REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

plaintiff-appellant, vs.
CARMEN M. VDA. DE CASTELLVI,
ET AL., defendants-appellees.

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

Issue/s:
● When did the “taking” under the
power of eminent domain occur?

● What is the fair and just value of the

land to be expropriated?
Facts:
Land Owner Area

TCT No. 13631 Alfonso 759,299 square

Castellvi meters

TCT No. 8708 Maria Nieves 450,273 square

Toledo-Gozun meters

TCT No. 8708 Maria Nieves 88,772 square

Toledo-Gozun meters
 Contentions of the parties
➔ Castellvi
- that the land under her administration, being a residential land, had a fair market value of
P15.00 per square meter.

- the Philippine Air Force, had been, despite repeated demands, illegally occupying her
property since July 1, 1956, thereby preventing her from using and disposing of it, thus
causing her damages by way of unrealized profits.

➔ Toledo-Gozun
- That her two parcels of land were residential lands, that the lands were already subdivided
for sale to the general public, and should therefore be valued at P15.00 per square meter.

➔ Republic of the Philippines (Philippine Air force)

- the Republic, which insisted that the price to be paid for the lands should be fixed at P0.20
per square meter, and that “taking” commenced upon signing of leasing agreement on
July 1, 1947
Court of First Instance
Pampanga:
The trial Court appointed
three commissioners to
assess the value of the land
(1) Atty. Amadeo Yuzon, Clerk of Court, as
commissioner for the court
(2) Atty. Felicisimo G. Pamandanan,
counsel of the Philippine National Bank
Branch at Floridablanca, for the plaintiff
(3) Atty. Leonardo F. Lansangan, Filipino
legal counsel at Clark Air Base, for the
defendants
Court of First Instance
Pampanga:
● the court finds that the unanimous recommendation of the
commissioners of ten (P10.00) pesos per square meter for the
three lots of the defendants subject of this action is fair and just."

● interest at 6% per annum will also be paid by the plaintiff to

defendant Castellvi from July 1, 1956 when plaintiff commenced
its illegal possession of the Castellvi land when the instant action
had not yet been commenced to July 10, 1959
Supreme Court
Requisites of “taking”
The expropriator must enter a private By virtue of the lease agreement the Republic,
property through the AFP, took possession of the
property of Castellvi.

The entrance into private property must The entry on the property, under the lease, is
be for more than a momentary period temporary, and considered transitory.

the entry into the property should be The Republic entered the Castellvi property
under warrant or color of legal authority as lessee

The property must be devoted to a public public use is present because the property
use or otherwise informally appropriated was used by the air force of the AFP.
or injuriously affected

The utilization of the property for public Castellvi remained as owner, and was
use must be in such a way as to oust the continuously recognized as owner by the
owner and deprive him of all beneficial Republic, as shown by the renewal of the
enjoyment of the property lease contract from year to year
 Ruling:
➔ When does “taking” commence?
- June 26, 1959 when the complaint for eminent domain was filed.

➔ How is just compensation decided?

- Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the "just compensation" is to be
determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint

- compensation of the owner is to be estimated by reference to the use 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

- The SC decided that the lands should be valued at 5.00 Php per square meter as was the
value of the land in 1959
VICTORIA AMIGABLE,
plaintiff-appellant, vs. NICOLAS
CUENCA, as Commissioner of
Public Highways and REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
defendants-appellees.

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

Statement of the Case
This case is an appeal from the
decision of the Court of First
Instance of Cebu in its Civil Case
No. R-5977, dismissing the
plaintiff's complaint.
Facts
Plaintiff Victoria Amigable is the registered land
owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate in Cebu
City as shown by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-18060.
The government had used a portion of the
lot for the construction of the Mango and
Gorordo Avenues without prior
expropriation or negotiated sale.
 Amigable's counsel wrote the President of the
March 1958
Philippines, requesting payment of the portion of her lot
which had been appropriated by the government.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Republic of the

Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca, in his capacity as
Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery of February 1959
ownership and possession of the 6,167 square
meters of land traversed by the Mango and Gorordo
Avenues.
Contention of the Plaintiff-Appellant
The petitioner contends, being the registered
owner of the portion of the lot in question, she is
qualified to the recovery of ownership of the
aforementioned land and that she is entitled to the
payment of compensatory and moral damages for
the illegal occupation of her land.
Contention of the Defendant-Appellees
The respondent argues that:
(1)The action was premature;
(2)The right of action had already prescribed;
(3)Theaction cannot prosper due to the doctrine of
non-suability
(4)No cause of action against defendants
The court rendered its decision holding that

It had no jurisdiction over the

plaintiff’s cause of action on
the ground that the
Reminder:
government cannot be sued As a principle, the State
cannot be sued without
without its consent. its consent. Conversely,
it may be sued only with
its consent.
The complaint was dismissed. Plaintiff appealed to the
Court of Appeals.
Issue

The issue in this case is whether or not the

appellant may properly sue the government
under the facts of the case.
Held

An aggrieved party may properly bring a lawsuit against the

government without violating the doctrine of governmental
immunity from suit without its consent when the government
appropriates property from a private landowner for public use
without following the legal process of expropriation or
negotiated sale. (Ministerio vs. Court of First Instance of Cebu)
Held

As registered owner, she is qualified to bring an action to recover

possession of the portion of land in question at any time since
possession is one of the attributes of ownership.
PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE, INC., for
and in behalf of 139 members,
represented by its President, Amado P.
Macasaet and its Executive Director Ermin
F. Garcia, Jr., petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
respondent.

G.R. No. L-119694 May 22, 1995

 The Philippine Press Institute, Inc. ("PPI") is before this Court
assailing the constitutional validity of Resolution No. 2772
issued by respondent Commission on Elections ("Comelec").

PPI is a non-stock, non-profit organization of newspaper and

magazine publishers.

FACTS
Comelec promulgated Resolution No. 2772:
Sec. 2. Comelec Space. — The Commission shall procure free
print space of not less than one half (1/2) page in at least one
newspaper of general circulation in every province or city for
use as "Comelec Space" from March 6, 1995 in the case of
candidates for senator and from March 21, 1995 until May 12,
1995. In the absence of said newspaper, "Comelec Space" shall
be obtained from any magazine or periodical of said province
or city.
 Eminent Domain
PPI asks us to declare Comelec Resolution No. 2772 unconstitutional
and void on the ground that it violates the prohibition imposed by the
Constitution upon the government, and any of its agencies, against
the taking of private property for public use without just
compensation.
 Other issues
Petitioner also contends that the 22 March 1995 letter directives of
Comelec requiring publishers to give free "Comelec Space" and at the
same time process raw data to make it camera-ready, constitute
impositions of involuntary servitude, contrary to the provisions of
Section 18 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

Finally, PPI argues that Section 8 of Comelec Resolution No. 2772 is

violative of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, of the
press and of expression.
ISSUE Whether or not the COMELEC may demand PPI to provide free
“COMELEC SPACE” in the news paper for vital election information.
 No, to compel print media companies to donate "Comelec-space" of
the dimensions specified in Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 (not less
than one-half page), amounts to "taking" of private personal property for
public use or purposes.

HELD
The taking of print space here sought to be effected may first be
appraised under the rubric of expropriation of private personal property
for public use. The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of private
property for public use need to be examined here: one is the necessity
for the taking; another is the legal authority to effect the taking. The
element of necessity for the taking has not been shown by respondent
Comelec. It has not been suggested that the members of PPI are
unwilling to sell print space at their normal rates to Comelec for election
purposes. Indeed, the unwillingness or reluctance of Comelec to buy
print space lies at the heart of the problem.
 Similarly, it has NOT been suggested, let alone demonstrated, that Comelec
has been granted the power of eminent domain either by the Constitution or
by the legislative authority. A reasonable relationship between that power and
the enforcement and administration of election laws by Comelec must be
shown; it is not casually to be assumed.

The taking of private property for public use is, of course, authorized by the
Constitution, but not without payment of "just compensation" (Article III,
Section 9). The necessity of paying compensation for "Comelec space" is

HELD
precisely what is sought to be avoided by respondent Commission, whether
Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is read as petitioner PPI reads it, as an
assertion of authority to require newspaper publishers to "donate" free print
space for Comelec purposes, or as an exhortation, or perhaps an appeal, to
publishers to donate free print space, as Section 1 of Resolution No. 2772-A
attempts to suggest. There is nothing at all to prevent newspaper and
magazine publishers from voluntarily giving free print space to Comelec for
the purposes contemplated in Resolution No. 2772. Section 2 of Resolution
No. 2772 does not, however, provide a constitutional basis for compelling
publishers, against their will, in the kind of factual context here present, to
provide free print space for Comelec purposes. Section 2 does not constitute a
valid exercise of the power of eminent domain.