You are on page 1of 6

Article III Section 9 Eminent Domain: Definition, Nature 1. Bardillon v.

BarangauMasili An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be filed with the regional trial courts. It does not involve the recovery of a sum of money. Rather, it deals with the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take property for public use. It should be stressed that the primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking of private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of the government entity, the necessity of the expropriation and the observance of due process. The RTC has the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for it. 2. Estate of JBL Reyes v. City of Manila The issue is whether or not the City of Manila deprived petitioners of their property without due process of law which in turn depends on whether or not the City complied with the legal requirements for expropriation. It must be emphasized that the State has a paramount interest in exercising its power of eminent domain for the general good considering that the right of the State to expropriate private property as long as it is for public use always takes precedence over the interest of private property owners. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that the individual rights affected by the exercise of such right are also entitled to protection. The exercise of this right cannot override the guarantee of due process extended by the law to owners of the property to be expropriated. Note: Municipal Property (see case book) Elements of Taking 3. Republic v. Vda. De Castellvi Requirements for taking are enumerated as follows: (a) the expropriator must enter a private property (b) the entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period (c) the entry should be under warrant or color of legal authority (d) the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected (e) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property 4. City Government v. Judge Ericta This is a petition for review seeking the reversal of the decision declaring Section 9 null and void. The power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit or to confiscate. The ordinance in question not only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a memorial

park cemetery. Police power is usually exercised in the form of mere regulation or restriction in the use of liberty or property for the promotion of general welfare. It does not involve the taking or confiscation of property with the exception of a few cases where there is a necessity to confiscate private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting the peace and order and of promoting the general welfare. 5. U.S. v. Causby The issue is whether respondents property was taken by frequent and regular flights of army and navy aircraft over respondents land at low altitudes. It is the owners loss, not the takers gain which is the measure of the value of the property taken. Though, it would only be an easement of flight which was taken, that easement, if permanent and not merely temporary normally would be equivalent of a fee interest. It would be a definite exercise of complete dominion and control over the surface of the land. The court stated that an owner is entitled to the absolute and undisturbed possession of every part of his premises, including the space above, as much as a mine beneath. The reason is that there would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the owners full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it. Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land. 6. People v. Fajardo 7. Republc v. PLDT While the Republic may not compel PLDT to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnectedness of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation, to be determined by the court. 8. NPC v. Jocson Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the petitioner has the right to take or enter the possession of the property involved upon compliance with PD 42 which requires, after due notice to the defendant, to deposit with the PNB an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation. Notice to the parties is not indispensable. Of course there is nothing in the statute which denies the right of the judge to hear all persons claiming an interest in the land. Failure to hear shall in no wise affect the validity of the order. 9. Didipidio Earth Savers v. Secretary Where a property interest is merely restricted because the continued use thereof would be injurious to public welfare or where property is destroyed because its continued

existence would ne injurious to public interest, there is no compensable taking. When a property interest is appropriated and applied to some public purpose, there is compensable taking. Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material impairment of value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was intended such as the establishment of an easement. That public use in negated by the fact that the state would be taking private properties for the benefit of private mining firms or mining contractors is not at all true. The rule of deference to legislative policy even if such policy might mean taking from one private person and conferring on another private person applies as well in the Philippines. 10. Bennis v. Michigan 11. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NYC The case involves the Landmarks law and the issue of taking. The government may execute laws or programs that adversely affect recognized economic values without its action constituting as taking and, in instances such as zoning laws where a state tribunal has reasonably concluded that the health, safety, morals or general welfare would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land, this Court has upheld land use regulations that destroyed or adversely affected real property interests. In many instances use restrictions that served a substantial public purpose have been upheld against taking challenges though a statute that substantially furthers important public policies may so frustrate distinct investment-backed expectations as to constitute as taking. Public Use 12. Sumulong v. Guerrero Socialized Housing As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. It is accurate to state that at the present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. Housing is a basic human need. The public character of housing measures does not change because units in housing projects cannot be occupied by all but only by those who satisfy prescribed qualifications. The court is satisfied that socialized housing falls within the confines of public use. 13. Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals Extent of power of eminent domain of local government In delegating the power to expropriate, the legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by local governments. While such

delegated power may be a limited authority, it is complete within its limits. Moreover, the limitations on the exercise of delegated power must be clearly expressed, either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations. Statutes conferring the power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be broadened or constricted by implication. 14. Masikip v. City of Pasig The right to take private property for public purpose necessarily originates from the necessity and the taking must be limited to such necessity. The very foundation of the exercise of the right is a genuine necessity and that necessity must of public character. Moreover, the ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany and not follow, the taking of the land. The 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 the property owner consistent with such benefit. The inviolable sanctity which the Constitution attaches to the property of the individual requires not only that the purpose for the taking of private property be specified. The genuine necessity for the taking, which must be of a public character, must also be shown to exist. 15. Mactan Cebu International Airport v. Lozada, Jr. The expropriator should commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition, failing which, it should file another petition for the new purpose. If not, it is then incumbent upon the expropriator to return the said property to its private owner, if the latter desires to reacquire the same. In such a case, the exercise of the power of eminent domain has become improper for lack of the required factual justification. Just Compensation 16. EPZA v. Dulay The question is whether or not the P.D. 76, 464, 794 and 1533 have repealed and superseded sections 5 to 8 of Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court. The valuation in the decrees may only serve as a guiding principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation but it may not substitute the courts own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount. Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, should be considered. 17. City of Manila v. Estrada The market value of a piece of land is attained by a consideration of all those facts which make it commercially valuable. The inquiry in such cases must be what is the property worth in the market, viewed not merely with reference to the uses to which it is at the time applied but with reference to the uses to which it is plainly adapted; that is to say,

what is it worth from its availability for valuable uses? The compensation to the owner is to be estimated by reference to the uses for which the property is suitable, having regard to the existing business or wants of the community, or such as may be reasonably expected in the immediate future. 18. Maddumba v. GSIS The issue is whether or not the GSIS may be compelled to accept Land Bank bonds at their face value in payment for a residential house and lot purchased by the bondholder from the GSIS. It is not disputed that under section 85 of RA 3844, a government owned or controlled corporation, like the GSIS, is compelled to accept the bonds as payment. For agrarian reform cannot be fully realized without the intervention of the government particularly in the payment of just compensation. It is only with the full support and active assistance of the government principally through its financial institutions that payment of just compensation to the landowner may be realized. 19. NPC v. CA At what point in time should the value of the land subject of expropriation be computed: at the date of the taking or the date of the filing of the complaint for eminent domain? The general rule in determining just compensation is the value of the property as of the date of the filing of the complaint. It admits of exceptions; where this Court fixed the value of the property as of the date of the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Simply stated, the exception finds application where the owner would be given undue incremental advantages arising from the use to which the government devotes the property expropriated. 20. Meralco v. Pineda The issue is whether or not the Court can dispense with the assistance of a Board of Commissioners in an expropriation proceeding and determine for itself the just compensation. A trial before the Commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of just compensation. The appointment of at least 3 competent persons as commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation cases. While it is true that findings of the commissioners may be disregarded and the court may substitute its own estimate of the value, the latter may only do so for valid reasons, i.e., where the Commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them or where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive. 21. Land Bank v. Spouses Orilla

The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also payment within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot considered to be just. It cannot be said that there is already prompt payment of just compensation when there is only partial payment thereof. Judicial Review 22. De Knecht v. Bautista It is recognized that the government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private property should be taken. With due recognition then of the power of Congress to designate the particular property to be taken and how much thereof may be condemned in the exercise of the power of expropriation, it is still a judicial question whether in the exercise of such competence, the party adversely affected is the victim of partiality and prejudice. That the equal protection clause will not allow. 23. Republic v. De Knecht The issue is whether an expropriation proceeding that was determined by a final judgment of this Court may be the subject of a subsequent legislation for expropriation. Due to supervening events after the rendition of the decision, BP 340 therefore effectively superseded the aforesaid final and executory decision of this Court. Moreover, the said decision is no obstacle to the legislative arm of the Government in thereafter making its own independent assessment of the circumstances then prevailing as to the propriety of undertaking the expropriation of the properties in question and thereafter by enacting the corresponding legislation as did in this case. The Court agrees in the wisdom and necessity of enacting BP 340. Thus the anterior decision of this Court must yield to this subsequent legislative fiat. 24. Manotok v. NHA Although due process does not always necessarily demand that a proceeding be had before a court of law, it still mandates some form of proceeding wherein notice and reasonable opportunity to be heard are given to the owner to protect his property rights. There are exceptional situations when, the requirement of due process may not necessarily entail judicial process. But where it is alleged that in the taking of a persons property, his right to due process of law has been violated, the courts will have to step in and probe into such an alleged violation. Note: expropriation and contract, Jurisdiction (see case book)