JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION, INC. VS CITY OF PASIG, METRO MANILA GR.

No 152230, August 9,2005 FACTS: The municipality of Pasig needed an access road from E.R. Santos St. to interior of Brgy. Sto Tomas Bukid, where 60 to 70 houses, mostly made of light materials, were located. The road has to be at least three (3) meters wide so that fire trucks could access in case of conflagrations. The municipality then decided to acquire 51 square meters of the property belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the expropriation of his property would result to deprivation of the whole lot because the access road is to be expropriated at the middle portion of the petitioners parcel of land, thereby splitting it into two halves and making it impossible for the petitioner to put up its school and worship centre. ISSUE: Whether or not the expropriation is invalid as it would deprive the petitioner of the use of the entire property. HELD: NO. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of legislative restriction, the grantee of the power of eminent domain may determine the location and route of the land to be taken unless such determination is capricious and wantonly injurious. Expropriation is justified as long as it is for public use and there is genuine necessity of public character. Government may not capriciously choose what private property should be taken. In the case at bar, the respondent has demonstrated the necessity for constructing the road particularly on the petitioners property.

FILSTREAM INTERNATIONAL CORPORATED VS. COURT OF APPEALS GR No. 125218 January 23, 1998

FACTS: The court rendered in favour of petitioner Filstream International, owner of a private land, a decision regarding an ejectment case and as a result its tenants were ordered to vacate the premises. However, during the pendency of the decision, the City of Manila filed for expropriation of the same premises for the purpose of urban land reform and pursuant to land for the landless program. The RTC granted the expropriation and as a result, the tenants filed for the dismissal of the ejectment case for the same has been moot because the land in question has been expropriated, and the tenants would be the ultimate beneficiary thereof. The petitioner challenges the decision as a violation of due process, since the expropriation proceedings for urban land reform was not substantially followed. ISSUE: Whether or not the expropriation proceeding has been substantially complied with. HELD: NO. The court ruled that there has been no substantial compliance with the expropriation proceedings for urban land reform.The governing law that deals with the subject of expropriation for purposed of urban land reform and housing in RA 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) , Sections 9 and 10 of which specifically provide as follows: Sec. 9. Priorities in the acquisition of Land Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order: (a)Those owned by the Government or any of its sub-divisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; (b)Alienable lands of the public domain; (c)Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands; (d)Those within the declared Areas of Priority Development, Zonal Improvement sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired; (e)Bagong Lipunan Improvement sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and (f)Privately-owned lands. Sec. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. The modes of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall include, among others, community mortgage, land swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the Government, joint venture agreement, negotiated purchase, and expropriation: Provided, however, That expropriation shall be resorted to only when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. It is clear therefor that the above quoted provisions are the limitations with respect to the order of priority in acquiring private lands and in resorting to expropriation proceedings as means to acquire the same. Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only when the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. Compliance with these conditions must be deemed mandatory because these are the only safeguards in securing the right of owners of private property to due process when their property is expropriated for public use. In the case at bar, the petitioners property was expropriated without any showing that acquisition of any other lands under Sec. 9 of RA 7279 has been proved futile.

HEIRS OF JUANCHO ARDONA VS. REYES GR Nos. L-60549, 60553 to 60555 October 26, 1983 FACTS: The petitioner challenges the constitutionality of PD 546, the Revised Charter of Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA), and PD 2052 which declares several barangays in Cebu City to be tourist zones. The Philippine Tourism Authority filed complaints with the for the expropriation of some 282 hectares of rolling land situated in barangays Malubog and Babag, Cebu City, under PTA's express authority "to acquire by purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any private land within and without the tourist zones" for the development into integrated resort complexes of selected and welldefined geographic areas with potential tourism value. The petitioners' contention that the promotion of tourism is not "public use" because private concessioners would be allowed to maintain various facilities such as restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. ISSUE: Whether or not the expropriation for tourism purposes are within the ambit of the public use requirement. HELD: YES. The expropriation for tourism purposes are within the constitutional requirement of taking for public use. There are two approaches in construing the constitutional requirement of public use, the first is the traditional or restrictive approach wherein the taking must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets, or parks. The second one, which our jurisprudence adopts, is the modern or liberal approach. In this approach, as long as the taking is beneficially employed for public welfare, it satisfies the public use requirement. Private bus firms, taxicab fleets, roadside restaurants, and other private businesses using public streets and highways do not diminish in the least bit the public character of expropriations for roads and streets. Furthermore, it is for the Congress to decide what property to be expropriated in the furtherance of the intention which is also under its discretion, provided that it is for public use. Therefore, deference must be given to such legislative policy even if such policy might mean taking from one private person and conferring on another private person

SUMULONG VS. GUERRERO G.R. No. L-48685 September 30, 1987 FACTS: National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a complaint for expropriation of parcels of land covering approximately twenty five (25) hectares, including the lots of petitioner Sumulong, for socialized housing project. The respondent judge rendered a judgement issuing a writ of possession for the lands sought to be appropriated. Petitioners contend that "socialized housing" as defined in Pres. Decree No. 1224, as amended, for the purpose of condemnation proceedings is not "public use" since it will benefit only "a handful of people, bereft of public character." ISSUE: Whether or not the taking is impressed with public use. HELD: YES. The court ruled that the condemnation proceedings for socialized housing is for public use even if it will benefit only a handful of people. The "public use" requirement for and exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. In this jurisdiction, whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the environment and in sum, the general welfare. 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. A beginning has to be made, for it is not possible to provide housing for are who need it, all at once. Therefore, urban renewal or redevelopment and the construction of low-cost housing is recognized as a public purpose.