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 ³Taking´ 3. Republic v. Vda. De Castellvi Requirements for ³taking´ 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. 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. the Republic may. in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain. it would only be an easement of flight which was taken. The reason is that there would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract from the owner¶s full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it. not the takers gain which is the measure of the value of the property taken. NPC v.S. 9. subject to the payment of just compensation. 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 2 . after due notice to the defendant. 8. Fajardo 7. to be determined by the court. v. Flights over private land are not a taking. require the telephone company to permit interconnectedness of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT. Republc v. Notice to the parties is not indispensable. The court stated that an owner is entitled to the absolute and undisturbed possession of every part of his premises. unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land. People v. 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. PLDT While the Republic may not compel PLDT to celebrate a contract with it. including the space above. as the needs of the government service may require. U. the petitioner has the right to take or enter the possession of the property involved upon compliance with PD 42 which requires. that easement. to deposit with the PNB an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation. Jocson Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter. 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 is the owner¶s loss. if permanent and not merely temporary normally would be equivalent of a fee interest. as much as a mine beneath. Failure to hear shall in no wise affect the validity of the order. 6. Though. Didipidio Earth Savers 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 would be a definite exercise of complete dominion and control over the surface of the land.

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. The government may execute laws or programs that adversely affect recognized economic values without its action constituting as ³taking´ and.existence would ne injurious to public interest. Penn Central Transportation Co. Housing is a basic human need. The court is satisfied that socialized housing falls within the confines of ³public use´. Public Use 12. there is no compensable taking. in instances such as zoning laws where a state tribunal has reasonably concluded that ³the health. this Court has upheld land use regulations that destroyed or adversely affected real property interests. 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. Province of Camarines Sur v. Sumulong v. morals or general welfare´ would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplated uses of land. there is compensable taking. It is accurate to state that at the present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. 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. v. 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. Michigan 11. When a property interest is appropriated and applied to some public purpose. Guerrero ³Socialized Housing´ As long as the purpose of the taking is public. In many instances use restrictions that served a substantial public purpose have been upheld against ³taking´ challenges though a statute that substantially furthers important public policies may so frustrate distinct investment-backed expectations as to constitute as ³taking´. the legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by local governments. Court of Appeals Extent of power of eminent domain of local government In delegating the power to expropriate. Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner. 13. While such 3 . safety. then the power of eminent domain comes into play. NYC The case involves the Landmarks law and the issue of taking.

Dulay The question is whether or not the P. Moreover. the exercise of the power of eminent domain has become improper for lack of the required factual justification. the ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany and not follow. that is to say. 76. Just Compensation 16. 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 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 court¶s own judgment as to what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount. Statutes conferring the power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be broadened or constricted by implication. 794 and 1533 have repealed and superseded sections 5 to 8 of Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. EPZA v. Jr. either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations. it should file another petition for the new purpose. 4 . The expropriator should commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition. Estrada The market value of a piece of land is attained by a consideration of all those facts which make it commercially valuable. City of Manila v. 14. 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.delegated power may be a limited authority. 17. 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. If not. Moreover. City of Pasig The right to take private property for public purpose necessarily originates from ³the necessity´ and the taking must be limited to such necessity. the limitations on the exercise of delegated power must be clearly expressed.D. The genuine necessity for the taking. if the latter desires to reacquire the same. Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking. failing which. Masikip v. it is complete within its limits. In such a case. Mactan Cebu International Airport v. The necessity does not mean an absolute but only a reasonable or practical necessity. which must be of a public character. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings. 15. 464. The very foundation of the exercise of the right is a genuine necessity and that necessity must of public character. it is then incumbent upon the expropriator to return the said property to its private owner. The inquiry in such cases must be what is the property worth in the market. Lozada. must also be shown to exist. its improvements and capabilities. should be considered. the taking of the land.

a government owned or controlled corporation. 21. 19. 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. Land Bank v. having regard to the existing business or wants of the community. For agrarian reform cannot be fully realized without the intervention of the government particularly in the payment of just compensation. CA At what point in time should the value of the land subject of expropriation be computed: at the date of the ³taking´ 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. A trial before the Commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence on the issue of just compensation.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. 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.. 20. NPC v. where the Commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them or where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence. is compelled to accept the bonds as payment. or where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive. where this Court fixed the value of the property as of the date of the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. i. or such as may be reasonably expected in the immediate future. Simply stated. Meralco v. While it is true that findings of the commissioners may be disregarded and the court may substitute its own estimate of the value.e. Spouses Orilla 5 . 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. It admits of exceptions. the latter may only do so for valid reasons. Maddumba v. like the GSIS. 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. 18. It is not disputed that under section 85 of RA 3844. 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.

Manotok v. the party adversely affected is the victim of partiality and prejudice. That the equal protection clause will not allow. 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. 23. The Court agrees in the wisdom and necessity of enacting BP 340.The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land. Republic v. BP 340 therefore effectively superseded the aforesaid final and executory decision of this Court. NHA Although due process does not always necessarily demand that a proceeding be had before a court of law. Note: expropriation and contract. the requirement of due process may not necessarily entail judicial process. Jurisdiction (see case book) 6 . 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. Without prompt payment. Judicial Review 22. But where it is alleged that in the taking of a person¶s property. Due to supervening events after the rendition of the decision. it is still a judicial question whether in the exercise of such competence. but also payment within a reasonable time from its taking. 24. De Knecht v. Moreover. 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. the courts will have to step in and probe into such an alleged violation. Thus the anterior decision of this Court must yield to this subsequent legislative fiat. his right to due process of law has been violated. It cannot be said that there is already prompt payment of just compensation when there is only partial payment thereof. compensation cannot considered to be just. There are exceptional situations when. 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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful