You are on page 1of 20

Public Use

Traditional Meaning
Traditionally means use
directly available to the
general public as matter
of right and not merely
of forbearance or
accomodation

EXAMPLE
Conversion of private
property to a public park

Modern
Synonymous with Public
Necessity
Public usefulness,
utilities or advantage
What is productive of
general benefit

EXAMPLE
Low Cost housing
project of the
government
Property acquired for
privately owned public
utilities like PLDT or
MERALCO

Limitations
Purpose of taking must be for public use
Just Compensation must be given to the
owner

Reyes vs NHA
Penned by: Justice Puno

FACTS
Petitioners filed complaints for forfeiture of
rights
NHA failed to pay just compensation
Contracting private individual for low cause
housing is not for public use
Assails NHA failed to use the land for its
intended purposes which is to relocate
squatters

ISSUES
W/N the contracting to build low cost housing
amounts to public use
W/N the ownership of the expropriated lands
reverts back to the owner if the state failed to
use it for its intended purpose
W/N non-payment is a ground for forfeiture

RULING
Public use is synonymous with public benefit,
public welfare and public convenience
The constitution allows the state to undertake
for the common good and in cooperation with
private sector a continuing program of urban
land reform & housing which will make cost
decent housing & basic services to
underprivileged & homeless citizens in urban
centers and resettlement area

When state acquires land for public use,


former owners has no rights on the land
NHA not paying just cause is unjustifiable.
Owners should be awarded interest

Baranggay Sindalan vs Court of


Appeals
Penned by: Justice Velasco Jr.

FACTS
Petitioners sought to convert a portion of the
respondents land into a feeder road
Property was the most practical and easiest way to
municipal road
Prior to the filing of the expropriation case, said
subdivision was linked to MacArthur Highway through
a pathway across the land of a certain Torres family
Respondents alleged that expropriation was for the
benefit of Davsan II subdivision
Under PD 957 it should be the developer who should
provide feeder road for its residents

ISSUE
Whether or not the proposed exercise of the
power of eminent domain would be for public
purpose

RULING
Eminent Domain is acknowledge as an
inherent political right, founded on a common
necessity and interest of appropriating the
property of individual members of the
community to the great necessities of the
community.

RULING
Intent feeder road sought to serve the
residents of the subdivision only
Expropriation will actually benefit the
subdivision owner who will be able to
circumvent his commitment to provide road
access to the subdivision
Proper remedy is petition for establishment of
easement of right of way under ART 649-656
of the Civil Code

Ardona vs Reyes
Penned by: Justice Gutierrez Jr.

FACTS
Challenges the constitutionality of PD 564
(Revised Charter of Philippine Tourism Authority)
and Proclamation 2052 ( Declaring Brgy. Sibugay,
Malubog, Babag and Sirao including the Lusaran
Dam in the City of Cebu and Municipalities of
Argao and Dalaguete as tourist zone)
There is no specific constitutional provision
authorizing the taking of private property for
tourism purposes
Alleges that the taking is not impressed with
public use under the constitution

ISSUE
Whether or not the taking of the land for
tourism purposes constitutes public use.

RULING
Section 2, Article IV states that private property shall
not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Section 6, Article XIV allows the State, in the interest of
national welfare or defense and upon payment of just
compensation to transfer to public ownership, utilities
and other private enterprises to be operated by the
government.
Section 13, Article XIV states that the Batasang
Pambansa may authorize upon payment of just
compensation the expropriation of private lands to be
subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to
deserving citizens.

RULING
The concept of public use is not limited to
traditional purposes, the idea that it is limited to
cases of use by the public has long been
discarded. The concept of public welfare is broad
and inclusive
The provisions in the Constitution simply serves
as forms of restrain on the sovereign power
which would otherwise be without limit. As such
power of eminent domain does not depend on a
specific grant in the consti.

Requirements of Taking in Eminent


Domain
The expropriator must enter a private property
The entry must be for more than a momentary
period
The entry must be under warrant or color of legal
authority
The property must be devoted to public use or
otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected
The utilization of the property must be in such a
way as to oust the owner and deprive him of
beneficial enjoyment of the property.