercise the right of
    eminent domain cannot be questioned by courts, but the general authority of municipalities or
    entities must not be confused with the right to exercise it in particular instances. The moment
    the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must
    comply with the conditions accompanying the authority. The necessity for conferring the
    authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly
    within the power of the legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is
    exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority,
    is a question which the courts have the right to inquire into.

    When the courts come to determine the question, they must only find (a) that a law or
    authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain, but (b) also that the right or
    authority is being exercised in accordance with the law. In the present case there are two
    conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to the City of Manila: First, the land must be
    private; and, second, the purpose must be public. The authority of the city of Manila to
    expropriate private lands for public purposes, is not denied as provided in its Charter. However,
    if the court, upon trial, finds that neither of these conditions exists or that either one of them
    fails, certainly it cannot be contended that the right is being exercised in accordance with law.
    In the instant case, the record does not show conclusively that the plaintiff has definitely
    decided that there exists a necessity for expropriation.
    REPUBLIC VS. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO.
    [G.R. No. L-18841, January 27, 1969]

    PEOPLE VS. FAJARDO


    [G.R. No. L-12172, August 29, 1958]

    REPUBLIC VS. VDA. DE CASTELLVI


    [G.R. No. L-20620, August 15, 1974]

    Amigable vs. Cuenca


    [G.R. No. L-26400, February 29, 1972]

    Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC


    [G.R. No. 119694, May 22, 1995]

    Sumulong vs. Guerrero


    [G.R. No. L-48685, September 30, 1987]

    Manosca vs. Court of Appeals


    [G.R. No. 106440. January 29, 1996.]

    EPZA vs. Dulay


    [G.R. No. L-59603, April 29, 1987]

    Municipality of Parañaque vs. V.M. Realty Corp.


    [G.R. No. 127820, July 20, 1998]

    Republic vs. Lim


    [G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005]

    You might also like