Eminent Domain Case Digests

Narratives
Constitutional Law II
Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola
2005
Shared under Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlie !"0 #hili$$ines license"
Some %i&hts %eserved"
'able o( Contents
Cit) o( Manila v" Chinese Communit) o( Manila *G%+,!55- !+ .ctober +/+/0 """ +
Moda) vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +01/+2- 20 3ebruar) +//10 4 2
%e$ublic vs" #hili$$ine Lon& 5istance 'ele$hone Co" *G% L-+66,+- 21 7anuar) +/2/0 4 !
8aran&a) San %o9ue v" :eirs o( #astor *G% +!66/2- 20 7une 20000 4 ,
%e$ublic vs" Vda" de Castellvi *G% L-20220- +5 Au&ust +/1,0 4 5
Cit) Government o( ;ue<on Cit) vs" =ricta *G% L-!,/+5- 2, 7une +/6!0 4 2
#eo$le vs" 3a>ardo *G% L-+2+12- 2/ Au&ust +/560 4 1
National #ower Cor$oration vs" Gutierre< *G% 20011- +6 7anuar) +//+0 4 6
?nited States vs" Causb) *!26 ?S 252- 21 Ma) +/,20 4 /
3ilstream International Inc" *G% +252+6 and G% +26011" 2! 7anuar) +//60""" +0
=state or :eirs o( the late e@-7ustice 7ose 8" L" %e)es vs" Cit) o( Manila *G% +!2,!+- +! 3ebruar) 200,0 4 +2
Cit) o( Mandalu)on& vs" A&uilar *G% +!1+52- 2/ 7anuar) 200+0 4 +,
:eirs o( 7uancho Ardona vs" %e)es *G% L-205,/- 2055! to 20555A 22 .ctober +/6!0 4 +5
Sumulon& vs" Guerrero *G% L-,6265- !0 Se$tember +/610""" +1
#rovince o( Camarines Sur vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +0!+25- +1 Ma) +//!0""" +6
Manosca vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +02,,0- 2/ 7anuar) +//20 4 +/
=state o( Salud 7imene< vs" #hili$$ine =@$ort #rocessin& Bone *G% +!1265- +2 7anuar) 200+0 4 20
Munici$alit) o( Me)caua)an vs" Intermediate A$$ellate Court *G% L-12+22- 2/ 7anuar) +/660 4 22
5e Cnecht vs" 8autista *G% L-5+016- !0 .ctober +/600 4 2!
%e$ublic vs" de Cnecht *G% 61!!5- +2 3ebruar) +//00 4 2,
#hili$$ine #ress Institute vs" Commission on =lections *G% ++/2/,- 22 Ma) +//50 4 25
National :ousin& Authorit) vs" :eirs ( Isidro Guivelondo *G% +5,,++- +/ 7une 200!0 4 22
=slaban vs" Vda" de .norio *G% +,2022- 26 7une 200+0 4 26
%e$ublic vs" Intermediate A$$ellate Court *G% 1++12- 2+ Ma) +//00 4 2/
Cit) o( Cebu vs" 5edamo *G% +,2/1+- 1 Ma) 20020 4 !+
=@$ort #rocessin& Bone Authorit) vs" 5ula) *G% L-5/20!- 2/ A$ril +/610 4 !2
Ansaldo vs" 'antuico *G% 50+,1- ! Au&ust +//00 4 !!
National #ower Cor$oration vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% +012!+- 22 3ebruar) +//20 4 !,
Association o( Small Landowners in the #hili$$ines Inc" vs" Secretar) o( A&rarian %e(orm *G% 161,+- +, 7ul) +/6/0 4 !5
5e$artment o( A&rarian %e(orm vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% ++61,5- 2 .ctober +//50 4 !1
Manila =lectric Com$an) DM=%ALC.E vs" #ineda *G% 5/1/+- +! 3ebruar) +//20 4 !/
National #ower Cor$oration vs" :enson *G% +2///6- 2/ 5ecember +//60 4 ,0
National #ower Cor$oration vs" An&as *G% 20225-22- 6 Ma) +//20 4 ,+
%e$ublic o( the #hili$$ines vs" Salem Investment Cor$oration *G% +!152/- 2! 7une 20000 4 ,!
Cit) o( Manila- vs" Serrano *G% +,2!0,- 20 7une 200+0 4 ,,
Cit) o( 8a&uio vs" National Faterwors and Sewera&e Authorit) *G% L-+20!2- !+ Au&ust +/5/0 4 ,5
#rovince o( Bamboan&a del Norte v" Cit) o( Bamboan&a *G"%" No" L-2,,,0" March 26- +/26"0 4 ,2
This collection contains thirty severn (37) cases
summarized in this format by
Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student)
during the irst !emester" school year #$$%&#$$'
in the (olitical )aw *eview class
under +ean Mariano Magsalin ,r.
at the -rellano .niversity !chool of )aw (-.!)).
/om0iled as (+" !e0tember #$1#.
2erne Guerrero entered -.!) in ,une #$$#
and eventually graduated from -.!) in #$$'.
3e 0assed the (hili00ine bar e4aminations immediately after (-0ril #$$7).
berne&uerrero"word$ress"com
Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
15 City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila [GR14355, 31 October 1919
First Division, Johnson (J): 4 concur
!acts" On 11 December, 1916, the city of Manila presented a petition in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
Manila prayin that certain lands (e!tension of "i#al $%enue &ithin 'loc( ) of the district of 'inondo) be
e!propriated for the purpose of constructin a public impro%ement* +he Comunidad de Chinos de Manila
,Chinese Community of Manila- alleed in its ans&er that it &as a corporation orani#ed and e!istin under
and by %irtue of the la&s of the .hilippine Islands, ha%in for its purpose the benefit and eneral &elfare of
the Chinese Community of the City of Manila/ that it &as the o&ner of parcels one and t&o of the land
described in pararaph 0 of the complaint/ that it denied that it &as either necessary or e!pedient that the said
parcels be e!propriated for street purposes/ that e!istin street and roads furnished ample means of
communication for the public in the district co%ered by such proposed e!propriation/ that if the construction
of the street or road should be considered a public necessity, other routes &ere a%ailable, &hich &ould fully
satisfy the City1s purposes, at much less e!pense and &ithout disturbin the restin places of the dead/ that it
had a +orrens title for the lands in 2uestion/ that the lands in 2uestion had been used by the Chinese
Community for cemetery purposes/ that a reat number of Chinese &ere buried in said cemetery/ that if said
e!propriation be carried into effect, it &ould disturb the restin places of the dead, &ould re2uire the
e!penditure of a lare sum of money in the transfer or remo%al of the bodies to some other place or site and in
the purchase of such ne& sites, &ould in%ol%e the destruction of e!istin monuments and the erection of ne&
monuments in their stead, and &ould create irreparable loss and in3ury to the Chinese Community and to all
those persons o&nin and interested in the ra%es and monuments &hich &ould ha%e to be destroyed/ that the
City &as &ithout riht or authority to e!propriate said cemetery or any part or portion thereof for street
purposes/ and that the e!propriation, in fact, &as not necessary as a public impro%ement* Ildefonso
+ambuntin, ans&erin the petition, denied each and e%ery alleation of the complaint, and alleed that said
e!propriation &as not a public impro%ement* Feli#a Concepcion de Delado, &ith her husband, 4ose Maria
Delado, and each of the other defendants, ans&erin separately, presented substantially the same defense as
that presented by the Comunidad de Chinos de Manila and Ildefonso +ambuntin* 4ude 5implicio del
"osario decided that there &as no necessity for the e!propriation of the strip of land and absol%ed each and all
of the defendants (Chinese Community, +ambuntin, spouses Delado, et* al*) from all liability under the
complaint, &ithout any findin as to costs* From the 3udment, the City of Manila appealed*
#ssue" 6hether portions of the Chinese Cemetery, a public cemetery, may be e!propriated for the construction
of a public impro%ement*
$el%" 7o* 5ection 0809 of $ct 0911 (Charter of the city of Manila) pro%ides that the city (Manila) may
condemn pri%ate property for public use* +he Charter of the city of Manila, ho&e%er, contains no procedure
by &hich the said authority may be carried into effect* $ct 19: pro%ides for ho& riht of eminent domain may
be e!ercised* 5ection 081 of said $ct pro%ides that the ;o%ernment of the .hilippine Islands, or of any
pro%ince or department thereof, or of any municipality, and any person, or public or pri%ate corporation
ha%in, by la&, the riht to condemn pri%ate property for public use, shall e!ercise that riht in the manner
prescribed by 5ection 080 to 086* +he riht of e!propriation is not an inherent po&er in a municipal
corporation, and before it can e!ercise the riht some la& must e!ist conferrin the po&er upon it* 6hen the
courts come to determine the 2uestion, they must not only find (a) that a la& or authority e!ists for the
e!ercise of the riht of eminent domain, but (b) also that the riht or authority is bein e!ercised in
accordance &ith the la&* <erein, the cemetery in 2uestion is public (a cemetery used by the eneral
community, or neihborhood, or church) and seems to ha%e been established under o%ernmental authority, as
the 5panish ;o%ernor=;eneral, in an order creatin the same* 6here a cemetery is open to the public, it is a
public use and no part of the round can be ta(en for other public uses under a eneral authority* +o disturb
the mortal remains of those endeared to us in life sometimes becomes the sad duty of the li%in/ but, e!cept in
cases of necessity, or for laudable purposes, the sanctity of the ra%e, the last restin place of our friends,
should be maintained, and the pre%entati%e aid of the courts should be in%o(ed for that ob3ect* 6hile
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )
cemeteries and sepulchers and the places of the burial of the dead are still &ithin the memory and command
of the acti%e care of the li%in/ &hile they are still de%oted to pious uses and sacred reard, it is difficult to
belie%e that e%en the leislature &ould adopt a la& e!pressly pro%idin that such places, under such
circumstances, should be %iolated*
1& Mo%ay vs. Court of '((eals [GR 1)*91&, +) !ebruary 199*
Second Division, Romero (J): 4 concur
!acts" On 0) 4uly 19>9, the 5anunian 'ayan of the Municipality of 'una&an in $usan del 5ur passed
"esolution 8)=>9, ?$uthori#in the Municipal Mayor to Initiate the .etition for @!propriation of a 1 <ectare
.ortion of Aot 61)>=.ls=8 $lon the 7ational <ih&ay O&ned by .erci%al Moday for the 5ite of 'una&an
Farmers Center and Other ;o%ernment 5ports Facilities*? In due time, the "esolution &as appro%ed by then
Municipal Mayor $nuncio C* 'ustillo and transmitted to the 5anunian .anlala&ian for its appro%al* On
11 5eptember 19>9, the 5anunian .anlala&ian disappro%ed said "esolution and returned it &ith the
comment that ?e!propriation is unnecessary considerin that there are still a%ailable lots in 'una&an for the
establishment of the o%ernment center*? +he Municipality of 'una&an subse2uently filed a .etition for
@minent Domain aainst .erci%al Moday before the "eional +rial Court ("+C) at .rosperidad, $usan del
5ur* +he complaint &as later amended to include the reistered o&ners, .erci%al Moday1s parents, Botico (C)
and Aeonora Moday, as party defendants* On 6 March 1991, the municipality filed a Motion to +a(e or @nter
Dpon the .ossession of 5ub3ect Matter of +his Case statin that it had already deposited &ith the municipal
treasurer the necessary amount in accordance &ith 5ection 0, "ule 69 of the "e%ised "ules of Court and that
it &ould be in the o%ernment1s best interest for the municipality to be allo&ed to ta(e possession of the
property* Despite Moday1s opposition and after a hearin on the merits, the "+C ranted the municipality1s
motion to ta(e possession of the land/ holdin that the 5anunian .anlala&ian1s failure to declare the
resolution in%alid lea%es it effecti%e, and that the duty of the 5anunian .anlala&ian is merely to re%ie&
the ordinances and resolutions passed by the 5anunian 'ayan under 5ection 0:> (1) of '. ))9 (the old
Aocal ;o%ernment Code) and that the e!ercise of eminent domain is not one of the t&o acts enumerated in
5ection 19 thereof re2uirin the appro%al of the 5anunian .anlala&ian* Moday1s motion for
reconsideration &as denied by the trial court on )1 October 1991* Moday ele%ated the case before the Court
of $ppeals in a petition for certiorari, &hich &as dismissed on 1E 4uly 1990* +he appellate court also denied
Moday1s motion for reconsideration on 00 October 1990* Mean&hile, the Municipality of 'una&an had
erected three buildins on the sub3ect propertyF the $ssociation of 'aranay Councils ($'C) <all, the
Municipal Motorpool, both &ooden structures, and the 'una&an Municipal ;ymnasium, &hich is made of
concrete* Moday filed on 0) 7o%ember 1990 the petition for re%ie& before the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether a municipality may e!propriate pri%ate property by %irtue of a municipal resolution &hich
&as disappro%ed by the 5anunian .anlala&ian*
$el%" @minent domain, the po&er &hich the Municipality of 'una&an e!ercised, is a fundamental 5tate
po&er that is inseparable from so%ereinty* It is o%ernment1s riht to appropriate, in the nature of a
compulsory sale to the 5tate, pri%ate property for public use or purpose* Inherently possessed by the national
leislature the po&er of eminent domain may be %alidly deleated to local o%ernments, other public entities
and public utilities* For the ta(in of pri%ate property by the o%ernment to be %alid, the ta(in must be for
public use and there must be 3ust compensation* +he Municipality of 'una&an1s po&er to e!ercise the riht of
eminent domain is not disputed as it is e!pressly pro%ided for in 'atas .ambansa ))9, the Aocal ;o%ernment
Code in force at the time e!propriation proceedins &ere initiated* +he 5anunian .anlala&ian1s
disappro%al of Municipal "esolution 8)=>9 is an infirm action &hich does not render said resolution null and
%oid* +he la&, as e!pressed in 5ection 1E) of '. ))9, rants the 5anunian .anlala&ian the po&er to
declare a municipal resolution in%alid on the sole round that it is beyond the po&er of the 5anunian
'ayan or the Mayor to issue* +hus, the 5anunian .anlala&ian &as &ithout the authority to disappro%e
Municipal "esolution 8)=>9 for the Municipality of 'una&an clearly has the po&er to e!ercise the riht of
eminent domain and its 5anunian 'ayan the capacity to promulate said resolution, pursuant to the
earlier=2uoted 5ection 9 of '.))9* .erforce/ it follo&s that "esolution 8)=>9 is %alid and bindin and could
be used as la&ful authority to petition for the condemnation of Moday1s property*
1* Re(ublic vs. ,hili((ine -on. /istance 0ele(hone Co. [GR -112241, +* 3anuary 19&9
En Banc, Reyes JBL [J]: ! concur
!acts" +he "epublic of the .hilippines, is a political entity e!ercisin o%ernmental po&ers throuh its
branches and instrumentalities, one of &hich is the 'ureau of +elecommunications* +hat office &as created on
1 4uly 1989, under @!ecuti%e Order 98, in addition to certain po&ers and duties formerly %ested in the
Director of .osts* 5ometime in 19)), the .hilippine Aon Distance +elephone Company (.AD+), and the
"C$ Communications, Inc*, entered into an areement &hereby telephone messaes, comin from the Dnited
5tates and recei%ed by "C$1s domestic station, could automatically be transferred to the lines of .AD+/ and
%ice=%ersa, for calls collected by the .AD+ for transmission from the .hilippines to the Dnited 5tates* +he
contractin parties areed to di%ide the tolls, as follo&sF 0EG to .AD+ and 9EG to "C$* +he sharin &as
amended in 1981 to ):G for .AD+ and 9:G for "C$, and aain amended in 1989 to a E:=E: basis* +he
arranement &as later e!tended to radio=telephone messaes to and from @uropean and $siatic countries*
+heir contract contained a stipulation that either party could terminate it on a 08=month notice to the other* On
0 February 19E6, .AD+ a%e notice to "C$ to terminate their contract on 0 February 19E6* 5oon after its
creation in 1989, the 'ureau of +elecommunications set up its o&n ;o%ernment +elephone 5ystem by
utili#in its o&n appropriation and e2uipment and by rentin trun( lines of the .AD+ to enable o%ernment
offices to call pri%ate parties* $t that time, the 'ureau &as maintainin E,::: telephones and had E,:::
pendin applications for telephone connection* +he .AD+, on the other hand, &as also maintainin 6:,:::
telephones and had also 0:,::: pendin applications* +hrouh the years, neither of them has been able to fill
up the demand for telephone ser%ice* +he 'ureau of +elecommunications had proposed to the .AD+ on >
4anuary 19E> that both enter into an interconnectin areement, &ith the o%ernment payin (on a call basis)
for all calls passin throuh the interconnectin facilities from the ;o%ernment +elephone 5ystem to the
.AD+* On E March 19E>, the "epublic, throuh the Director of +elecommunications, entered into an
areement &ith "C$ Communications, Inc*, for a 3oint o%erseas telephone ser%ice &hereby the 'ureau &ould
con%ey radio=telephone o%erseas calls recei%ed by "C$1s station to and from local residents* +hey actually
inauurated this 3oint operation on 0 February 19E>, under a ?pro%isional? areement* On 9 $pril 19E>, .AD+
complained to the 'ureau of +elecommunications that said bureau &as %iolatin the conditions under &hich
their .ri%ate 'ranch @!chane (.'H) is interconnected &ith the .AD+1s facilities, referrin to the rented
trun( lines, for the 'ureau had used the trun( lines not only for the use of o%ernment offices but e%en to
ser%e pri%ate persons or the eneral public, in competition &ith the business of the .AD+/ and a%e notice
that if said %iolations &ere not stopped by midniht of 10 $pril 19E>, the .AD+ &ould se%er the telephone
connections* 6hen the .AD+ recei%ed no reply, it disconnected the trun( lines bein rented by the 'ureau at
midniht on 10 $pril 19E>* +he result &as the isolation of the .hilippines, on telephone ser%ices, from the rest
of the &orld, e!cept the Dnited 5tates* On 10 $pril 19E>, the "epublic commenced suit aainst .AD+, in the
Court of First Instance of Manila (CFI, Ci%il Case )E>:E), prayin in its complaint for 3udment commandin
the .AD+ to e!ecute a contract &ith the "epublic, throuh the 'ureau, for the use of the facilities of .AD+1s
telephone system throuhout the .hilippines under such terms and conditions as the court miht consider
reasonable, and for a &rit of preliminary in3unction aainst .AD+ to restrain the se%erance of the e!istin
telephone connections andIor restore those se%ered* $fter trial, the lo&er court rendered 3udment that it could
not compel the .AD+ to enter into an areement &ith the 'ureau because the parties &ere not in areement/
that under @!ecuti%e Order 98, establishin the 'ureau of +elecommunications, said 'ureau &as not limited
to ser%icin o%ernment offices alone, nor &as there any in the contract of lease of the trun( lines, since the
.AD+ (ne&, or ouht to ha%e (no&n, at the time that their use by the 'ureau &as to be public throuhout the
Islands, hence the 'ureau &as neither uilty of fraud, abuse, or misuse of the poles of the .AD+/ and, in %ie&
of serious public pre3udice that &ould result from the disconnection of the trun( lines, declared the
preliminary in3unction permanent, althouh it dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaims* 'oth
parties appealed*
#ssue" 6hether interconnection bet&een .AD+ and the ;o%ernment +elephone 5ystem can be an %alid ob3ect
for e!propriation, i*e* the e!ercise of eminent domain*
$el%" $lthouh parties can not be coerced to enter into a contract &here no areement is had bet&een them as
to the principal terms and conditions of the contract == the freedom to stipulate such terms and conditions
bein of the essence of our contractual system, and by e!press pro%ision of the statute, a contract may be
annulled if tainted by %iolence, intimidation or undue influence == and thus the "epublic may not compel the
.AD+ to celebrate a contract &ith it, the "epublic may, in the e!ercise of the so%erein po&er of eminent
domain, re2uire the telephone company to permit interconnection of the o%ernment telephone system and
that of the .AD+, as the needs of the o%ernment ser%ice may re2uire, sub3ect to the payment of 3ust
compensation to be determined by the court* 7ormally, of course, the po&er of eminent domain results in the
ta(in or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the e!propriated property/ but no coent reason appears
&hy the said po&er may not be a%ailed of to impose only a burden upon the o&ner of condemned property,
&ithout loss of title and possession* It is un2uestionable that real property may, throuh e!propriation, be
sub3ected to an easement of riht of &ay* +he use of the .AD+1s lines and ser%ices to allo& interser%ice
connection bet&een both telephone systems is not much different* In either case pri%ate property is sub3ected
to a burden for public use and benefit* If under 5ection 6, $rticle HIII, of the Constitution, the 5tate may, in
the interest of national &elfare, transfer utilities to public o&nership upon payment of 3ust compensation,
there is no reason &hy the 5tate may not re2uire a public utility to render ser%ices in the eneral interest,
pro%ided 3ust compensation is paid therefor* Dltimately, the beneficiary of the interconnectin ser%ice &ould
be the users of both telephone systems, so that the condemnation &ould be for public use*
12 4aran.ay 5an Ro6ue v. $eirs of ,astor [GR 13229&, +) 3une +)))
"hird Division, #an$ani%an (J): & concur, on 'eave on o((icia' %usiness
!acts" 'aranay 5an "o2ue in +alisay, Cebu filed before the Municipal +rial Court (M+C) of +alisay, Cebu
('ranch 1) a Complaint to e!propriate a property of <eirs of Francisco .astor (@uenio 5ylianco, +eodoro
5ylianco, Isabel 5ylianco, @uenia 5* On, Aa&rence 5ylianco, Aa&son 5ylianco, Aa&ina 5* 7otario,
Aeonardo 5ylianco, 4r* and Aa&ford 5ylianco)* In an Order dated > $pril 1999, the M+C dismissed the
Complaint on the round of lac( of 3urisdiction* It reasoned that ?,e-minent domain is an e!ercise of the
po&er to ta(e pri%ate property for public use after payment of 3ust compensation* In an action for eminent
domain, therefore, the principal cause of action is the e!ercise of such po&er or riht* +he fact that the action
also in%ol%es real property is merely incidental* $n action for eminent domain is therefore &ithin the
e!clusi%e oriinal 3urisdiction of the "eional +rial Court and not &ith this Court*? 6hen the complaint &as
filed &ith the "eional +rial Court ("+C), the "+C also dismissed the Complaint on 09 March 1999, holdin
that an action for eminent domain affected title to real property/ hence, the %alue of the property to be
e!propriated &ould determine &hether the case should be filed before the M+C or the "+C/ therefore
concludin that the action should ha%e been filed before the M+C since the %alue of the sub3ect property &as
less than .0:,:::* +he 'aranay1s motion for reconsideration &as li(e&ise denied on 18 May 1999* +he
'aranay filed the petition for re%ie& on certiorari &ith the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the "eional +rial Court ("+C) or the Metropolitan +rial Court (M+C) has 3urisdiction o%er
e!propriation cases*
$el%" +he primary consideration in an e!propriation suit is &hether the o%ernment or any of its
instrumentalities has complied &ith the re2uisites for the ta(in of pri%ate property* <ence, the courts
determine the authority of the o%ernment entity, the necessity of the e!propriation, and the obser%ance of due
process* In the main, the sub3ect of an e!propriation suit is the o%ernment1s e!ercise of eminent domain, a
matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation* +rue, the %alue of the property to be e!propriated is
estimated in monetary terms, for the court is duty=bound to determine the 3ust compensation for it* +his,
ho&e%er, is merely incidental to the e!propriation suit* Indeed, that amount is determined only after the court
is satisfied &ith the propriety of the e!propriation* Jerily, the Court held in "epublic of the .hilippines %*
Burbano that ?condemnation proceedins are &ithin the 3urisdiction of Courts of First Instance,? the
forerunners of the reional trial courts ("+C)* +he said case &as decided durin the effecti%ity of the
4udiciary $ct of 198> &hich, li(e 'atas .ambansa 109 in respect to "+Cs, pro%ided that courts of first
instance had oriinal 3urisdiction o%er ?all ci%il actions in &hich the sub3ect of the litiation is not capable of
pecuniary estimation*? +he 1999 amendments to the "ules of Court &ere not intended to chane these
3urisprudential precedents*
19 Re(ublic vs. 7%a. %e Castellvi [GR -1+)&+), 15 'u.ust 19*4
En Banc, )a'divar (J): * concur, 4 too+ no ,art
!acts" +he "epublic of the .hilippines occupied the land of Carmen M* %da* de Castell%i, the 3udicial
administratri! of the estate of the late $lfonso de Castell%i, from 1 4uly 1989, by %irtue of a contract of lease,
on a year to year basis (from 4uly 1 of each year to 4une ): of the succeedin year)* 'efore the e!piration of
the contract of lease on ): 4une 19E6, the "epublic souht to rene& the same but Castell%i refused* 6hen the
$F. refused to %acate the leased premises after the termination of the contract, Castell%i &rote to the Chief of
5taff of the $F. on 11 4uly 19E6, informin the latter that the heirs of the property had decided not to
continue leasin the property in 2uestion because they had decided to subdi%ide the land for sale to the
eneral public, demandin that the property be %acated &ithin ): days from receipt of the letter, and that the
premises be returned in substantially the same condition as before occupancy* +he Chief of 5taff refused,
sayin that it &as difficult for the army to %acate the premises in %ie& of the permanent installations and other
facilities &orth almost .E::,:::*:: that &ere erected and already established on the property, and that, there
bein no other recourse, the ac2uisition of the property by means of e!propriation proceedins &ould be
recommended to the .resident* Castell%i then brouht suit in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of .ampana
(Ci%il Case 18E>), to e3ect the .hilippine $ir Force from the land* 6hile this e3ectment case &as pendin, the
"epublic filed on 06 4une 19E9 complaints for eminent domain aainst Castell%i, and Maria 7ie%es +oledo
;o#un o%er ) parcels of land situated in the barrio of 5an 4ose, Floridablanca, .ampana* In its complaint, the
"epublic alleed, amon other thins, that the fair mar(et %alue of the abo%e=mentioned lands, accordin to
the Committee on $ppraisal for the .ro%ince of .ampana, &as not more than .0,::: per hectare, or a total
mar(et %alue of .0E9,669*1:/ and prayed, that the pro%isional %alue of the lands be fi!ed at .0E9,669*1:, that
the court authori#es the "epublic to ta(e immediate possession of the lands upon deposit of that amount &ith
the .ro%incial +reasurer of .ampana/ that the court appoints ) commissioners to ascertain and report to the
court the 3ust compensation for the property souht to be e!propriated, and that the court issues thereafter a
final order of condemnation* +he "epublic &as placed in possession of the lands on 1: $uust 19E9*
Mean&hile, on 01 7o%ember 19E9, the CFI of .ampana, dismissed Ci%il Case 18E>, upon petition of the
parties* $fter the parties filed their respecti%e memoranda, the trial court, on 06 May 1961, rendered its
decision, findin that the unanimous recommendation of the commissioners of .1:*:: per s2uare meter for
the ) lots sub3ect of the action is fair and 3ust/ and re2uired the "epublic to pay interests* On 01 4une 1961 the
"epublic filed a motion for a ne& trial andIor reconsideration, aainst &hich motion Castell%i and +oledo=
;o#un filed their respecti%e oppositions, and &hich the trial court denied on 10 4uly 1961* +he "epublic1s
record on appeal &as finally submitted on 6 December 1961, after filin %arious e!=parte motions for
e!tension of time &ithin &hich to file its record on appeal* On 09 December 1961 the trial court dismissed
both appeals for ha%in been filed out of time, thereby * On 11 4anuary 1960 the "epublic filed a ?motion to
stri(e out the order of 09 December 1961 and for reconsideration?, and subse2uently an amended record on
appeal, aainst &hich motion Castell%i and +oledo=;o#un filed their opposition* On 06 4uly 1960 the trial
court issued an order, statin that ?in the interest of e!pediency, the 2uestions raised may be properly and
finally determined by the 5upreme Court,? and at the same time it ordered the 5olicitor ;eneral to submit a
record on appeal containin copies of orders and pleadins specified therein* In an order dated 19 7o%ember
1960, the trial court appro%ed the "epublic1s record on appeal as amended* Castell%i did not insist on her
appeal* +oledo=;o#un did not appeal*
#ssue" 6hether the ta(in of Castell%iKs property occurred in 1989 or in 19E9*
$el%" $ number of circumstances must be present in the ?ta(in? of property for purposes of eminent
domain* First, the e!propriator must enter a pri%ate property* 5econd, the entrance into pri%ate property must
be for more than a momentary period* +hird, the entry into the property should be under &arrant or color of
leal authority* Fourth, the property must be de%oted to a public use or other&ise informally appropriated or
in3uriously affected* Fifth, the utili#ation of the property for public use must be in such a &ay as to oust the
o&ner and depri%e him of all beneficial en3oyment of the property* +he ?ta(in? of Castell%i1s property for
purposes of eminent domain cannot be considered to ha%e ta(en place in 1989 &hen the "epublic commenced
to occupy the property as lessee thereof* +&o essential elements in the ?ta(in? of property under the po&er
of eminent domain, namelyF (1) that the entrance and occupation by the condemnor must be for a permanent,
or indefinite period, and (0) that in de%otin the property to public use the o&ner &as ousted from the
property and depri%ed of its beneficial use, &ere not present &hen the "epublic entered and occupied the
Castell%i property in 1989* +he ?ta(in1 of the Castell%i property should not be rec(oned as of the year 1989
&hen the "epublic first occupied the same pursuant to the contract of lease, and that the 3ust compensation to
be paid for the Castell%i property should not be determined on the basis of the %alue of the property as of that
year* Dnder 5ection 8 of "ule 69 of the "ules of Court, the ?3ust compensation? is to be determined as of the
date of the filin of the complaint* +his Court has ruled that &hen the ta(in of the property souht to be
e!propriated coincides &ith the commencement of the e!propriation proceedins, or ta(es place subse2uent to
the filin of the complaint for eminent domain, the 3ust compensation should be determined as of the date of
the filin of the complaint* <erein, it is undisputed that the "epublic &as placed in possession of the Castell%i
property, by authority of the court, on 1: $uust 19E9* +he ?ta(in? of the Castell%i property for the purposes
of determinin the 3ust compensation to be paid must, therefore, be rec(oned as of 06 4une 19E9 &hen the
complaint for eminent domain &as filed*
+) City Government of 8ue9on City vs. :ricta [GR -134915, +4 3une 1923
First Division, -utierre. Jr/ (J): 0 concur
!acts" 5ection 9 of Ordinance 611>, 5=68, entitled ?Ordinance "eulatin the @stablishment, Maintenance
and Operation of .ri%ate Memorial +ype Cemetery Or 'urial ;round 6ithin the 4urisdiction of Lue#on City
and .ro%idin .enalties for the Jiolation thereof? pro%ides that at least 6G of the total area of the memorial
par( cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons &ho are paupers and ha%e been
residents of Lue#on City for at least E years prior to their death, to be determined by competent City
$uthorities, and &here the area so desinated shall immediately be de%eloped and should be open for
operation not later than 6 months from the date of appro%al of the application* For se%eral years, section 9 of
the Ordinance &as not enforced by city authorities but 9 years after the enactment of the ordinance, the
Lue#on City Council passed a resolution re2uestin the City @nineer, Lue#on City, to stop any further
sellin andIor transaction of memorial par( lots in Lue#on City &here the o&ners thereof ha%e failed to
donate the re2uired 6G space intended for paupers burial* .ursuant to this petition, the Lue#on City @nineer
notified <imlayan .ilipino, Inc* in &ritin that 5ection 9 of Ordinance 7o* 611>, 5=68 &ould be enforced*
<imlayan .ilipino reacted by filin &ith the Court of First Instance (CFI) of "i#al ('ranch HJIII at Lue#on
City), a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and mandamus &ith preliminary in3unction (5pecial
.roceedin L=16::0) see(in to annul 5ection 9 of the Ordinance in 2uestion for bein contrary to the
Constitution, the Lue#on City Charter, the Aocal $utonomy $ct, and the "e%ised $dministrati%e Code* +here
bein no issue of fact and the 2uestions raised bein purely leal, both the City ;o%ernment and <imlayan
.ilipino areed to the rendition of a 3udment on the pleadins* +he CFI rendered the decision declarin
5ection 9 of Ordinance 611>, 5=68 null and %oid* $ motion for reconsideration ha%in been denied, the City
;o%ernment and City Council filed the petition or re%ie& &ith the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the settin aside of 6G of the total area of all pri%ate cemeteries for charity burial rounds of
deceased paupers is tantamount to ta(in of pri%ate property &ithout 3ust compensation*
$el%" +here is no reasonable relation bet&een the settin aside of at least 6G of the total area of all pri%ate
cemeteries for charity burial rounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of health, morals, ood order,
safety, or the eneral &elfare of the people* +he ordinance is actually a ta(in &ithout compensation of a
certain area from a pri%ate cemetery to benefit paupers &ho are chares of the municipal corporation* Instead
of buildin or maintainin a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the burden to pri%ate cemeteries*
+he e!propriation &ithout compensation of a portion of pri%ate cemeteries is not co%ered by 5ection 10(t) of
"epublic $ct E)9, the "e%ised Charter of Lue#on City &hich empo&ers the city council to prohibit the burial
of the dead &ithin the center of population of the city and to pro%ide for their burial in a proper place sub3ect
to the pro%isions of eneral la& reulatin burial rounds and cemeteries* 6hen the Aocal ;o%ernment Code,
'atas .ambansa ))9 pro%ides in 5ection 199 (2) that a 5anunian panlunsod may ?pro%ide for the burial
of the dead in such place and in such manner as prescribed by la& or ordinance? it simply authori#es the city
to pro%ide its o&n city o&ned land or to buy or e!propriate pri%ate properties to construct public cemeteries*
+his has been the la& and practice in the past and it continues to the present* @!propriation, ho&e%er, re2uires
payment of 3ust compensation* +he 2uestioned ordinance is different from la&s and reulations re2uirin
o&ners of subdi%isions to set aside certain areas for streets, par(s, playrounds, and other public facilities
from the land they sell to buyers of subdi%ision lots* +he necessities of public safety, health, and con%enience
are %ery clear from said re2uirements &hich are intended to insure the de%elopment of communities &ith
salubrious and &holesome en%ironments* +he beneficiaries of the reulation, in turn, are made to pay by the
subdi%ision de%eloper &hen indi%idual lots are sold to homeo&ners*
+1 ,eo(le vs. !a;ar%o [GR -11+1*+, +9 'u.ust 1952
En Banc, Reyes JBL (J): 1 concur
!acts" On 1E $uust 19E:, durin the incumbency of 4uan F* Fa3ardo as mayor of the municipality of 'aao,
Camarines 5ur, the municipal council passed Ordinance 9, series of 19E:, pro%idin that ?any person or
persons &ho &ill construct or repair a buildin should, before constructin or repairin, obtain a &ritten
permit from the Municipal Mayor,? that ?a fee of not less than .0*:: should be chared for each buildin
permit and .1*:: for each repair permit issued,? and that any %iolation of the pro%isions of the ordinance shall
ma(e the %iolator liable to pay a fine of not less than .0E nor more than .E: or imprisonment of not less than
10 days nor more than 08 days or both, at the discretion of the court/ and that if said buildin destroys the
%ie& of the .ublic .la#a or occupies any public property, it shall be remo%ed at the e!pense of the o&ner of
the buildin or house* 8 years later, after the term of Fa3ardo as mayor had e!pired, he and his son=in=la&,
.edro 'abilonia, filed a &ritten re2uest &ith the incumbent municipal mayor for a permit to construct a
buildin ad3acent to their asoline station on a parcel of land reistered in Fa3ardo1s name, located alon the
national hih&ay and separated from the public pla#a by a cree(* On 16 4anuary 19E8, the re2uest &as
denied, for the reason amon others that the proposed buildin &ould destroy the %ie& or beauty of the public
pla#a* On 1> 4anuary 19E8, Fa3ardo and 'abilonia reiterated their re2uest for a buildin permit, but aain the
re2uest &as turned do&n by the mayor* 6hereupon, Fa3ardo and 'abilonia proceeded &ith the construction of
the buildin &ithout a permit, because they needed a place of residence %ery badly, their former house ha%in
been destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they had been li%in on leased property* On 06 February 19E8,
Fa3ardo and 'abilonia &ere chared before and con%icted by the 3ustice of the peace court of 'aao,
Camarines 5ur, for %iolation of Ordinance 9* Fa3ardo and 'abilonia appealed to the Court of First Instance
(CDI), &hich affirmed the con%iction, and sentenced both to pay a fine of .)E each and the costs, as &ell as to
demolish the buildin in 2uestion because it destroys the %ie& of the public pla#a of 'aao* From this decision,
Fa3ardo and 'abilonia appealed to the Court of $ppeals, but the latter for&arded the records to the 5upreme
Court because the appeal attac(s the constitutionality of the ordinance in 2uestion*
#ssue" 6hether the refusal of the Mayor of 'aao to issue a buildin permit on the round that the proposed
buildin &ould destroy the %ie& of the public pla#a is an undue depri%ation of the use of the property in
2uestion, and thus a ta(in &ithout due compensation*
$el%" +he refusal of the Mayor of 'aao to issue a buildin permit to Fa3ardo and 'abilonia &as predicated on
the round that the proposed buildin &ould ?destroy the %ie& of the public pla#a? by pre%entin its bein
seen from the public hih&ay* @%en thus interpreted, the ordinance is unreasonable and oppressi%e, in that it
operates M to permanently depri%e the latter of the riht to use their o&n property/ hence, it o%ersteps the
bounds of police po&er, and amounts to a ta(in of the property &ithout 3ust compensation* 'ut &hile
property may be reulated in the interest of the eneral &elfare such as to reard the beautification of
neihborhoods as conduci%e to the comfort and happiness of residents), and in its pursuit, the 5tate may
prohibit structures offensi%e to the siht, the 5tate may not, under the uise of police po&er, permanently
di%est o&ners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preser%e or
assure the aesthetic appearance of the community* $s the case no& stands, e%ery structure that may be erected
on Fa3ardo1s land, reardless of its o&n beauty, stands condemned under the ordinance in 2uestion, because it
&ould interfere &ith the %ie& of the public pla#a from the hih&ay* Fa3ardo &ould, in effect, be constrained
to let their land remain idle and unused for the ob%ious purpose for &hich it is best suited, bein urban in
character* +o leally achie%e that result, the municipality must i%e Fa3ardo 3ust compensation and an
opportunity to be heard*
++ <ational ,o=er Cor(oration vs. Gutierre9 [GR &))**, 12 3anuary 1991
"hird Division, Bidin (J): 2 concur, concurs 3ith reservation
!acts" +he 7ational .o&er Corporation (7$.OCO"), a o%ernment o&ned and controlled entity, in
accordance &ith Common&ealth $ct 10:, is in%ested &ith the po&er of eminent domain for the purpose of
pursuin its ob3ecti%es, &hich amon others is the construction, operation, and maintenance of electric
transmission lines for distribution throuhout the .hilippines* For the construction of its 0): NJ Me!ico=
Aimay transmission lines, 7$.OCO"1s lines ha%e to pass the lands belonin to Matias Cru#, <eirs of
7atalia .aule and spouses Misericordia ;utierre# and "icardo Malit (co%ered by ta! declarations 9:9, 80>1
and 9E>0, respecti%ely)* 7$.OCO" initiated neotiations for the ac2uisition of riht of &ay easements o%er
the aforementioned lots for the construction of its transmission lines but unsuccessful in this reard,
7$.OCO" &as constrained to file eminent domain proceedins aainst ;utierre#, et* al* on 0: 4anuary 196E*
Dpon filin of the correspondin complaint, 7$.OCO" deposited the amount of .99)*:: &ith the .ro%incial
+reasurer of .ampana, tendered to co%er the pro%isional %alue of the land of the Malit and ;utierre#* $nd
by %irtue of &hich, 7$.OCO" &as placed in possession of the property of the spouses so it could
immediately proceed &ith the construction of its Me!ico=Aimay 0): NJ transmission line* In this connection,
by the trial court1s order of ): 5eptember 196E, the spouses &ere authori#ed to &ithdra& the fi!ed pro%isional
%alue of their land in the sum of .99)*::* Mean&hile, for the purpose of determinin the fair and 3ust
compensation due ;utierre#, et* al*, the court appointed ) commissioners, comprised of one representati%e of
7$.OCO", one for the affected families and the other from the court, &ho then &ere empo&ered to recei%e
e%idence, conduct ocular inspection of the premises, and thereafter, prepare their appraisals as to the fair and
3ust compensation to he paid to the o&ners of the lots* <earins &ere conse2uently held before said
commissioners and durin their hearins, the case of the <eirs of 7atalia .aule &as amicably settled by %irtue
of a "iht of 6ay ;rant e!ecuted by ;uadalupe 5analan for herself and in behalf of her co=heirs in fa%or of
7$.OCO"* +he case aainst Matias Cru# &as earlier decided by the court, thereby lea%in only the case
aainst the spouses Malit and ;utierre# still to be resol%ed* $ccordinly, the commissioners submitted their
indi%idual reports* 6ith the reports submitted, the lo&er court rendered a decision, orderin 7$.OCO" to
pay Malit and ;utierre# the sum of .1: per s2uare meter as the fair and reasonable compensation for the
riht=of=&ay easement of the affected area, &hich is 96: s2uares, or a total sum of .9,6::*:: and .>::*:: as
attorney1s fees* Dissatisfied &ith the decision, 7$.OCO" filed a motion for reconsideration &hich &as
fa%orably acted upon by the lo&er court, and in an order dated 1: 4une 199), it amended its pre%ious decision,
reducin the amount a&arded to to .E*:: per s2uare meter as the fair and reasonable mar(et %alue of the 96:
s2uare meters belonin to the said spouses, in liht of the classification of the land to be partly commercial
and partly aricultural* 5till not satisfied, an appeal &as filed by the 7$.OCO" &ith the Court of $ppeals
but appellate court, on 9 March 19>0, sustained the trial court* 7$.OCO" filed the petition for re%ie& on
certiorari before the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the spouses are depri%e of the propertyKs ordinary use and thus the easement of riht of &ay in
fa%or of 7$.OCO" constitutes ta(in*
$el%" +he ac2uisition of the riht=of=&ay easement falls &ithin the pur%ie& of the po&er of eminent domain*
5uch conclusion finds support in similar cases of easement of riht=of=&ay &here the 5upreme Court
sustained the a&ard of 3ust compensation for pri%ate property condemned for public use* <erein, the easement
of riht=of=&ay is definitely a ta(in under the po&er of eminent domain* Considerin the nature and effect of
the installation of the 0): NJ Me!ico=Aimay transmission lines, the limitation imposed by 7$.OCO"
aainst the use of the land for an indefinite period depri%es spouses Malit and ;utierre# of its ordinary use*
For these reasons, the o&ner of the property e!propriated is entitled to a 3ust compensation, &hich should be
neither more nor less, &hene%er it is possible to ma(e the assessment, than the money e2ui%alent of said
property* 4ust compensation has al&ays been understood to be the 3ust and complete e2ui%alent of the loss
&hich the o&ner of the thin e!propriated has to suffer by reason of the e!propriation* +he price or %alue of
the land and its character at the time it &as ta(en by the ;o%ernment are the criteria for determinin 3ust
compensation* +he abo%e price refers to the mar(et %alue of the land &hich may be the full mar(et %alue
thereof* It appearin that the trial court did not act capriciously and arbitrarily in settin the price of .E*:: per
s2uare meter of the affected property, the said a&ard is proper and not unreasonable*
+3 >nite% 5tates vs. Causby [3+2 >5 +5&, +* May 194&
Dou$'as (J)
!acts" Causby o&ns 0*> acres near an airport outside of ;reensboro, 7orth Carolina* It has on it a d&ellin
house, and also %arious outbuildins &hich &ere mainly used for raisin chic(ens* +he end of the airport1s
north&est=southeast run&ay is 0,00: feet from Causby1s barn and 0,09E feet from their house* +he path of
lide to this run&ay passes directly o%er the property=&hich is 1:: feet &ide and 1,0:: feet lon* +he ): to 1
safe lide anle appro%ed by the Ci%il $eronautics $uthority passes o%er this property at >) feet, &hich is 69
feet abo%e the house, 6) feet abo%e the barn and 1> feet abo%e the hihest tree* +he use by the Dnited 5tates
of this airport is pursuant to a lease e!ecuted in May 1980, for a term commencin 1 4une 1980 and endin ):
4une 1980, &ith a pro%ision for rene&als until ): 4une 1969, or 6 months after the end of the national
emerency, &hiche%er is the earlier* Jarious aircraft of the Dnited 5tates, i*e* bombers, transports and fihters,
use this airport* 5ince the Dnited 5tates bean operations in May 1980, its four=motored hea%y bombers, other
planes of the hea%ier type, and its fihter planes ha%e fre2uently passed o%er Causby1s land buildins in
considerable numbers and rather close toether* +hey come close enouh at times to appear barely to miss the
tops of the trees and at times so close to the tops of the trees as to blo& the old lea%es off* +he noise is
startlin* $nd at niht the lare from the planes brihtly lihts up the place* $s a result of the noise, the
Causbys had to i%e up their chic(en business* $s many as 6 to 1: of their chic(ens &ere (illed in one day by
flyin into the &alls from friht* +he total chic(ens lost in that manner &as about 1E:* .roduction also fell
off* +he result &as the destruction of the use of the property as a commercial chic(en farm* +he Causbys are
fre2uently depri%ed of their sleep and the family has become ner%ous and frihtened* $lthouh there ha%e
been no airplane accidents on their property, there ha%e been se%eral accidents near the airport and close to
their place* +hese are the essential facts found by the Court of Claims* On the basis of these facts, it found
that the property had depreciated in %alue* It held that the Dnited 5tates had ta(en an easement o%er the
property on 4une 1, 1980, and that the %alue of the property destroyed and the easement ta(en &as O0,:::*
+he Dnited 5tates contends that &hen flihts are made &ithin the na%iable airspace ($ir Commerce $ct of
1906, as amended by the Ci%il $eronautics $ct of 19)>) &ithout any physical in%asion of the property of the
lando&ners, there has been no ta(in of property* It says that at most there &as merely incidental damae
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( )
occurrin as a conse2uence of authori#ed air na%iation*
#ssue" 6hether there &as ta(in of the CausbyKs property, e%en in the liht that the Dnited 5tates alleedly
has complete and e!clusi%e national so%ereinty in the air space o%er the country*
$el%" +he Dnited 5tates conceded that if the flihts o%er Causby1s property rendered it uninhabitable, there
&ould be a ta(in compensable under the Eth $mendment* It is the o&ner1s loss, not the ta(er1s ain, &hich is
the measure of the %alue of the property ta(en* Mar(et %alue fairly determined is the normal measure of the
reco%ery* $nd that %alue may reflect the use to &hich the land could readily be con%erted, as &ell as the
e!istin use* If, by reason of the fre2uency and altitude of the flihts, Causby could not use this land for any
purpose, their loss &ould be complete* It &ould be as complete as if the Dnited 5tates had entered upon the
surface of the land and ta(en e!clusi%e possession of it* <erein, there &as a ta(in* +houh it &ould be only
an easement of fliht &hich &as ta(en, that easement, if permanent and not merely temporary, normally
&ould be the e2ui%alent of a fee interest* It &ould be a definite e!ercise of complete dominion and control
o%er the surface of the land* +he fact that the planes ne%er touched the surface &ould be as irrele%ant as the
absence in this day of the feudal li%ery of seisin on the transfer of real estate* +he o&ner1s riht to possess and
e!ploit the land=that is to say, his beneficial o&nership of it=&ould be destroyed* It &ould not be a case of
incidental damaes arisin from a leali#ed nuisance such as &as in%ol%ed in "ichards %* 6ashinton
+erminal Co* (0)) D*5* E86)* In that case property o&ners &hose lands ad3oined a railroad line &ere denied
reco%ery for damaes resultin from the noise, %ibrations, smo(e and the li(e, incidental to the operations of
the trains* <erein, the line of fliht is o%er the land, and the land is appropriated as directly and completely as
if it &ere used for the run&ays themsel%es* <o&e%er, since the record in the case is not clear &hether the
easement ta(en is a permanent or a temporary one, it &ould be premature for the Court to consider &hether
the amount of the a&ard made by the Court of Claims &as proper, and thus the Court remanded the cause to
the Court of Claims so that it may ma(e the necessary findins in conformity &ith the Court1s opinion*
+4 !ilstream #nternational #nc. [GR 1+5+12 an% GR 1+2)**. +3 3anuary 1992
"hird Division, Francisco (J): 4 concur
!acts" Filstream International, Inc*, is the reistered o&ner of the properties consistin of ad3acent parcels of
land situated in $ntonio "i%era 5treet, +ondo II, Manila, &ith a total area of ),E91*1: s2uare meters (+C+
0:)9)9, 0:)9)6, 16919>, 169199, 1690:: and 1690:0 of the "eister of Deeds of Manila)* On 9 4anuary
199), Filstream filed an e3ectment suit before the Metropolitan +rial Court (M+C) of Manila ('ranch 1E,
Ci%il Case 18:>19=CJ) aainst the occupants of the parcels of land (Orlando Malit, $ntonio Cauiat, $licia
Cabrera, $rmando Aachica, 4acinto Cauiat, ;loria $ntonio, @li#alde 7a%arra, Dolores Fuentes, 5usana "oy,
$ntonio IbaPe#, 'enino 'asilio, Auceria Dematulac, Florencia ;ome#, Aa#aro ;ome#, 4ose ;ome#,
Jenancio Manaloto, Cristino Dmali, Demetria ;atus, .riscilla Malon, Domino $uila, "amon 5an $ustin,
4ulian Ferrer, 4r*, Francisco ;alan, Florentino Mali&at, 5e%erina Jillar, +rinidad 7auit, 4ose 7auit,
Fortunato $ustin Cabrera, ;audencio Intal, Danilo Da%id, @nri2ue Da%id, Jicente De ;u#man, .olicarpio
Aumba, 'elen .alma, @len 5om%illo, Aeonardo Manicad, Opren Miclat, 'enita Mata, ;reorio Aope#,
Marcelina 5apno, 4esus Mercado, and Cali!to ;ome#) on the rounds of termination of the lease contract and
non=payment of rentals* 4udment &as rendered by the M+C on 5eptember 18, 199) orderin pri%ate
respondents to %acate the premises and pay bac( rentals to Filstream* 7ot satisfied, malit, et* al* appealed the
decision to the "eional +rial Court ("+C) of Manila ('ranch 8, Ci%il Case 9)=6>1):) &hich in turn affirmed
the decision of the M+C* 5till not content, Malit, et* al* proceeded to the Court of $ppeals %ia a petition for
re%ie& (C$=;" 5. ))918)* +he result ho&e%er remained the same as the appellate court affirmed the
decision of the "+C in its decision dated 0E $uust 1998* +hereafter, no further action &as ta(en by Malit, et*
al*, as a result of &hich the decision in the e3ectment suit became final and e!ecutory*
<o&e%er, durin the pendency of the e3ectment proceedins Malit, et* al* filed on 0E May 199), a complaint
for $nnulment of Deed of @!chane aainst Filstream before the "+C of Manila ('ranch 8), Ci%il Case 9)=
66:E9)* It &as at this stae that City of Manila came into the picture &hen the city o%ernment appro%ed
Ordinance 9>1) on E 7o%ember 199), authori#in Mayor $lfredo 5* Aim to initiate the ac2uisition by
neotiation, e!propriation, purchase, or other leal means certain parcels of land &hich formed part of
Filstream1s properties then occupied by Malit, et* al* 5ubse2uently, the City of Manila appro%ed Ordinance
9>EE declarin the e!propriation of certain parcels of land situated alon $ntonio "i%era and Fernando Ma*
;uerrero streets in +ondo, Manila &hich &ere o&ned by Mr* @nri2ue Lui3ano ;utierre#, Filstream1s
predecessor=in=interest* +he said properties &ere to be sold and distributed to 2ualified tenants of the area
pursuant to the Aand Dse De%elopment .roram of the City of Manila* On 0) May 1998, the City of Manila
filed a complaint for eminent domain before the "+C of Manila ('ranch 80, Ci%il Case 98=9:E6:), see(in to
e!propriate the parcels of land o&ned by Filstream &hich are situated at $ntonio "i%era 5treet, +ondo II,
Manila* .ursuant to the complaint filed by the City of Manila, the trial court issued a 6rit of .ossession in
fa%or of the former &hich ordered the transfer of possession o%er the disputed premises to the City of Manila*
Filstream filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for eminent domain as &ell as a motion to 2uash the &rit of
possession* On ): 5eptember 1998, the "+C of Manila issued an order denyin Filstream1s motion to dismiss
and the motion to 2uash the 6rit of .ossession* Filstream filed a motion for reconsideration as &ell as a
supplemental motion for reconsideration see(in the re%ersal of the order but the same &ere denied* 5till,
Filstream filed a subse2uent motion to be allo&ed to file a second motion for reconsideration but it &as also
denied* $rie%ed, Filstream filed on )1 March 1996, a .etition for Certiorari &ith the Court of $ppeals (C$=
;" 5. )69:8) see(in to set aside the "+C order* On 1> March 1996, the appellate court dismissed the
petition* Filsteream filed a motion for reconsideration and attached clearer copies of the pertinent documents
and papers pursuant to 5ection 0(a), "ule 6 of the "e%ised Internal "ules of the Court of $ppeals* 'ut on 0:
May 1996, the appellate court issued a resolution denyin the motion as petitioner failed to submit clearer and
readable copies of the pleadins* +his prompted Filstream to proceed to the 5upreme Court by filin a petition
for re%ie& on certiorari*
Mean&hile, o&in to the finality of the decision in the e3ectment suit (Ci%il Case 18:>19=CJ), the M+C of
Manila, 'ranch 1E, upon motion of Filstream, issued a 6rit of @!ecution as &ell as a 7otice to Jacate the
disputed premises* Malit, et* al* filed a Motion to "ecallILuash the 6rit of @!ecution and 7otice to Jacate
allein the e!istence of a super%enin e%ent in that the properties sub3ect of the dispute ha%e already been
ordered condemned in an e!propriation proceedin in fa%or of the City of Manila for the benefit of the
2ualified occupants thereof, thus e!ecution shall be stayed* For its part, the City of Manila filed on 1) March
1996, a motion for inter%ention &ith prayer to stayI2uash the &rit of e!ecution on the round that it is the
present possessor of the property sub3ect of e!ecution* In its order dated 18 March 1996, the M+C of Manila
denied Malit, et* al*1s motion as it found the alleations therein bereft of merit and upheld the issuance of the
6rit of @!ecution and 7otice to Jacate in Filstream1s fa%or* 5ubse2uently, the trial court also denied the
motion filed by the City of Manila* On 00 $pril 1996, the trial court issued an order commandin the
demolition of the structure erected on the disputed premises* +o a%ert the demolition, Malit, et* al* filed before
the "+C of Manila, ('ranch 18, Ci%il Case 96=9>:9>) a .etition for Certiorari and .rohibition &ith prayer for
the issuance of a temporary restrainin order and preliminary in3unction * On 1E May 1996, the City of
Manila filed its .etition for Certiorari and .rohibition &ith prayer for the issuance of a temporary restrainin
order and preliminary in3unction &hich &as raffled to 'ranch 0) of the "+C of Manila (Ci%il Case 96=9>)>0),
see(in the re%ersal of the orders issued by the M+C of Manila, 'ranch 18* +hereafter, upon motion filed by
the City of Manila, an order &as issued by the "+C of Manila, 'ranch 1:, orderin the consolidation of Ci%il
Case 96=9>)>0 &ith Ci%il Case 96=9>:9> pendin before 'ranch 18 of the "+C of Manila* In3unctions &ere
issued* Filstream then filed a motion for reconsideration from the order of denial but pendin resolution of
this motion, it filed a motion for %oluntary inhibition of the presidin 3ude of the "+C of Manila, 'ranch 18*
+he motion for inhibition &as ranted 0E and as a result, the consolidated cases (Ci%il Cases 96=9>)>0 and
96=9>:9>) &ere re=raffled to the "+C of Manila, 'ranch ))* Durin the proceedins before the "+C of
Manila, 'ranch )), Filstream mo%ed for the dismissal of the consolidated cases (Ci%il Cases 96=9>)>0 and
96=9>:9>) for %iolation of 5upreme Court Circular :8=98 (forum shoppin) because the same parties, causes
of action and sub3ect matter in%ol%ed therein ha%e already been disposed of in the decision in the e3ectment
case (Ci%il Case 18:>19) &hich has already become final and e!ecutory prior to the filin of these
consolidated cases* On 9 December 1996, the "+C of Manila, 'ranch )) ordered the dismissal of Ci%il Cases
96=9>)>0 and 96=9>:9> due to forum shoppin* Immediately thereafter, Filstream filed an @!=parte Motion
for Issuance of an $lias 6rit of Demolition and @3ectment and a supplemental motion to the same dated
4anuary 1: and 1), 1999, respecti%ely, before the M+C of Manila, 'ranch 1E, &hich promulated the decision
in the e3ectment suit (Ci%il Case 7o* 18:>19=CJ)* 0) On 4anuary 1999, the court ranted the motion and
issued the correspondin &rit of demolition* $s a conse2uence of the dismissal of the consolidated cases,
Malit, et* al* filed a .etition for Certiorari and .rohibition &ith prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restrainin order and preliminary in3unction before the Court of $ppeals (C$=;" 5. 8)1:1)* $t the
conclusion of the hearin for the issuance of a &rit of preliminary in3unction, the Court of $ppeals, in its
resolution dated 1> February 1999, found merit in Malit, et* al*1s alleations in support of their application of
the issuance of the &rit and ranted the same* Filstream filed a .etition for Certiorari under "ule 6E*
#ssue" 6hether there is %iolation of due process aainst Filstream in the manner its properties &ere
e!propriated and condemned in fa%or of the City of Manila*
$el%" +hat only a fe& could actually benefit from the e!propriation of the property does not diminish its
public use character* It is simply not possible to pro%ide all at once land and shelter for all &ho need them*
Corollary to the e!panded notion of public use, e!propriation is not anymore confined to %ast tracts of land
and landed estates* It is therefore of no moment that the land souht to be e!propriated in this case is less than
half a hectare only* +hrouh the years, the public use re2uirement in eminent domain has e%ol%ed into a
fle!ible concept, influenced by chanin conditions* .ublic use no& includes the broader notion of indirect
public benefit or ad%antae, includin in particular, urban land reform and housin* +he Court ta(es 3udicial
notice of the fact that urban land reform has become a paramount tas( in %ie& of the acute shortae of decent
housin in urban areas particularly in Metro Manila* 7e%ertheless, despite the e!istence of a serious dilemma,
local o%ernment units are not i%en an unbridled authority &hen e!ercisin their po&er of eminent domain
in pursuit of solutions to these problems* +he basic rules still ha%e to be follo&ed, &hich are as follo&sF ?no
person shall be depri%ed of life, liberty, or property &ithout due process of la&, nor shall any person be denied
the e2ual protection of the la&s/ pri%ate property shall not be ta(en for public use &ithout 3ust compensation?*
+hus, the e!ercise by local o%ernment units of the po&er of eminent domain is not &ithout limitations* @%en
5ection 19 of the 1991 Aocal ;o%ernment Code is %ery e!plicit that it must comply &ith the pro%isions of the
Constitution and pertinent la&s* Jery clear from 5ections 9 and 1: of "epublic $ct 9099 (Drban De%elopment
and <ousin $ct of 1990) are the limitations &ith respect to the order of priority in ac2uirin pri%ate lands
and in resortin to e!propriation proceedins as a means to ac2uire the same* .ri%ate lands ran( last in the
order of priority for purposes of sociali#ed housin* In the same %ein, e!propriation proceedins are to be
resorted to only &hen the other modes of ac2uisition ha%e been e!hausted* Compliance &ith these conditions
must be deemed mandatory because these are the only safeuards in securin the riht of o&ners of pri%ate
property to due process &hen their property is e!propriated for public use* +here is nothin in the records that
&ould indicate that City of Manila complied &ith 5ection 9 and 5ection 1: of "$ 9099* Filstream1s properties
&ere e!propriated and ordered condemned in fa%or of the City of Manila sans any sho&in that resort to the
ac2uisition of other lands listed under 5ection 9 of "$ 9099 ha%e pro%ed futile* @%idently, there &as a
%iolation of Filstream1s riht to due process &hich must accordinly be rectified*
+5 :state or $eirs of the late e?13ustice 3ose 4. -. Reyes vs. City of Manila [GR 13+431, 13
!ebruary +))4@ also :state or $eirs of the late e?13ustice 3ose 4. -. Reyes vs. Court of '((eals
[GR 13*14&
"hird Division, 4orona (J): 2 concur, too+ no ,art
!acts" 4ose '* A* "eyes and <eirs of @dmundo "eyes are the pro=indi%iso co=o&ners in e2ual proportion of
11 parcels of land &ith a total area of 1),98: s2uare meters situated at 5ta* Cru# District, Manila and co%ered
by +ransfer Certificate of +itle 7o* 08)E9 issued by the "eister of Deeds of Manila* +hese parcels of land
are bein occupied and leased by different tenants, amon &hom are respondents Dr* "osario $bio, $nelina
Malonso and members of the 5ampauita 'isi n Ma(a(apitbahay, Incorporated (5'MI)* +he "eyeses
leased to $bio Aot 0=@, 'loc( )::9 of the consolidated subdi%ision plan (A"C) .sd= )0>)8E, &ith an area of
191 s2uare meters and to Malonso, Aot 0=", 'loc( 0996 of the same consolidation plan, &ith an area of 110
s2uare meters* On 9 7o%ember 199) and 06 May 1998, respecti%ely, 4ose '*A* "eyes and the <eirs of
@dmundo "eyes filed e3ectment complaints aainst $bio and Malonso, amon others* Dpon his death, 4ose
'*A* "eyes &as substituted by his heirs* +he heirs obtained fa%orable 3udments in Ci%il Case 180>E1=CJ
(Metropolitan +rial Court ,M+C- of Manila, 'ranch 1:, 9 May 1998) aainst $bio, and in Ci%il Case
1880:E=CJ (M+C of Manila, 'ranch ), 8 May 199E) aainst Malonso* $bio and Malonso appealed the
M+C decisions but the same &ere denied by the "+C of Manila, 'ranch 0>, and the "+C of Manila, 'ranch
)>, respecti%ely* +heir appeals to the Court of $ppeals &ere li(e&ise denied* $s no appeals &ere further
ta(en, the 3udments of e%iction aainst respondents $bio and Malonso became final and e!ecutory in
199>*
Durin the pendency of the t&o e3ectment cases aainst $bio and Malonso, the City of Manila filed on 0E
$pril 199E a complaint for eminent domain (e!propriation) of the properties of "eyeses at the "+C of Manila,
'ranch 9* +he properties souht to be ac2uired by the City included parcels of land occupied by $bio,
Malonso and members of 5'MI* +he complaint &as based on Ordinance 9>1> enacted on 09 7o%ember
199) authori#in the City Mayor of Manila to e!propriate certain parcels of land &ith an areate area of
9,9): s2uare meters, more or less, o&ned by 4ose '*A* "eyes and @dmundo "eyes situated alon the streets
of "i#al $%enue, +ecson, M* 7ati%idad, 5ampauita, Oro2uieta, M* <i#on, Feli! <uertes, 'ulacan, 5ulu,
$urora 'oule%ard, .edro ;ue%arra and Nalimbas in the third district of Manila* +he complaint alleed that,
on 1: March 199E, the City thru City Aeal Officer $nel $uirre, 4r* sent the "eyeses a &ritten offer to
purchase the sub3ect properties for .1:,0>E,09)*)> but the same &as re3ected* On 1E May 199E, 5'MI, a
reistered non=stoc( corporation composed of the residents of the sub3ect properties, filed a motion for
inter%ention and admission of their attached complaint &ith prayer for in3unction* +he trial court denied the
motion for inter%ention in an order dated 0 4une 199E* On the day 5'MIKs motion for inter%ention &as
denied, the "eyeses filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for eminent domain for lac( of merit, allein
%arious rounds, amon them, ?that instead of e!propriatin the sub3ect property &hich en3oys the least
priority in the ac2uisition by the City of Manila for sociali#ed housin under 5ec* 9(t) of "*$* 9099, the
money to be paid should be channeled to the de%elopment of 088 sites in Metro Manila desinated as area for
priority de%elopment*? On 6 4une 199E, the trial court allo&ed the City to ta(e possession of the sub3ect
property upon deposit of the amount of .1,E80,99), based on the .1:,0>E,09)*)> offer by the City to the
"eyeses &hich the trial court fi!ed as the pro%isional amount of the sub3ect properties* On 18 4une 199E, the
City filed an opposition to the "eyesesK motion to dismiss* On ) October 199E, the CityKs complaint for
eminent domain &as dismissed* +he CityKs motion for reconsideration &as denied* On 10 4anuary 1996, the
City appealed the decision of the trial court to the Court of $ppeals* +hereafter, se%eral motions see(in the
issuance of a temporary restrainin order (+"O) and preliminary in3unction &ere filed by the City to pre%ent
petitioners from e3ectin the occupants of the sub3ect premises* On 01 March 1996, the Court of $ppeals
issued a resolution denyin the motions for lac( of merit* +he CityKs motion for reconsideration &as li(e&ise
denied* Mean&hile, on 09 4anuary 1999, in %ie& of the finality of the 3udment in the e3ectment case aainst
$bio, the M+C of Manila, 'ranch 1:, issued a &rit of e!ecution* On )1 4anuary 1999, 5'MI filed in the
Court of $ppeals a motion for lea%e to inter%ene &ith prayer for in3uncti%e relief prayin that the e3ectment
cases be suspended or that the e!ecution thereof be en3oined in %ie& of the pendency of the e!propriation case
filed by the City o%er the same parcels of land* $bio also filed a reiteratory motion for issuance of +"O and
to stop the e!ecution of the order of the M+C of Manila, 'ranch 1:* On 06 $uust 1999, the Court of $ppeals
issued a resolution findin prima facie basis to rant 5'MIKs motions, and issued a +"O to 4ude 5al%ador,
his employees and aents to maintain the status 2uo* On 09 4anuary 199>, the Court of $ppeals rendered the
decision re%ersin the trial court 3udment and upholdin as %alid CityKs e!ercise of its po&er of eminent
domain o%er the "eyesesK properties* From the aforementioned decision of the Court of $ppeals, the "eyeses
filed on 19 March 199> the petition for re%ie& before the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether there is %iolation of due process aainst the "eyeses in the manner their property &ere
e!propriated and condemned in fa%or of the City of Manila*
$el%" +he Filstream case is substantially similar in facts and issues to the present case* In Filstream %s* Court
of $ppeals, the Court held that the 5ections 9 and 1: of "epublic $ct 9099 are limitations to the e!ercise of
the po&er of eminent domain, specially &ith respect to the order of priority in ac2uirin pri%ate lands and in
resortin to e!propriation proceedins as a means to ac2uire the same* .ri%ate lands ran( last in the order of
priority for purposes of sociali#ed housin* In the same %ein, e!propriation proceedins are to be resorted to
only after the other modes of ac2uisition ha%e been e!hausted* Compliance &ith these conditions is
mandatory because these are the only safeuards of often=times helpless o&ners of pri%ate property aainst
%iolation of due process &hen their property is forcibly ta(en from them for public use* <erein, the City failed
to pro%e strict compliance &ith the re2uirements of 5ections 9 and 1: of "$ 9099* +he City neither alleed in
its complaint nor pro%ed durin the proceedins before the trial court that it complied &ith said re2uirements*
@%en in the Court of $ppeals, the City in its pleadins failed to sho& its compliance &ith the la&* +he Court
of $ppeals &as li(e&ise silent on this specific 3urisdictional issue* +his is a clear %iolation of the riht to due
process of the "eyeses*
+& City of Man%aluyon. vs. '.uilar [GR 13*15+, +9 3anuary +))1
First Division, #uno (J): 4 concur
!acts" $ntonio, Francisco, +helma, @usebio, and "odolfo 7* $uilar, constructed residential houses se%eral
decades ao on a portion of the ) lots located at 9 de Febrero 5treet, 'aranay Mau&a, City of
Mandaluyon* +he $uilars had since leased out these houses to tenants until the present* On the %acant
portion of the lots, other families constructed residential structures &hich they li(e&ise occupied* In 19>), the
lots &ere classified by "esolution 10E of the 'oard of the <ousin and Drban De%elopment Coordinatin
Council as an $rea for .riority De%elopment for urban land reform under .roclamation 1969 and 00>8 of
then .resident Marcos* $s a result of this classification, the tenants and occupants of the lots offered to
purchase the land from the $uilars, but the latter refused to sell* On 9 7o%ember 1996, the 5anunian
.anlunsod of Mandaluyon, upon petition of the Napitbisi, an association of tenants and occupants of the
sub3ect land, adopted "esolution E16, 5eries of 1996 authori#in Mayor 'en3amin $balos of the City of
Mandaluyon to initiate action for the e!propriation of the sub3ect lots and construction of a medium=rise
condominium for 2ualified occupants of the land* On 1: 4anuary 1996, Mayor $balos alleedly sent a letter to
the $uilars offerin to purchase the said property at .),:::*:: per s2uare meter* On 8 $uust 1999, the City
filed &ith the "eional +rial Court ("+C), 'ranch 16>, .asi City a complaint for e!propriation, see(in to
e!propriate ) ad3oinin parcels of land &ith an areate area of 1,>89 s2uare meters in the names of the
$uilars, and prayin that the fi!in of 3ust compensation at the fair mar(et %alue of .),:::*:: per s2uare
meter* In their ans&er, the $uilars, e!cept @usebio &ho died in 199E, denied ha%in recei%ed a copy of
Mayor $balos1 offer to purchase their lots* +hey alleed that the e!propriation of their land is arbitrary and
capricious, and is not for a public purpose/ that the sub3ect lots are their only real property and are too small
for e!propriation, &hile the City has se%eral properties in%entoried for sociali#ed housin/ and that the fair
mar(et %alue of .),:::*:: per s2uare meter is arbitrary because the #onal %aluation set by the 'ureau of
Internal "e%enue is .9,:::*:: per s2uare meter* $s counterclaim, the $uilars prayed for damaes of .01
million* On E 7o%ember 1999, the City filed an $mended Complaint and named as an additional defendant
Jirinia 7* $uilar and, at the same time, substituted @usebio $uilar &ith his heirs* +he City also e!cluded
from e!propriation +C+ 7E9>9: and thereby reduced the area souht to be e!propriated from three ())
parcels of land to t&o (0) parcels totallin 1,6)6 s2uare meters*+he $mended Complaint &as admitted by the
trial court on 1> December 1999* On 19 5eptember 199>, the trial court issued an order dismissin the
$mended Complaint after declarin the $uilars as ?small property o&ners? &hose land is e!empt from
e!propriation under "epublic $ct 9099* +he court also found that the e!propriation &as not for a public
purpose for the City1s failure to present any e%idence that the intended beneficiaries of the e!propriation are
landless and homeless residents of Mandaluyon* +he City mo%ed for reconsideration* On 09 December
199>, the court denied the motion* +he City filed a petition for re%ie& &ith the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the City has e!hausted all means to ac2uire the land under the hands of pri%ate persons, but
&hich is &ithin the $reas for .riority De%elopment ($.D)*
$el%" .residential Decree (.D) 1E19, the Drban Aand "eform $ct, &as issued by then .resident Marcos in
199>* +he decree adopted as a 5tate policy the liberation of human communities from bliht, conestion and
ha#ard, and promotion of their de%elopment and moderni#ation, the optimum use of land as a national
resource for public &elfare* .ursuant to this la&, .roclamation 1>9) &as issued in 1999 declarin the entire
Metro Manila as Drban Aand "eform Bone for purposes of urban land reform* +his &as amended in 19>: by
.roclamation 1969 and in 19>) by .roclamation 00>8 &hich identified and specified 08E sites in Metro
Manila as $reas for .riority De%elopment and Drban Aand "eform Bones* +he ac2uisition of lands for
sociali#ed housin is o%erned by se%eral pro%isions in the la&* .ursuant to 5ection 9 of "$ 9099, Aands for
sociali#ed housin are to be ac2uired in the follo&in orderF (1) o%ernment lands/ (0) alienable lands of the
public domain/ ()) unreistered or abandoned or idle lands/ (8) lands &ithin the declared $reas for .riority
De%elopment ($.D), Bonal Impro%ement .roram (BI.) sites, 5lum Impro%ement and "esettlement (5I")
sites &hich ha%e not yet been ac2uired/ (E) 'AI55 sites &hich ha%e not yet been ac2uired/ and (6) pri%ately=
o&ned lands* 5ection 9, ho&e%er, is not a sinle pro%ision that can be read separate from the other pro%isions
of the la&* It must be read toether &ith 5ection 1: of "$ 9099* +hus, lands for sociali#ed housin under "$
9099 are to be ac2uired in se%eral modes* $mon these modes are the follo&inF (1) community mortae/
(0) land s&appin, ()) land assembly or consolidation/ (8) land ban(in/ (E) donation to the o%ernment/ (6)
3oint %enture areement/ (9) neotiated purchase/ and (>) e!propriation* +he mode of e!propriation is sub3ect
to t&o conditionsF (a) it shall be resorted to only &hen the other modes of ac2uisition ha%e been e!hausted/
and (b) parcels of land o&ned by small property o&ners are e!empt from such ac2uisition* +he ac2uisition of
the lands in the priority list must be made sub3ect to the modes and conditions set forth in the ne!t pro%ision*
In other &ords, land that lies &ithin the $.D may be ac2uired only in the modes under, and sub3ect to the
conditions of, 5ection 1:* <erein, the City claims that it had faithfully obser%ed the different modes of land
ac2uisition for sociali#ed housin under "$ 9099 and adhered to the priorities in the ac2uisition for sociali#ed
housin under said la&* It, ho&e%er, did not state &ith particularity &hether it e!hausted the other modes of
ac2uisition in 5ection 9 of the la& before it decided to e!propriate the sub3ect lots* +he la& states
?e!propriation shall be resorted to &hen other modes of ac2uisition ha%e been e!hausted*? +he City alleed
only one mode of ac2uisition, i*e*, by neotiated purchase* +he City, throuh the City Mayor, tried to purchase
the lots from the $uilars but the latter refused to sell* $s to the other modes of ac2uisition, no mention has
been made* 7ot e%en "esolution E16, 5eries of 1996 of the 5anunian .anlunsod authori#in the Mayor
of Mandaluyon to effect the e!propriation of the sub3ect property states &hether the city o%ernment tried to
ac2uire the same by community mortae, land s&appin, land assembly or consolidation, land ban(in,
donation to the o%ernment, or 3oint %enture areement under 5ection 9 of the la&*
+* $eirs of 3uancho 'r%ona vs. Reyes [GR -1&)549, &)553 to &)555@ +& October 1923
En Banc, -utierre. Jr/ (J): * concur, concurs in resu't, on 'eave
!acts" +he .hilippine +ourism $uthority filed 8 complaints &ith the Court of First Instance of Cebu City for
the e!propriation of some 0>0 hectares of rollin land situated in baranays Malubo and 'aba, Cebu City,
under .+$1s e!press authority ?to ac2uire by purchase, by neotiation or by condemnation proceedins any
pri%ate land &ithin and &ithout the tourist #ones? for the purposes indicated in 5ection E, pararaph '(0), of
its "e%ised Charter (.D E68), more specifically, for the de%elopment into interated resort comple!es of
selected and &ell=defined eoraphic areas &ith potential tourism %alue, specifically for the construction of a
sports comple! (bas(etball courts, tennis courts, %olleyball courts, trac( and field, baseball and softball
diamonds, and s&immin pools), clubhouse, old course, children1s playround and a nature area for picnics
and horsebac( ridin for the use of the public* +he <eirs of 4uancho $rdona ("epresented by ;loria $rdona)
$nastacio C* Cabilao, <eirs of Cipriano Cabilao ("epresented by 4ose Cabilao) Modesta Cabilao, <eirs of
"oman Cabuenas ("epresented by $lberto Cabuenas), $ripino ;abisay and .rudencia Mabini, $ntonio
Aabrador and Aucia ;abisay, ;eronimo Mabini and Marcelina 5abal, Inocencio Mabini and $rsenia "eyes,
.atricio Mabini and ;reoria 'orres, $niceto ;adapan and Ma!ima ;abisay, 'artolome Mano and Calineca
@* Mano, $lberto Cabuenas, 7arciso Cabuenas and Jictoria Cabuenas, @uti2uioseno, <eirs of @speridion
Cabuenas ("epresented by $lberto Cabuenas), Ma!imina 7a%aro, 5ulpicio 7a%aro, @duardo 7a%aro,
Martiniano "oma (In "epresentation of $rcadio Mabini, Deceased), Martin 5eno, Fausto $rda, Ma!ima
Cabilao, @strella 5eno, @du%eis 5* Cabilao, "osario Cabilao, Minors Danilo, 5ocorro, 4osefina and Marites,
$ll 5urnamed Cabilao, 4uan 'orres ("epresented by Francisca 'orres), "amon 4abadan, 4esus $lipar and
Aeonila Nabahar, $ntonio Aabrador, <eirs of 7icasio ;abisay ("epresented by $rsenio ;abisay), .acifico
Aabrador, Demetrio Aabrador and Fructosa +abura, Jenancio Del Mar, Marino Del Mar, <eirs of +eodora
$rcillo ("epresented by 'riida $rcillo) Dionisia ;abunada, <eirs of 'uena%entura Francisco ("epresented
by Felicidad 5adaya Francisco), <eirs of Jictoria C* Cabuenas ("epresented by $lberto Cabuenas) <eirs of
Cipriano ;abunada ("epresented by Claudio ;abunada) filed their oppositions, and had a common alleation
in that the ta(in is alleedly not impressed &ith public use under the Constitution/ allein that there is no
specific constitutional pro%ision authori#in the ta(in of pri%ate property for tourism purposes/ that
assumin that .+$ has such po&er, the intended use cannot be paramount to the determination of the land as a
land reform area/ that limitin the amount of compensation by leislati%e fiat is constitutionally repunant/
and that since the land is under the land reform proram, it is the Court of $rarian "elations and not the
Court of First Instance (CFI), that has 3urisdiction o%er the e!propriation cases*+he .hilippine +ourism
$uthority ha%in deposited &ith the .hilippine 7ational 'an(, Cebu City 'ranch, an amount e2ui%alent to
1:G of the %alue of the properties pursuant to .residential Decree 7o* 1E)), the lo&er court issued separate
orders authori#in .+$ to ta(e immediate possession of the premises and directin the issuance of &rits of
possession* +he <eirs of $rdona, et* al* filed a petition for certiorari &ith preliminary in3unction before the
5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the e!propriation of parcels of land for the purpose of constructin a sports comple!,
includin a olf course, by the .hilippine +ourism $uthority be considered ta(in for Qpublic use*R
$el%" +here are three pro%isions of the 199) Constitution &hich directly pro%ide for the e!ercise of the po&er
of eminent domain* 5ection 0, $rticle IJ states that pri%ate property shall not be ta(en for public use &ithout
3ust compensation* 5ection 6, $rticle HIJ allo&s the 5tate, in the interest of national &elfare or defense and
upon payment of 3ust compensation to transfer to public o&nership, utilities and other pri%ate enterprises to be
operated by the o%ernment* 5ection 1), $rticle HIJ states that the 'atasan .ambansa may authori#e upon
payment of 3ust compensation the e!propriation of pri%ate lands to be subdi%ided into small lots and con%eyed
at cost to deser%in citi#ens* 6hile not directly mentionin the e!propriation of pri%ate properties upon
payment of 3ust compensation, the pro%isions on social 3ustice and ararian reforms &hich allo& the e!ercise
of police po&er toether &ith the po&er of eminent domain in the implementation of constitutional ob3ecti%es
are e%en more far reachin insofar as ta!in of pri%ate property is concerned* +he restricti%e %ie& of public
use may be appropriate for a nation &hich circumscribes the scope of o%ernment acti%ities and public
concerns and &hich possesses bi and correctly located public lands that ob%iate the need to ta(e pri%ate
property for public purposes* 7either circumstance applies to the .hilippines* +he .hilippines has ne%er been
a laisse# faire 5tate, and the necessities &hich impel the e!ertion of so%erein po&er are all too often found in
areas of scarce public land or limited o%ernment resources* +here can be no doubt that e!propriation for such
traditional purposes as the construction of roads, brides, ports, &ater&or(s, schools, electric and
telecommunications systems, hydroelectric po&er plants, mar(ets and slauhterhouses, par(s, hospitals,
o%ernment office buildins, and flood control or irriation systems is %alid* <o&e%er, the concept of public
use is not limited to traditional purposes* <ere as else&here the idea that ?public use? is strictly limited to
clear cases of ?use by the public? has been discarded* +he .hilippine +ourism $uthority has stressed that the
de%elopment of the >:> hectares includes plans that &ould i%e the <eirs of $rdona, et* al* and other
displaced persons producti%e employment, hiher incomes, decent housin, &ater and electric facilities, and
better li%in standards* +he CourtKs dismissal of the petition is, in part, predicated on those assurances* +he
riht of the .+$ to proceed &ith the e!propriation of the 0>0 hectares already identified as fit for the
establishment of a resort comple! to promote tourism is, therefore, sustained*
+2 5umulon. vs. Guerrero [GR -142&25, 3) 5e(tember 192*
En Banc, 4ortes (J): 2 concur
!acts" On E December 1999 the 7ational <ousin $uthority (7<$) filed a complaint for e!propriation of
parcels of land co%erin appro!imately 0E hectares, (in $ntipolo "i#al) includin the lots of Aoren#o
5umulon and @milia Jidanes='alaoin &ith an area of 6,669 s2uare meters and ),))) s2uare meters
respecti%ely* +he land souht to be e!propriated &ere %alued by the 7<$ at .1*:: per s2uare meter adoptin
the mar(et %alue fi!ed by the pro%incial assessor in accordance &ith presidential decrees prescribin the
%aluation of property in e!propriation proceedins* +oether &ith the complaint &as a motion for immediate
possession of the properties* +he 7<$ deposited the amount of .1E>,9>:*:: &ith the .hilippine 7ational
'an(, representin the ?total mar(et %alue? of the sub3ect 0E hectares of land, pursuant to .residential Decree
1008 &hich defines ?the policy on the e!propriation of pri%ate property for sociali#ed housin upon payment
of 3ust compensation*? On 19 4anuary 199>, 4ude 'uena%entura ;uerrero issued the order issuin a &rit of
possession in fa%or of 7<$* 5umulon and Jidanes='alaoin filed a motion for reconsideration on the
round that they had been depri%ed of the possession of their property &ithout due process of la&* +his &as,
ho&e%er, denied* +hey filed a petition for certiorari &ith the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the ta(in of pri%ate property for Qsociali#ed housin,R &hich &ould benefit a fe& and not all
citi#ens, constitutes ta(in for Qpublic use*R
$el%" +he e!ercise of the po&er of eminent domain is sub3ect to certain limitations imposed by the
constitution (199)), i*e* that pri%ate property shall not be ta(en for public use &ithout 3ust compensation?
($rt* IJ, sec* 9)/ and that no person shall be depri%ed of life, liberty, or property &ithout due process of la&,
nor shall any person be denied the e2ual protection of the la&s? ($rt* IJ, sec* 1)* +he ?public use? re2uirement
for a %alid e!ercise of the po&er of eminent domain is a fle!ible and e%ol%in concept influenced by chanin
conditions* +he term ?public use? has ac2uired a more comprehensi%e co%erae* +o the literal import of the
term sinifyin strict use or employment by the public has been added the broader notion of indirect public
benefit or ad%antae* 5pecifically, urban rene&al or rede%elopment and the construction of lo&=cost housin
is reconi#ed as a public purpose, not only because of the e!panded concept of public use but also because of
specific pro%isions in the Constitution* +he 199) Constitution made it incumbent upon the 5tate to establish,
maintain and ensure ade2uate social ser%ices includin housin ,$rt* II, sec* 9-* <ousin is a basic human
need* 5hortae in housin is a matter of state concern since it directly and sinificantly affects public health,
safety, the en%ironment and in sum, the eneral &elfare* +he public character of housin measures does not
chane because units in housin pro3ects cannot be occupied by all but only by those &ho satisfy prescribed
2ualifications* $ beinnin has to be made, for it is not possible to pro%ide housin for all &ho need it, all at
once* ?5ociali#ed housin? falls &ithin the confines of ?public use?* .ro%isions on economic opportunities
ine!tricably lin(ed &ith lo&=cost housin, or slum clearance, relocation and resettlement, or slum
impro%ement emphasi#e the public purpose of the pro3ect* <erein, the use to &hich it is proposed to put the
sub3ect parcels of land meets the re2uisites of ?public use?* +he lands in 2uestion are bein e!propriated by
the 7<$ for the e!pansion of 'aon 7ayon <ousin .ro3ect to pro%ide housin facilities to lo&=salaried
o%ernment employees* +he 5upreme Court holds that ?sociali#ed housin? defined in .residential Decree
1008, as amended by .residential Decrees 10E9 and 1)1), constitutes ?public use? for purposes of
e!propriation* <o&e%er, as pre%iously held by the 5upreme Court, the pro%isions of such decrees on 3ust
compensation are unconstitutional* <erein, the Court finds that the Orders issued pursuant to the corollary
pro%isions of those decrees authori#in immediate ta(in &ithout notice and hearin are %iolati%e of due
process*
+9 ,rovince of Camarines 5ur vs. Court of '((eals [GR 1)31+5, 1* May 1993
First Division, 5uiason (J): & concur
!acts" On 00 December 19>>, the 5anunian .anlala&ian of the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur passed
"esolution 109, 5eries of 19>>, authori#in the .ro%incial ;o%ernor to purchase or e!propriate property
contiuous to the pro%incial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non=food and non=traditional
aricultural crops and a housin pro3ect for pro%incial o%ernment employees* .ursuant to the "esolution,
the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur, throuh its ;o%ernor, <on* Auis "* Jillafuerte, filed t&o separate cases for
e!propriation aainst @rnesto 7* 5an 4oa2uin and @fren 7* 5an 4oa2uin &ith the "eional +rial Court, .ili,
Camarines 5ur (<on* 'en3amin J* .ana presidin/ 5pecial Ci%il $ction 7os* .=19=>9 and .=19=>9)*
Forth&ith, the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur filed a motion for the issuance of a &rit of possession* +he 5an
4oa2uins failed to appear at the hearin of the motion* +he 5an 4oa2uins mo%ed to dismiss the complaints on
the round of inade2uacy of the price offered for their property* In an order dated 6 December 19>9, the trial
court denied the motion to dismiss and authori#ed the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur to ta(e possession of the
property upon the deposit &ith the Cler( of Court of the amount of .E,918*::, the amount pro%isionally fi!ed
by the trial court to ans&er for damaes that 5an 4oa2uin may suffer in the e%ent that the e!propriation cases
do not prosper* +he trial court issued a &rit of possession in an order dated 1> 4anuary 199:* +he 5an
4oa2uins filed a motion for relief from the order, authori#in the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur to ta(e
possession of their property and a motion to admit an amended motion to dismiss* 'oth motions &ere denied
in the order dated 06 February 199:* +he 5an 4oa2uins filed their petition before the Court of $ppeals,
prayin (a) that "esolution 7o* 109, 5eries of 19>> of the 5anunian .anlala&ian be declared null and
%oid/ (b) that the complaints for e!propriation be dismissed/ and (c) that the order dated December 6, 19>9 (i)
denyin the motion to dismiss and (ii) allo&in the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur to ta(e possession of the
property sub3ect of the e!propriation and the order dated February 06, 199:, denyin the motion to admit the
amended motion to dismiss, be set aside* +hey also as(ed that an order be issued to restrain the trial court
from enforcin the &rit of possession, and thereafter to issue a &rit of in3unction* +he Court of $ppeals set
aside the order of the trial court, and ordered the trial court to suspend the e!propriation proceedins until
after the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur shall ha%e submitted the re2uisite appro%al of the Department of $rarian
"eform to con%ert the classification of the property of the 5an 4oa2uins from aricultural to non=aricultural
land* +he .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur filed a petition for certiorari before the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the establishment of the .ilot De%elopment Center and the housin pro3ect are deemed for
Qpublic use*R
$el%" Aocal o%ernment units ha%e no inherent po&er of eminent domain and can e!ercise it only &hen
e!pressly authori#ed by the leislature* In deleatin the po&er to e!propriate, the leislature may retain
certain control or impose certain restraints on the e!ercise thereof by the local o%ernments* 6hile such
deleated po&er may be a limited authority, it is complete &ithin its limits* Moreo%er, the limitations on the
e!ercise of the deleated po&er must be clearly e!pressed, either in the la& conferrin the po&er or in other
leislations* It is the leislati%e branch of the local o%ernment unit that shall determine &hether the use of
the property souht to be e!propriated shall be public, the same bein an e!pression of leislati%e policy* +he
courts defer to such leislati%e determination and &ill inter%ene only &hen a particular underta(in has no
real or substantial relation to the public use* 5tatutes conferrin the po&er of eminent domain to political
subdi%isions cannot be broadened or constricted by implication* 5ection 9 of '. ))9 does not intimate in the
least that local o%ernment units must first secure the appro%al of the Department of Aand "eform for the
con%ersion of lands from aricultural to non=aricultural use, before they can institute the necessary
e!propriation proceedins* Ai(e&ise, there is no pro%ision in the Comprehensi%e $rarian "eform Aa& &hich
e!pressly sub3ects the e!propriation of aricultural lands by local o%ernment units to the control of the
Department of $rarian "eform* +he rules on con%ersion of aricultural lands found in 5ection 8 (() and E (1)
of @!ecuti%e Order 109=$, 5eries of 19>9, cannot be the source of the authority of the Department of
$rarian "eform to determine the suitability of a parcel of aricultural land for the purpose to &hich it &ould
be de%oted by the e!propriatin authority* 6hile those rules %est on the Department of $rarian "eform the
e!clusi%e authority to appro%e or disappro%e con%ersions of aricultural lands for residential, commercial or
industrial uses, such authority is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the land o&ners
or tenant beneficiaries* Further, there has been a shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of ?public
purpose? or ?public use? for &hich the po&er of eminent domain may be e!ercised* +he old concept &as that
the condemned property must actually be used by the eneral public (e** roads, brides, public pla#as, etc*)
before the ta(in thereof could satisfy the constitutional re2uirement of ?public use?* Dnder the ne& concept,
?public use? means public ad%antae, con%enience or benefit, &hich tends to contribute to the eneral &elfare
and the prosperity of the &hole community, li(e a resort comple! for tourists or housin pro3ect* +he
e!propriation of the property authori#ed by "esolution 109, 5eries of 19>>, is for a public purpose* +he
establishment of a pilot de%elopment center &ould inure to the direct benefit and ad%antae of the people of
the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur* Once operational, the center &ould ma(e a%ailable to the community
in%aluable information and technoloy on ariculture, fishery and the cottae industry* Dltimately, the
li%elihood of the farmers, fishermen and craftsmen &ould be enhanced* +he housin pro3ect also satisfies the
public purpose re2uirement of the Constitution* <ousin is a basic human need* 5hortae in housin is a
matter of state concern since it directly and sinificantly affects public health, safety, the en%ironment and in
sum the eneral &elfare* +hus, the decision of the Court of $ppeals is set aside insofar as it (a) nullifies the
trial court1s order allo&in the .ro%ince of Camarines 5ur to ta(e possession of the property of the 5an
4oa2uins/ (b) orders the trial court to suspend the e!propriation proceedins/ and (c) re2uires the .ro%ince of
Camarines 5ur to obtain the appro%al of the Department of $rarian "eform to con%ert or reclassify the
property of the 5an 4oa2uins property from aricultural to non=aricultural use*
3) Manosca vs. Court of '((eals [GR 1)&44), +9 3anuary 199&
First Division, 6itu$ (J): 4 concur
!acts" $le3andro, $suncion and Aeonica Manosca inherited a piece of land located at .* 'uros 5treet,
Cal#ada, +aui, Metro Manila, &ith an area of about 890 s2uare meters* 6hen the parcel &as ascertained by
the 7ational <istorical Institute (7<I) to ha%e been the birthsite of Feli! S* Manalo, the founder of Ilesia 7i
Cristo, it passed "esolution 1, 5eries of 19>6, pursuant to 5ection 8 of .residential Decree 06:, declarin the
land to be a national historical landmar(* +he resolution &as, on 6 4anuary 19>6, appro%ed by the Minister of
@ducation, Culture and 5ports (M@C5)* Aater, the opinion of the 5ecretary of 4ustice &as as(ed on the
leality of the measure* In his opinion 1)), 5eries of 19>9, the 5ecretary of 4ustice replied in the affirmati%e*
$ccordinly, on 09 May 19>9, the "epublic, throuh the office of the 5olicitor=;eneral, instituted a complaint
for e!propriation before the "eional +rial Court of .asi for and in behalf of the 7<I* $t the same time, the
"epublic filed an urent motion for the issuance of an order to permit it to ta(e immediate possession of the
property* +he motion &as opposed by the Manoscas* $fter a hearin, the trial court issued, on ) $uust 19>9,
an order fi!in the pro%isional mar(et (.E8,10:*::) and assessed (.16,0)6*::) %alues of the property and
authori#in the "epublic to ta(e o%er the property once the re2uired sum &ould ha%e been deposited &ith the
Municipal +reasurer of +aui, Metro Manila* +he Manoscas mo%ed to dismiss the complaint on the main
thesis that the intended e!propriation &as not for a public purpose and, incidentally, that the act &ould
constitute an application of public funds, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of Ilesia ni
Cristo, a reliious entity, contrary to the pro%ision of 5ection 09(0), $rticle JI, of the 19>9 Constitution* +he
trial court issued its denial of said motion to dismiss* +he Manoscas mo%ed for reconsideration thereafter but
&ere denied* +he Manoscas then loded a petition for certiorari and prohibition &ith the Court of $ppeals* On
1E 4anuary 1990, the appellate court dismissed the petitionI$ motion for the reconsideration of the decision
&as denied by the appellate court on 0) 4uly 1990* +he Manoscas filed a petition for re%ie& on certiorari &ith
the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the settin up of the mar(er in commemoration of Feli! Manalo, the founder of the reliious
sect Ilesia ni Cristo, constitutes Qpublic use*R
$el%" @minent domain, also often referred to as e!propriation and, &ith less fre2uency, as condemnation, is,
li(e police po&er and ta!ation, an inherent po&er of so%ereinty* It need not be clothed &ith any
constitutional ear to e!ist/ instead, pro%isions in our Constitution on the sub3ect are meant more to reulate,
rather than to rant, the e!ercise of the po&er* @minent domain is enerally so described as ?the hihest and
most e!act idea of property remainin in the o%ernment? that may be ac2uired for some public purpose
throuh a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the 5tate* It is a riht to ta(e or reassert dominion o%er
property &ithin the state for public use or to meet a public e!iency* It is said to be an essential part of
o%ernance e%en in its most primiti%e form and thus inseparable from so%ereinty* +he only direct
constitutional 2ualification is that ?pri%ate property shall not be ta(en for public use &ithout 3ust
compensation*? +his prescription is intended to pro%ide a safeuard aainst possible abuse and so to protect as
&ell the indi%idual aainst &hose property the po&er is souht to be enforced* +he term ?public use,? not
ha%in been other&ise defined by the constitution, must be considered in its eneral concept of meetin a
public need or a public e!iency* +he %alidity of the e!ercise of the po&er of eminent domain for traditional
purposes is beyond 2uestion/ it is not at all to be said, ho&e%er, that public use should thereby be restricted to
such traditional uses* +he idea that ?public use? is strictly limited to clear cases of ?use by the public? has
lon been discarded* +he purpose in settin up the mar(er is essentially to reconi#e the distincti%e
contribution of the late Feli! Manalo to the culture of the .hilippines, rather than to commemorate his
foundin and leadership of the Ilesia ni Cristo* +he attempt to i%e some reliious perspecti%e to the case
deser%es little consideration, for &hat should be sinificant is the principal ob3ecti%e of, not the casual
conse2uences that miht follo& from, the e!ercise of the po&er* +he practical reality that reater benefit may
be deri%ed by members of the Ilesia ni Cristo than by most others could &ell be true but such a peculiar
ad%antae still remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature* Indeed, that only a fe& &ould
actually benefit from the e!propriation of property does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of
public use*
31 :state of 5alu% 3imene9 vs. ,hili((ine :?(ort ,rocessin. Aone [GR 13*+25, 1& 3anuary +))1
Second Division, De Leon Jr/ (J): 4 concur
!acts" On 1E May 19>1, .hilippine @!port .rocessin Bone (.@B$), then called as the @!port .rocessin
Bone $uthority (@.B$), initiated before the "eional +rial Court of Ca%ite e!propriation proceedins on )
parcels of irriated riceland in "osario, Ca%ite* One of the lots, Aot 18:6 ($ and ') of the 5an Francisco de
Malabon @state, &ith an appro!imate area of 09,::> s2uare meters, is reistered in the name of 5alud 4imene#
(+C+ +=11)89> of the "eistry of Deeds of Ca%ite)* More than 1: years later, the said trial court in an Order
dated 11 4uly 1991 upheld the riht of .@B$ to e!propriate, amon others, Aot 18:6 ($ and ')*
"econsideration of the said order &as souht by the @state of 5alud 4imene# contendin that said lot &ould
only be transferred to a pri%ate corporation, .hilippine Jinyl Corp*, and hence &ould not be utili#ed for a
public purpose* In an Order dated 0E October 1991, the trial court reconsidered the Order dated 11 4uly 1991
and released Aot 18:6=$ from e!propriation &hile the e!propriation of Aot 18:6=' &as maintained* Findin
the said order unacceptable, .@B$ interposed an appeal to the Court of $ppeals* Mean&hile, the @state and
.@B$ entered into a compromise areement, dated 8 4anuary 199)* +he compromise areement pro%ides ?(1)
+hat plaintiff arees to &ithdra& its appeal from the Order of the <onorable Court dated October 0E, 1991
&hich released lot 18:6=$ from the e!propriation proceedins* On the other hand, defendant @state of 5alud
4imene# arees to &ai%e, 2uitclaim and forfeit its claim for damaes and loss of income &hich it sustained by
reason of the possession of said lot by plaintiff from 19>1 up to the present* (0) +hat the parties aree that
defendant @state of 5alud 4imene# shall transfer lot 18:6=' &ith an area of 1),11> s2uare meters &hich forms
part of the lot reistered under +C+ 7o* 11)89> of the "eistry of Deeds of Ca%ite to the name of the plaintiff
and the same shall be s&apped and e!chaned &ith lot 8)8 &ith an area of 18,169 s2uare meters and co%ered
by +ransfer Certificate of +itle 7o* 18990 of the "eistry of Deeds of Ca%ite &hich lot &ill be transferred to
the name of @state of 5alud 4imene#* ()) +hat the s&ap arranement reconi#es the fact that the lot 18:6='
co%ered by +C+ 7o* +=11)89> of the estate of defendant 5alud 4imene# is considered e!propriated in fa%or of
the o%ernment based on Order of the <onorable Court dated 4uly 11, 1991* <o&e%er, instead of bein paid
the 3ust compensation for said lot, the estate of said defendant shall be paid &ith lot 8)8 co%ered by +C+ 7o*
+=18990* (8) +hat the parties aree that they &ill abide by the terms of the foreoin areement in ood faith
and the Decision to be rendered based on this Compromise $reement is immediately final and e!ecutory*?
+he Court of $ppeals remanded the case to the trial court for the appro%al of the said compromise areement
entered into bet&een the parties, conse2uent &ith the &ithdra&al of the appeal &ith the Court of $ppeals* In
the Order dated 0) $uust 199), the trial court appro%ed the compromise areement* <o&e%er, .@B$ failed
to transfer the title of Aot 8)8 to the @state inasmuch as it &as not the reistered o&ner of the co%erin +C+
+=18990 but .roressi%e "ealty @state, Inc* +hus, on 1) March 1999, the @state filed a ?Motion to .artially
$nnul the Order dated $uust 0), 199)*? In the Order dated 8 $uust 1999, the trial court annulled the said
compromise areement entered into bet&een the parties and directed .@B$ to peacefully turn o%er Aot 18:6=
$ to the @state* Disareein &ith the said Order of the trial court, respondent .@B$ mo%ed for its
reconsideration, &hich &as denied in an order dated ) 7o%ember 1999* On 8 December 1999, the trial court,
at the instance of the @state, corrected the Orders dated 8 $uust 1999 and ) 7o%ember 1999 by declarin
that it is Aot 18:6=' and not Aot 18:6=$ that should be surrendered and returned to the @state* On 09
7o%ember 1999, .@B$ interposed before the Court of $ppeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition
see(in to nullify the Orders dated 8 $uust 1999 and ) 7o%ember 1999 of the trial court* $ctin on the
petition, the Court of $ppeals, in a Decision dated 0E March 199>, partially ranted the petition by settin
aside the order of the trial court reardin ?the peaceful turn o%er to the @state of 5alud 4imene# of Aot 18:6=
'? and instead ordered the trial 3ude to ?proceed &ith the hearin of the e!propriation proceedins reardin
the determination of 3ust compensation o%er Aot 18:6='*? +he @state souht reconsideration of the Decision
dated 0E March 199>* <o&e%er, the appellate court in a "esolution dated 18 4anuary 1999 denied the @state1s
motion for reconsideration* +he @state filed a petition for re%ie& on certiorari &ith the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the purpose of the e!propriation by .@B$ is of Qpublic use*R
$el%" +his is an e!propriation case &hich in%ol%es t&o (0) ordersF an e!propriation order and an order fi!in
3ust compensation* Once the first order becomes final and no appeal thereto is ta(en, the authority to
e!propriate and its public use cannot anymore be 2uestioned* Contrary to the @state1s contention, the
incorporation of the e!propriation order in the compromise areement did not sub3ect said order to rescission
but instead constituted an admission by the @state of .@B$1s authority to e!propriate the sub3ect parcel of
land and the public purpose for &hich it &as e!propriated* +his is e%ident from pararaph three ()) of the
compromise areement &hich states that the ?s&ap arranement reconi#es the fact that Aot 18:6=' co%ered
by +C+ +=11)89> of the estate of defendant 5alud 4imene# is considered e!propriated in fa%or of the
o%ernment based on the Order of the <onorable Court dated 11 4uly 1991*? It is crystal clear from the
contents of the areement that the parties limited the compromise areement to the matter of 3ust
compensation to the @state* 5aid e!propriation order is not closely intert&ined &ith the issue of payment such
that failure to pay by .@B$ &ill also nullify the riht of .@B$ to e!propriate* 7o statement to this effect &as
mentioned in the areement* +he Order &as mentioned in the areement only to clarify &hat &as sub3ect to
payment* 5ince the compromise areement &as only about the mode of payment by s&appin of lots and not
about the riht and purpose to e!propriate the sub3ect Aot 18:6=', only the oriinally areed form of
compensation that is by cash payment, &as rescinded* .@B$ has the leal authority to e!propriate the sub3ect
Aot 18:6=' and that the same &as for a %alid public purpose* .@B$ e!propriated the sub3ect parcel of land
pursuant to .roclamation 19>: dated ): May 19>: issued by former .resident Ferdinand Marcos* Mean&hile,
the po&er of eminent domain of respondent is contained in its oriinal charter, .residential Decree 66*
$ccordinly, sub3ect Aot 18:6=' &as e!propriated ?for the construction of terminal facilities, structures and
approaches thereto*? +he authority is broad enouh to i%e .@B$ substantial lee&ay in decidin for &hat
public use the e!propriated property &ould be utili#ed* .ursuant to this broad authority, .@B$ leased a
portion of the lot to commercial ban(s &hile the rest &as made a transportation terminal* 5aid public purposes
&ere e%en reaffirmed by "epublic $ct 9916, a la& amendin .@B$1s oriinal charter* $s reiterated in %arious
case, the ?public use? re2uirement for a %alid e!ercise of the po&er of eminent domain is a fle!ible and
e%ol%in concept influenced by chanin conditions* +he term ?public use? has ac2uired a more
comprehensi%e co%erae* +o the literal import of the term sinifyin strict use or employment by the public
has been added the broader notion of indirect public benefit or ad%antae* 6hat ultimately emered is a
concept of public use &hich is 3ust as broad as ?public &elfare*?
3+ Munici(ality of Meycauayan vs. #nterme%iate '((ellate Court [GR -1*+1+&, +9 3anuary 1922
"hird Division, -utierre. Jr/ (J): 4 concur
!acts" In 199E, the .hilippine .ipes and Merchandisin Corporation (..MC) filed &ith the Office of the
Municipal Mayor of Meycauayan, 'ulacan, an application for a permit to fence a parcel of land &ith a &idth
of 06*> meters and a lenth of 1>8*)9 meters co%ered by +C+s 01E16E and )9>99* +he fencin of said
property &as alleedly to enable the storae of .MC1s hea%y e2uipment and %arious finished products such as
lare diameter steel pipes, pontoon pipes for ports, &har%es, and harbors, bride components, pre=stressed
irders and piles, lare diameter concrete pipes, and parts for lo& cost housin* In the same year, the
Municipal Council of Meycauayan, headed by then Mayor Celso "* Aeaspi, passed "esolution 0E>, 5eries of
199E, manifestin the intention to e!propriate the respondent1s parcel of land co%ered by +C+ )9>99* $n
opposition to the resolution &as filed by the ..MC &ith the Office of the .ro%incial ;o%ernor, &hich, in turn,
created a special committee of four members to in%estiate the matter* On 1: March 1996, the 5pecial
Committee recommended that the .ro%incial 'oard of 'ulacan disappro%e or annul the resolution in 2uestion
because there &as no enuine necessity for the Municipality of Meycauayan to e!propriate the respondent1s
property for use as a public road* On the basis of this report, the .ro%incial 'oard of 'ulacan passed
"esolution 0)>, 5eries of 1996, disappro%in and annullin "esolution 0E>, 5eries of 199E, of the Municipal
Council of Meycauayan* +he ..MC, then, reiterated to the Office of the Mayor its petition for the appro%al of
the permit to fence the aforesaid parcels of land* On 01 October 19>), ho&e%er, the Municipal Council of
Meycauayan, no& headed by Mayor $driano D* Dae#, passed "esolution 01, 5eries of 19>), for the purpose
of e!propriatin ane& ..MC1s land* +he .ro%incial 'oard of 'ulacan appro%ed the aforesaid resolution on 0E
4anuary 19>8* +hereafter, the Municipality of Meycauayan, on 18 February 19>8, filed &ith the "eional
+rial Court of Malolos, 'ulacan, 'ranch JI, a special ci%il action for e!propriation* Dpon deposit of the
amount of .08,:0E*::, &hich is the mar(et %alue of the land, &ith the .hilippine 7ational 'an(, the trial
court on 1 March 19>8 issued a &rit of possession in fa%or of the municipality* On 09 $uust 19>8, the trial
court issued an order declarin the ta(in of the property as la&ful and appointin the .ro%incial $ssessor of
'ulacan as court commissioner &ho shall hold the hearin to ascertain the 3ust compensation for the property*
..MC &ent to the Intermediate $ppellate Court on petition for re%ie&* On 1: 4anuary 19>E, the appellate
court affirmed the trial court1s decision* <o&e%er, upon motion for reconsideration by ..MC, the decision
&as re=e!amined and re%ersed* +he appellate court held that there is no enuine necessity to e!propriate the
land for use as a public road as there &ere se%eral other roads for the same purpose and another more
appropriate lot for the proposed public road* +he court, ta(in into consideration the location and si#e of the
land, also opined that the land is more ideal for use as storae area for respondent1s hea%y e2uipment and
finished products* $fter its motion for reconsideration &as denied, the municipality &ent to the 5upreme
Court on petition for re%ie& on certiorari on 0E October 19>E*
#ssue" 6hether there is enuine necessity to e!propriate ..MCKs property for the purpose of a connectin
road, in liht of other appropriate lots for the purpose*
$el%" +here is no 2uestion here as to the riht of the 5tate to ta(e pri%ate property for public use upon
payment of 3ust compensation* 6hat is 2uestioned is the e!istence of a enuine necessity therefor* +he
foundation of the riht to e!ercise the po&er of eminent domain is enuine necessity and that necessity must
be of a public character* Condemnation of pri%ate property is 3ustified only if it is for the public ood and
there is a enuine necessity of a public character* Conse2uently, the courts ha%e the po&er to re2uire into the
leality of the e!ercise of the riht of eminent domain and to determine &hether there is a enuine necessity
therefor* +he o%ernment may not capriciously choose &hat pri%ate property should be ta(en* 6ith due
reconition then of the po&er of Conress to desinate the particular property to be ta(en and ho& much
thereof may be condemned in the e!ercise of the po&er of e!propriation, it is still a 3udicial 2uestion &hether
in the e!ercise of such competence, the party ad%ersely affected is the %ictim of partiality and pre3udice* +hat
the e2ual protection clause &ill not allo&* +he 5pecial Committee1s "eport, dated 1: March 1996, stated that
?there is no enuine necessity for the Municipality of Meycauayan to e!propriate the aforesaid property of the
.hilippine .ipes and Merchandi#in Corporation for use as a public road* Considerin that in the %icinity
there are other a%ailable road and %acant lot offered for sale situated similarly as the lot in 2uestion and lyin
idle, unli(e the lot souht to be e!propriated &hich &as found by the Committee to be badly needed by the
company as a site for its hea%y e2uipment after it is fenced toether &ith the ad3oinin %acant lot, the
3ustification to condemn the same does not appear to be %ery imperati%e and necessary and &ould only cause
un3ustified damae to the firm* +he desire of the Municipality of Meycauayan to build a public road to
deconest the %olume of traffic can be fully and better attained by ac2uirin the other a%ailable roads in the
%icinity maybe at lesser costs &ithout causin harm to an establishment doin leitimate business therein* Or,
the municipality may see( to e!propriate a portion of the %acant lot also in the %icinity offered for sale for a
&ider public road to attain deconestion of traffic because as obser%ed by the Committee, the lot of the
Corporation souht to be ta(en &ill only accommodate a one=&ay traffic lane and therefore, &ill not suffice to
impro%e and deconest the flo& of traffic and pedestrians in the Malhacan area*? +here is absolutely no
sho&in in the petition &hy the more appropriate lot for the proposed road &hich &as offered for sale has not
been the sub3ect of the municipalities1s attempt to e!propriate assumin there is a real need for another
connectin road*
33 /e Bnecht vs. 4autista [GR -151)*2, 3) October 192)
First Division, Fernande. (J): 4 concur
!acts" In 199:, the o%ernment throuh the Department of .ublic 6or(s and Communications (no& Ministy
of .ublic <ih&ays ,M.<-) prepared a plan to e!tend @pifanio de los 5antos $%enue (@D5$) to "o!as
'oule%ard* +he proposed e!tension, an ad3unct of another road=buildin proram, the ManilaMCa%ite Coastal
"oad .ro3ect, &ould pass throuh Cuneta $%enue up to "o!as 'oule%ard* +he route &as desined to be a
straiht one, ta(in into account the direction of @D5$* .reparatory to the implementation of the aforesaid
plan, or on 1) December 1998, then 5ecretary 'alta#ar $2uino of the Department of .ublic <ih&ays
directed the City @nineer of .asay City not to issue temporary or permanent permits for the construction
andIor impro%ement of buildins and other structures located &ithin the proposed e!tension throuh Cuneta
$%enue* 5hortly thereafter the Department of .ublic <ih&ays decided to ma(e the proposed e!tension o
throuh Fernando "ein and Del .an 5treets &hich are lined &ith old substantial houses* Dpon petition of the
residents therein to the .resident of the .hilippines for the implementation of the oriinal plan, the .resident
referred the matter to the <uman 5ettlements Commission* +he Commission submitted its report
recommendin the re%ersion to the oriinal plan passin throuh Cuneta $%enue* 7ot&ithstandin said
recommendation, the M.< insisted on implementin the plan to ma(e the e!tension of @D5$ o throuh
Fernando "ein and Del .an 5treets* In February 1999, the o%ernment filed in the Court of First Instance
(CFI) of "i#al, 'ranch III, .asay City (4ude .edro 4A* 'autista presidin/ Ci%il Case 9::1=.), a complaint
for e!propriation aainst the o&ners of the houses standin alon Fernando "ein and Del .an 5treets, amon
them Cristina de Nnecht* De Nnecht filed a motion to dismiss dated 9 March 1999* $n urent motion dated 0>
March 1999 for preliminary in3unction &as also filed* In 4une 1999 the "epublic of the .hilippines filed a
motion for the issuance of a &rit of possession of the property souht to be e!propriated on the round that
said "epublic had made the re2uired deposit &ith the .hilippine 7ational 'an(* 4ude 'autista issued a &rit
of possession dated 18 4une 1999 authori#in the "epublic of the .hilippines to ta(e and enter upon the
possession of the properties souht so be condemned* De Nnecht filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
&ith the 5upreme Court, prayin that 3udment be rendered annullin the order for immediate possession
issued by respondent court in the e!propriation proceedins and commandin the "epublic to desist from
further proceedins in the e!propriation action or the order for immediate possession issued in said action*
#ssue" 6hether the e!propriation of the residential lots in Fernando "ein and Del .an 5treets is enuinely
necessary, in liht of similar acceptable lots alon Cuneta $%enue &hich &ere sub3ect of the oriinal plan*
$el%" +here is no 2uestion as to the riht of the "epublic of the .hilippines to ta(e pri%ate property for public
use upon the payment of 3ust compensation* 5ection 0, $rticle IJ of the Constitution of the .hilippines
pro%ides that ?.ri%ate property shall not be ta(en for public use &ithout 3ust compensation*? It is reconi#ed,
ho&e%er, that the o%ernment may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose &hat pri%ate property should be
ta(en* $ lando&ner is co%ered by the mantle of protection due process affords* It is a mandate of reason* It
fro&ns on arbitrariness, it is the antithesis of any o%ernmental act that smac(s of &him or caprice* It neates
state po&er to act in an oppressi%e manner* It is, as had been stressed so often, the embodiment of the sportin
idea off air play* In that sense, it stands as a uaranty of 3ustice* +hat is the standard that must be met by any
o%ernmental aency in the e!ercise of &hate%er competence is entrusted to it* $s &as so emphatically
stressed by the present Chief 4ustice, $cts of Conress, as &ell as those of the @!ecuti%e, can deny due
process only under pain of nullity* <erein, it is a fact that the Department of .ublic <ih&ays oriinally
establish the e!tension of @D5$ alon Cuneta $%enue* It is to be presumed that the Department of .ublic
<ih&ays made studies before decidin on Cuneta $%enue* It is indeed odd &hy suddenly the proposed
e!tension of @D5$ to "o!as 'oule%ard &as chaned to o throuh Fernando "ein M Del .an 5treets &hich
the 5olicitor ;eneral concedes ?the Del .an M Fernando "ein 5treets line follo&s north&ard and in&ard
direction 6hile admittin ?that both lines, Cuneta $%enue and Del .an M Fernando "ein 5treets lines, meet
satisfactorily plannin and desin criteria and therefore are both acceptable?, the 5olicitor ;eneral 3ustifies
the chane to Del .an M Fernando "ein 5treets on the round that the o%ernment ?&anted to minimi#e the
social impact factor or problem in%ol%ed*? It is doubtful &hether the e!tension of @D5$ alon Cuneta $%enue
can be ob3ected to on the round of social impact* +he impro%ements and buildins alon Cuneta $%enue to
be affected by the e!tension are mostly motels* @%en rantin, aruendo, that more people &ill be affected,
the <uman 5ettlements Commission has suested coordinati%e efforts of said Commission &ith the 7ational
<ousin $uthority and other o%ernment aencies in the relocation and resettlement of those ad%ersely
affected* From the facts of record and recommendations of the <uman 5ettlements Commission, it is clear
that the choice of Fernando "ein M Del .an 5treets as the line throuh &hich the @pifanio de los 5antos
$%enue should be e!tended to "o!as 'oule%ard is arbitrary and should not recei%e 3udicial appro%al*
34 Re(ublic vs. %e Bnecht [GR 2*335, 1+ !ebruary 199)
First Division, -ancayco (J): & concur
!acts" On 0: February 1999 the "epublic of the .hilippines filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of "i#al
in .asay City an e!propriation proceedins aainst the o&ners of the houses standin alon Fernando "ein=
Del .an streets amon them Cristina De Nnecht toether &ith Concepcion Cabarrus, and some 1E other
defendants (Ci%il Case 9::1=.)* On 19 March 1999, de Nnecht filed a motion to dismiss allein lac( of
3urisdiction, pendency of appeal &ith the .resident of the .hilippines, prematureness of complaint and
arbitrary and erroneous %aluation of the properties* On 09 March 1999 de Nnecht filed an e! parte urent
motion for the issuance by the trial court of a restrainin order to restrain the "epublic from proceedin &ith
the ta(in of immediate possession and control of the property souht to be condemned* In 4une 1999, the
"epublic filed a motion for the issuance of a &rit of possession of the property to be e!propriated on the
round that it had made the re2uired deposit &ith the .hilippine 7ational 'an( (.7') of 1:G of the amount
of compensation stated in the complaint* In an order dated 18 4une 1999 the lo&er court issued a &rit of
possession authori#in the "epublic to enter into and ta(e possession of the properties souht to be
condemned, and created a Committee of three to determine the 3ust compensation for the lands in%ol%ed in the
proceedins* On 16 4uly 1999, de Nnecht filed &ith this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition (;"
7o* A=E1:9>) and directed aainst the order of the lo&er court dated 18 4une 1999 prayin that the "epublic
be commanded to desist from further proceedin in the e!propriation action and from implementin said
order* On ): October 19>:, the 5upreme Court rendered a decision, rantin the petition for certiorari and
prohibition and settin aside the 18 4une 1999 order of the 4ude 'autista*
On > $uust 19>1, Maria Del Carmen "o!as Jda* de @li#alde, Francisco @li#alde and $ntonio "o!as mo%ed
to dismiss the e!propriation action in compliance &ith the dispositi%e portion of the aforesaid decision of the
5upreme Court &hich had become final and in order to a%oid further damae to latter &ho &ere denied
possession of their properties* +he "epublic filed a manifestation on 9 5eptember 19>1 statin, amon others,
that it had no ob3ection to the said motion to dismiss as it &as in accordance &ith the aforestated decision*
<o&e%er, on 0 5eptember 19>), the "epublic filed a motion to dismiss said case due to the enactment of the
'atas .ambansa )8: e!propriatin the same properties and for the same purpose* +he lo&er court in an order
of 0 5eptember 19>) dismissed the case by reason of the enactment of the said la&* +he motion for
reconsideration thereof &as denied in the order of the lo&er court dated 1> December 19>6* De Nnecht
appealed from said order to the Court of $ppeals &herein in due course a decision &as rendered on 0>
December 19>>, settin aside the order appealed from and dismissin the e!propriation proceedins* +he
"epublic filed the petition for re%ie& &ith the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether an e!propriation proceedin that &as determined by a final 3udment of the 5upreme Court
may be the sub3ect of a subse2uent leislation for e!propriation*
$el%" 6hile it is true that said final 3udment of the 5upreme Court on the sub3ect becomes the la& of the
case bet&een the parties, it is e2ually true that the riht of the "epublic to ta(e pri%ate properties for public
use upon the payment of the 3ust compensation is so pro%ided in the Constitution and our la&s* 5uch
e!propriation proceedins may be underta(en by the "epublic not only by %oluntary neotiation &ith the land
o&ners but also by ta(in appropriate court action or by leislation* 6hen on 19 February 19>) the 'atasan
.ambansa passed '. )8: e!propriatin the %ery properties sub3ect of the present proceedins, and for the
same purpose, it appears that it &as based on super%enin e%ents that occurred after the decision of the
5upreme Court &as rendered in De Nnecht in 19>: 3ustifyin the e!propriation throuh the Fernando "ein=
Del .an 5treets* +he social impact factor &hich persuaded the Court to consider this e!tension to be arbitrary
had disappeared* $ll residents in the area ha%e been relocated and duly compensated* >:G of the @D5$
outfall and ):G of the @D5$ e!tension had been completed* Only De Nnecht remains as the solitary obstacle
to this pro3ect that &ill sol%e not only the drainae and flood control problem but also minimi#e the traffic
bottlenec( in the area* Moreo%er, the decision, is no obstacle to the leislati%e arm of the ;o%ernment in
thereafter ma(in its o&n independent assessment of the circumstances then pre%ailin as to the propriety of
underta(in the e!propriation of the properties in 2uestion and thereafter by enactin the correspondin
leislation as it did in this case* +he Court arees in the &isdom and necessity of enactin '. )8:* +hus the
anterior decision of this Court must yield to this subse2uent leislati%e fiat*
35 ,hili((ine ,ress #nstitute vs. Commission on :lections [GR 119&94, ++ May 1995
Reso'ution En Banc, Fe'iciano (J): 2 concur, on 'eave
!acts" On 0 March 199E, the Commission on @lections (Comelec) promulated "esolution 0990, &hich
pro%ided that (1) the Commission shall procure free print space of not less than 1I0 pae in at least one
ne&spaper of eneral circulation in e%ery pro%ince or city for use as ?Comelec 5pace? from 6 March until 10
May 199E/ and that in the absence of said ne&spaper, ?Comelec 5pace? shall be obtained from any maa#ine
or periodical of said pro%ince or city/ (0) that ?Comelec 5pace? shall be allocated by the Commission, free of
chare, amon all candidates &ithin the area in &hich the ne&spaper, maa#ine or periodical is circulated to
enable the candidates to ma(e (no&n their 2ualifications, their stand on public issues and their platforms and
prorams of o%ernment/ and that the ?Comelec 5pace? shall also be used by the Commission for
dissemination of %ital election information1 amon others* $pparently in implementation of the "esolution,
Comelec throuh Commissioner "ealado @* Maambon sent identical letters, dated 00 March 199E, to
%arious publishers of ne&spapers li(e the 'usiness 6orld, the .hilippine 5tar, the Malaya and the .hilippine
+imes 4ournal, all members of .hilippine .ress Institute (..I), ad%isin the latter that they are directed to
pro%ide free print space of not less than 1I0 pae for use as ?Comelec 5pace? or similar to the print support
&hich the latter ha%e e!tended durin the 11 May 1990 synchroni#ed elections &hich &as 0 full paes for
each political party fieldin senatorial candidates, from 6 March to 6 May 199E, to ma(e (no&n to their
2ualifications, their stand on public issues and their platforms and prorams of o%ernment* ..I filed a
.etition for Certiorari and .rohibition &ith prayer for the issuance of a +emporary restrainin order before the
5upreme Court to assail the %alidity of "esolution 0990 and the correspondin directi%e dated 00 March
199E*
#ssue" 6hether there &as necessity for the ta(in, i*e* compellin print media companies to donate QComelec
space*R
$el%" +o compel print media companies to donate ?Comelec space? of the dimensions specified in 5ection 0
of "esolution 0990 (not less than 1I0 .ae), amounts to ?ta(in? of pri%ate personal property for public use or
purposes* 5ection 0 failed to specify the intended fre2uency of such compulsory ?donation*? +he e!tent of the
ta(in or depri%ation is not insubstantial/ this is not a case of a de minimis temporary limitation or restraint
upon the use of pri%ate property* +he monetary %alue of the compulsory ?donation,? measured by the
ad%ertisin rates ordinarily chared by ne&spaper publishers &hether in cities or in non=urban areas, may be
%ery substantial indeed* +he ta(in of print space here souht to be effected may first be appraised under the
public of e!propriation of pri%ate personal property for public use* +he threshold re2uisites for a la&ful ta(in
of pri%ate property for public use need to be e!amined hereF one is the necessity for the ta(in/ another is the
leal authority to effect the ta(in* +he element of necessity for the ta(in has not been sho&n by the
Comelec* It has not been suested that the members of ..I are un&illin to sell print space at their normal
rates to Comelec for election purposes* 5imilarly, it has not been suested, let alone demonstrated, that
Comelec has been ranted the po&er of imminent domain either by the Constitution or by the leislati%e
authority* $ reasonable relationship bet&een that po&er and the enforcement and administration of election
la&s by Comelec must be sho&n/ it is not casually to be assumed* +hat the ta(in is desined to subser%e
?public use? is not contested by ..I* Only that, under 5ection ) of "esolution 0990, the free ?Comelec space?
souht by the Comelec &ould be used not only for informin the public about the identities, 2ualifications and
prorams of o%ernment of candidates for electi%e office but also for ?dissemination of %ital election
information? (includin, presumably, circulars, reulations, notices, directi%es, etc* issued by Comelec)* It
seems to the Court a matter of 3udicial notice that o%ernment offices and aencies (includin the 5upreme
Court) simply purchase print space, in the ordinary course of e%ents, &hen their rules and reulations,
circulars, notices and so forth need officially to be brouht to the attention of the eneral public* +he ta(in of
pri%ate property for public use it, of course, authori#ed by the Constitution, but not &ithout payment of ?3ust
compensation*? +hus, althouh there is nothin at all to pre%ent ne&spaper and maa#ine publishers from
%oluntarily i%in free print space to Comelec for the purposes contemplated in "esolution 0990/ 5ection 0 of
resolution 0990 does not pro%ide a constitutional basis for compellin publishers, aainst their &ill to pro%ide
free print space for Comelec purposes* 5ection 0 does not constitute a %alid e!ercise of the po&er of eminent
domain*
3& <ational $ousin. 'uthority vs. $eirs f #si%ro Guivelon%o [GR 154411, 19 3une +))3
First Division, 7nares8Santia$o (J): 4 concur
!acts" On 0) February 1999, the 7ational <ousin $uthority (7<$) filed &ith the "eional +rial Court
("+C) of Cebu City, 'ranch 11, an $mended Complaint for eminent domain aainst $ssociacion 'ene%ola de
Cebu, @nracia Drot and the <eirs of Isidro ;ui%elondo (Ci%il Case C@'=0))>6), allein that $ssociacion
'ene%ola de Cebu &as the claimantIo&ner of Aot 1:>=C located in the 'anilad @state, Cebu City/ that
@nracia Drot &as the claimantIo&ner of Aots 1:>=F, 1:>=I, 1:>=;, 6:19=$ and 6:1)=$, all of the 'anilad
@state/ that the <eirs of Isidro ;ui%elondo &ere the claimantsIo&ners of Cadastral Aot 161)=D located at
Carreta, Mabolo, Cebu City/ and that the lands are &ithin a blihted urban center &hich petitioner intends to
de%elop as a sociali#ed housin pro3ect* On 10 7o%ember 1999, the <eirs of Isidro ;ui%elondo, filed a
Manifestation statin that they &ere &ai%in their ob3ections to the 7<$Ks po&er to e!propriate their
properties* <ence, the trial court issued an Order declarin that the 7<$ has a la&ful riht to e!propriate the
properties of the heirs of Isidro ;ui%elondo* +hereafter, the trial court appointed ) Commissioners to ascertain
the correct and 3ust compensation of the properties of the <eirs* On 19 $pril 0:::, the Commissioners
submitted their report &herein they recommended that the 3ust compensation of the sub3ect properties be fi!ed
at .11,0::*:: per s2uare meter* On 9 $uust 0:::, the trial court rendered .artial 4udment adoptin the
recommendation of the Commissioners and fi!in the 3ust compensation of the lands of the <eirs at
.11,0::*:: per s2uare meter* +he 7<$ filed t&o motions for reconsideration dated ): $uust 0::: and )1
$uust 0:::, assailin the inclusion of Aots 10, 1) and 19 as &ell as the amount of 3ust compensation,
respecti%ely* +he <eirs also filed a motion for reconsideration of the .artial 4udment* On 11 October 0:::,
the trial court issued an Omnibus Order denyin the motion for reconsideration of the <eirs and the )1 $uust
0::: motion of petitioner, on the round that the fi!in of the 3ust compensation had ade2uate basis and
support* On the other hand, the trial court ranted 7<$Ks ): $uust 0::: motion for reconsideration on the
round that the CommissionerKs "eport did not include Aots 10, 1) and 19 &ithin its co%erae* +he 7<$ filed
&ith the Court of $ppeals a petition for certiorari (C$=;" 5. 61986)* Mean&hile, on )1 October 0:::, the
trial court issued an @ntry of 4udment o%er the .artial 4udment dated 9 $uust 0::: as modified by the
Omnibus Order dated 11 October 0:::* 5ubse2uently, the <eirs filed a Motion for @!ecution, &hich &as
ranted on 00 7o%ember 0:::* On )1 4anuary 0::1, the Court of $ppeals dismissed the petition for certiorari
on the round that the .artial 4udment and Omnibus Order became final and e!ecutory &hen the 7<$ failed
to appeal the same* 7<$Ks Motion for "econsideration and Drent @!=.arte Motion for a Clarificatory "ulin
&ere denied in a "esolution dated 1> March 0::1* $ petition for re%ie& &as filed by the 7<$ &ith the
5upreme Court (;" 189E09)* <o&e%er, the same &as denied in a Minute "esolution dated 9 May 0::1 for
failure to sho& that the Court of $ppeals committed a re%ersible error* 7<$ filed a Motion for
"econsideration &hich &as ho&e%er denied &ith finality on 0: $uust 0::1*
.rior to the denial of the Motion for "econsideration, 7<$, on 16 4uly 0::1, filed &ith the trial court a
Motion to Dismiss Ci%il Case C@'=0))>6, complaint for eminent domain, allein that the implementation of
its sociali#ed housin pro3ect &as rendered impossible by the unconscionable %alue of the land souht to be
e!propriated, &hich the intended beneficiaries can not afford* +he Motion &as denied on 19 5eptember 0::1,
on the round that the .artial 4udment had already become final and e!ecutory and there &as no 3ust and
e2uitable reason to &arrant the dismissal of the case* 7<$ filed a Motion for "econsideration, &hich &as
denied in an Order dated 0: 7o%ember 0::1* 7<$ thus filed a petition for certiorari &ith the Court of
$ppeals (C$=;" 5. 6>69:), prayin for the annulment of the Order of the trial court denyin its Motion to
Dismiss and its Motion for "econsideration* On E February 0::0, the Court of $ppeals summarily dismissed
the petition* Immediately thereafter, 5heriff .ascual S* $bordo of the "eional +rial Court ("+C) of Cebu
City, 'ranch 11, ser%ed on the 7<$ a 7otice of Ae%y pursuant to the 6rit of @!ecution issued by the trial
court to enforce the .artial 4udment of 9 $uust 0::: and the Omnibus Order of 11 October 0:::* On 1>
February 0::0, the Court of $ppeals set aside the dismissal of the petition and reinstated the same* +hereafter,
a temporary restrainin order &as issued en3oinin the sheriff to preser%e the status 2uo* On 09 May 0::0, the
sheriff ser%ed on the Aandban( of the .hilippines a 7otice of +hird ;arnishment aainst the deposits, moneys
and interests of 7<$ therein* 5ubse2uently, the sheriff le%ied on funds and personal properties of the 7<$*
On 16 4uly 0::0, the Court of $ppeals dismissed the petition for certiorari* 7<$ filed the petition for re%ie&
before the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the 7<$ can abandon an e!propriation proceedins if it disarees &ith the price
recommended by the Commissioners appointed by the court as 3ust compensation*
$el%" @!propriation proceedins consists of t&o staesF first, condemnation of the property after it is
determined that its ac2uisition &ill be for a public purpose or public use and, second, the determination of 3ust
compensation to be paid for the ta(in of pri%ate property to be made by the court &ith the assistance of not
more than three commissioners* +he first is concerned &ith the determination of the authority of the plaintiff
to e!ercise the po&er of eminent domain and the propriety of its e!ercise in the conte!t of the facts in%ol%ed
in the suit* It ends &ith an order, if not of dismissal of the action, ?of condemnation declarin that the
plaintiff has a la&ful riht to ta(e the property souht to be condemned, for the public use or purpose
described in the complaint, upon the payment of 3ust compensation to be determined as of the date of the
filin of the complaint*? $n order of dismissal, if this be ordained, &ould be a final one, of course, since it
finally disposes of the action and lea%es nothin more to be done by the Court on the merits* 5o, too, &ould
an order of condemnation be a final one, for thereafter, as the "ules e!pressly state, in the proceedins before
the +rial Court, ?no ob3ection to the e!ercise of the riht of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall be
filed or heard*? +he second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned &ith the determination by the
Court of ?the 3ust compensation for the property souht to be ta(en*? +his is done by the Court &ith the
assistance of not more than three ()) commissioners* +he order fi!in the 3ust compensation on the basis of
the e%idence before, and findins of, the commissioners &ould be final, too* It &ould finally dispose of the
second stae of the suit, and lea%e nothin more to be done by the Court reardin the issue* Ob%iously, one
or another of the parties may belie%e the order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the e%idence or findins
of fact or other&ise* Ob%iously, too, such a dissatisfied party may see( a re%ersal of the order by ta(in an
appeal therefrom* <erein, the 7<$ did not appeal the Order of the trial court dated 1: December 1999,
&hich declared that it has a la&ful riht to e!propriate the properties of the <eirs of Isidro ;ui%elondo*
<ence, the Order became final and may no loner be sub3ect to re%ie& or re%ersal in any court* $ final and
e!ecutory decision or order can no loner be disturbed or reopened no matter ho& erroneous it may be*
$lthouh 3udicial determinations are not infallible, 3udicial error should be corrected throuh appeals, not
throuh repeated suits on the same claim* +he public purpose of the sociali#ed housin pro3ect is not in any
&ay diminished by the amount of 3ust compensation that the court has fi!ed* +he need to pro%ide decent
housin to the urban poor d&ellers in the locality &as not lost by the mere fact that the land cost more than
the 7<$ had e!pected* It is &orthy to note that petitioner pursued its petition for certiorari &ith the Court of
$ppeals assailin the amount of 3ust compensation and its petition for re%ie& &ith the 5upreme Court &hich
elo2uently indicates that there still e!ists a public use for the housin pro3ect* It &as only after its appeal and
petitions for re%ie& &ere dismissed that the 7<$ made a complete turn=around and decided it did not &ant
the property anymore* +he lando&ners had already been pre3udiced by the e!propriation case* +he 7<$
cannot be permitted to institute condemnation proceedins aainst respondents only to abandon it later &hen
it finds the amount of 3ust compensation unacceptable*
3* :slaban vs. 7%a. %e Onorio [GR 14&)&+, +2 3une +))1
Second Division, 9endo.a (J): 4 concur
!acts" Clarita Jda* de Onorio is the o&ner of a lot in 'aranay M* "o!as, 5to* 7ino, 5outh Cotabato &ith an
area of )9,E10 s2uare meters (Aot 101:=$=.ad=11=:::E>6, +C+ +=00101 of the "eistry of Deeds, 5outh
Cotabato)* On 6 October 19>1, 5antiao @slaban, 4r*, .ro3ect Manaer of the 7I$, appro%ed the construction
of the main irriation canal of the 7I$ on the said lot, affectin a 08,66: s2uare meter portion thereof* De
Onorio1s husband areed to the construction of the 7I$ canal pro%ided that they be paid by the o%ernment
for the area ta(en after the processin of documents by the Commission on $udit* 5ometime in 19>), a "iht=
of=6ay areement &as e!ecuted bet&een De Onorio and the 7I$* +he 7I$ then paid De Onorio the amount
of .8,1>:*:: as "iht=of=6ay damaes* De Onorio subse2uently e!ecuted an $ffida%it of 6ai%er of "ihts
and Fees &hereby she &ai%ed any compensation for damaes to crops and impro%ements &hich she suffered
as a result of the construction of a riht=of=&ay on her property* +he same year, @slaban offered De Onorio
the sum of .)E,:::,:: by &ay of amicable settlement (financial assistance) pursuant to @!ecuti%e Order
1:)E, T1>* De Onorio demanded payment for the ta(in of her property, but @slabanI7I$ refused to pay*
$ccordinly, De Onorio filed on 1: December 199: a complaint aainst @slaban before the "eional +rial
Court ("+C), prayin that @slabanI7I$ be ordered to pay the sum of .111,099*EE as compensation for the
portion of her property used in the construction of the canal constructed by the 7I$, litiation e!penses, and
the costs* @slaban admitted that 7I$ constructed an irriation canal o%er the property of De Onorio and that
7I$ paid a certain lando&ner &hose property had been ta(en for irriation purposes, but @slaban interposed
the defense thatF (1) the o%ernment had not consented to be sued/ (0) the total area used by the 7I$ for its
irriation canal &as only 0*09 hectares, not 08,6:: s2uare meters/ and ()) that De Onorio &as not entitled to
compensation for the ta(in of her property considerin that she secured title o%er the property by %irtue of a
homestead patent under Common&ealth $ct 181* On 1> October 199), the trial court rendered a decision,
orderin the 7I$ to pay to De Onorio the sum of .1:9,E19*6: as 3ust compensation for the 2uestioned area of
08,66: s2uare meters of land o&ned by De Onorio and ta(en by the 7I$ &hich used it for its main canal plus
costs* On 1E 7o%ember 199), the 7I$ appealed to the Court of $ppeals &hich, on )1 October 0:::, affirmed
the decision of the "eional +rial Court* 7I$ filed the petition for re%ie&*
#ssue" 6hether the %aluation of 3ust compensation is determined at the time the property &as ta(en or at the
time the complaint for e!propriation is filed*
$el%" 6hene%er public lands are alienated, ranted or con%eyed to applicants thereof, and the deed rant or
instrument of con%eyance ,sales patent- reistered &ith the "eister of Deeds and the correspondin
certificate and o&ner1s duplicate of title issued, such lands are deemed reistered lands under the +orrens
5ystem and the certificate of title thus issued is as conclusi%e and indefeasible as any other certificate of title
issued to pri%ate lands in ordinary or cadastral reistration proceedins* +he only ser%itude &hich a pri%ate
property o&ner is re2uired to reconi#e in fa%or of the o%ernment is the easement of a ?public hih&ay, &ay,
pri%ate &ay established by la&, or any o%ernment canal or lateral thereof &here the certificate of title does
not state that the boundaries thereof ha%e been pre=determined*? +his implies that the same should ha%e been
pre=e!istin at the time of the reistration of the land in order that the reistered o&ner may be compelled to
respect it* Con%ersely, &here the easement is not pre=e!istin and is souht to be imposed only after the land
has been reistered under the Aand "eistration $ct, proper e!propriation proceedins should be had, and 3ust
compensation paid to the reistered o&ner thereof* <erein, the irriation canal constructed by the 7I$ on the
contested property &as built only on 6 October 19>1, se%eral years after the property had been reistered on
1) May 1996* $ccordinly, prior e!propriation proceedins should ha%e been filed and 3ust compensation
paid to the o&ner thereof before it could be ta(en for public use* 6ith respect to the compensation &hich the
o&ner of the condemned property is entitled to recei%e, it is li(e&ise settled that it is the mar(et %alue &hich
should be paid or ?that sum of money &hich a person, desirous but not compelled to buy, and an o&ner,
&illin but not compelled to sell, &ould aree on as a price to be i%en and recei%ed therefor*? Further, 3ust
compensation means not only the correct amount to be paid to the o&ner of the land but also the payment of
the land &ithin a reasonable time from its ta(in* 6ithout prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered ?3ust? for then the property o&ner is made to suffer the conse2uence of bein immediately
depri%ed of his land &hile bein made to &ait for a decade or more before actually recei%in the amount
necessary to cope &ith his loss* 7e%ertheless, there are instances &here the e!propriatin aency ta(es o%er
the property prior to the e!propriation suit, in &hich case 3ust compensation shall be determined as of the time
of ta(in, not as of the time of filin of the action of eminent domain* +he %alue of the property, thus, must be
determined either as of the date of the ta(in of the property or the filin of the complaint, ?&hiche%er came
first*?
32 Re(ublic vs. #nterme%iate '((ellate Court [GR *11*&, +1 May 199)
"hird Division, Fernan (4J): 2 concur, 2 too+ no ,art
!acts" $%eon, Inc*, offered 8 parcels of land &ith a total area of 9,6E: s2uare meters located at 0:9: Dr*
Manuel A* Carreon 5treet, Manila, for sale to the City 5chool 'oard of Manila on 01 4uly 199) at .0,)::,:::*
+he school board &as &illin to buy at .1,>::,::: but the then Mayor of Manila inter%ened and %olunteered
to neotiate &ith $%eon, Inc* for a better price* Inasmuch as the alleed neotiation did not materiali#e, on )
4une 1998, $%eon, Inc* sold the property and its impro%ements to $mere! @lectronics, .hils* Corporation for
.1,>::,:::* +hereafter, +C+s 11EE91, 11EE90, 11EE9) and 11EE98 &ere issued in fa%or of $mere!* On 09
$uust 199E, the 5olicitor ;eneral filed for the Department of @ducation and Culture (D@C) a complaint
aainst $mere! for the e!propriation of said property before the Court of First Instance of Manila (Ci%il Case
9919:), statin therein that the property &as needed by the o%ernment as a permanent site for the Manuel de
la Fuente <ih 5chool (later renamed Don Mariano Marcos Memorial <ih 5chool)/ that the fair mar(et
%alue of the property had been declared by $mere! as .0,8)E,:::, and that the assessor had determined its
mar(et %alue as .0,8)0,:80 and assessed it for ta!ation purposes in the amount of .1,):),89:* On 9 October
199E, the court issued an order directin the sheriff to place the "epublic in possession of the property, after
informin the court that the assessed %alue of the property for ta!ation purposes had been deposited &ith the
.hilippine 7ational 'an( (.7') in @scolta, Manila on ): 5eptember 199E* +he plaintiff too( actual
possession thereof on 1) October 199E* $mere! filed a motion to dismiss the complaint statin that &hile it
&as not contestin the merits of the complaint, the same failed to cateorically state the amount of 3ust
compensation for the property* It therefore prayed that in consonance &ith .residential Decree 998, the 3ust
compensation be fi!ed at .0,8)0,:80, the mar(et %alue of the property determined by the assessor &hich &as
lo&er than $mere!1s o&n declaration* $llein that its motion to dismiss merely souht a clarification on the
3ust compensation for the property, $mere! filed a motion to &ithdra& the "epublic1s deposit of .1,):),89:
&ith the .7' &ithout pre3udice to its entitlement to the amount of .1,10>,E90, the balance of the 3ust
compensation of .0,8)0,:80 insisted upon* On ) December 199E, the lo&er court issued an order %estin the
"epublic &ith the la&ful riht to ta(e the property upon payment of 3ust compensation as pro%ided by la&* On
19 December 199E, after the parties had submitted the names of their respecti%e recommendees to the
appraisal committee, the lo&er court appointed $tty* 7arciso .ena, $urelio J* $2uino and $tty* <iinio
5unico as commissioners* On 08 4anuary 1999, the commissioners submitted their appraisal report findin
that the fair mar(et %alue of the property &as .0,96),8::* 'oth parties ob3ected to the report of the
commissioners* On 1E March 1999, the lo&er court rendered a decision, ?fi!in the amount of .0,0E>*:1>*E9
as 3ust compensation for the property of the defendant and declarin the plaintiff entitled to possess and
appropriate it to the public use alleed in the complaint and to retain it upon payment of the said amount, after
deductin the amount of .1,):),89:*::, &ith leal interest from October 1), 199E &hen the plaintiff &as
placed in possession of the real property, and upon payment to each of the commissioners of the sum of
.)E*:: for their attendance durin the hearins held on 4anuary 0), February 16, May 11, 4uly 0), 5eptember
19, October 10 and December 1:, 1996, plus .E::*:: each for the preparation of the report, and the costs*?
+he "epublic ele%ated the case to the then Intermediate $ppellate Court (I$C) for re%ie&* On 09 October
19>8, it affirmed the appealed decision &ith the modification that the "epublic of the .hilippines be e!empted
from the payment of the commissioners1 fees, the .E::*:: ranted each of them for he preparation of the
report and the costs* Its motion for the reconsideration of said decision ha%in been denied, the "epublic filed
the petition for re%ie&*
#ssue" 6hether the 3ust compensation for the e!propriated property should be the price first offered to the
;o%ernment in 199)*
$el%" +he determination of 3ust compensation for a condemned property is basically a 3udicial function* $s
the court is not bound by the commissioners1 report, it may ma(e such order or render such 3udment as shall
secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the e!ercise of its riht of condemnation, and to the defendant
3ust compensation for the property e!propriated* For that matter, the 5upreme Court may e%en substitute its
o&n estimate of the %alue as athered from the record* <ence, althouh the determination of 3ust
compensation appears to be a factual matter &hich is ordinarily outside the ambit of its 3urisdiction, the
5upreme Court may disturb the lo&er court1s factual findin on appeal &hen there is clear error or ra%e
abuse of discretion* <erein, the 3ust compensation prescribed by the lo&er court is based on the
commissioners1 recommendation &hich in turn is founded on the ?audited? statements of $mere! that the
property is &orth .0,0E>,:1>*E9* +he Certification from the accountin firm issued to $mere! merely
compared the fiures in the schedules or ?audited? statements &ith those of the records and boo(s of accounts
of $mere!* $s no in%estiation &as made as to the %eracity of the fiures in the account, there &as no audit in
the real sense of the term* +hus, the accuracy of the ?audited? statements is therefore suspect* 'esides the fact
that the "epublic &as not furnished a copy of the audited statements &hich &ere also not introduced in
e%idence, @nri2ue .* @steban, %ice=president and treasurer of $mere!, and e%en a representati%e of the
accountin firm, &ere li(e&ise not presented durin the trial thereby depri%in the "epublic of the
opportunity to cross=e!amine them* +he 5upreme Court ha%in declared as unconstitutional the mode of
fi!in 3ust compensation under .residential Decree 998 in @!port .rocessin Bone $uthority %s* Dulay (;"
E96:), 09 $pril 19>9), 3ust compensation should be determined either at the time of the actual ta(in of the
o%ernment or at the time of the 3udment of the court, &hiche%er comes first* +he reasonableness of the E
4une 199E appraisal fi!in at .0,8::,::: the fair mar(et %alue of the property, is bolstered by the fact that on
8 4une 199E, +raders Commodities Corporation offered to buy the property at .0,9E:,:::* It must be
emphasi#ed, ho&e%er, that leal interest on the balance of the 3ust compensation of .0,8::,::: after
deductin the amount of .1,):),89: &hich had been deli%ered to $mere!, should be paid by the "epublic
from the time the o%ernment actually too( o%er the property* Much as the Court reali#es the need of the
o%ernment, under these tryin times, to et the best possible price for the e!propriated property considerin
the ceaseless and continuin necessity for schools, the Court cannot aree &ith the "epublic that the 3ust
compensation for the property should be the price it commanded &hen it &as first offered for sale to the City
5chool 'oard of Manila*
39 City of Cebu vs. /e%amo [GR 14+9*1, * May +))+
Davide Jr/ (4J): 0 concur
!acts" On 19 5eptember 199), the City of Cebu filed in Ci%il Case C@'=186)0 a complaint for eminent
domain aainst the spouses $polonio and 'lasa Dedamo, allein that it needed the latter1s parcels of land for
a public purpose, i*e*, for the construction of a public road &hich shall ser%e as an accessIrelief road of
;orordo $%enue to e!tend to the ;eneral Ma!ilum $%enue and the bac( of Maellan International <otel
"oads in Cebu City/ the lots bein the most suitable site for the purpose* +he total area souht to be
e!propriated is 1,608 s2uare meters &ith an assessed %alue of .1,9>6*8::* +he City deposited &ith the
.hilippine 7ational 'an( (.7') the amount of .E1,1E6 representin 1EG of the fair mar(et %alue of the
property to enable the City to ta(e immediate possession of the property pursuant to 5ection 19 of "epublic
$ct ("$) 916:* +he spouses, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the purpose for &hich their
property &as to be e!propriated &as not for a public purpose but for benefit of a sinle pri%ate entity, the
Cebu <oldins, Inc*, besides that the price offered &as %ery lo& in liht of the consideration of .0:,::: per
s2uare meter, more or less, &hich the City paid to the neihborin lots* On 0) $uust 1998, the City filed a
motion for the issuance of a &rit of possession pursuant to 5ection 19 of "$916:* +he motion &as ranted by
the trial court on 01 5eptember 1998* On 18 December 1998, the parties e!ecuted and submitted to the trial
court an $reement &herein they declared that they ha%e partially settled the case* .ursuant to said
areement, the trial court appointed three commissioners to determine the 3ust compensation of the lots souht
to be e!propriated* +hereafter, the commissioners submitted their report, &hich contained their respecti%e
assessments of and recommendation as to the %aluation of the property* On the basis of the commissioners1
report and after due deliberation thereon, the trial court rendered its decision on 9 May 1996, directin the
City to pay the spouses Dedamo the amount of .08,>6E*9):*:: representin the compensation* +he City filed
a motion for reconsideration on the round that the commissioners1 report &as inaccurate since it included an
area &hich &as not sub3ect to e!propriation (i*e* 89> of 99) s2uare meters only of Aot 1E0>)* On 16 $uust
1996, the commissioners submitted an amended assessment for the 89> s2uare meters of Aot 1E0> and fi!ed it
at .10,>08*1: per s2uare meter, or in the amount of .0:,>06,))9*E:* +he assessment &as appro%ed as the 3ust
compensation thereof by the trial court in its Order of 09 December 1996* $ccordinly, the dispositi%e portion
of the decision &as amended to reflect the ne& %aluation* +he City ele%ated the case to the Court of $ppeals,
&hich affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court* +he City filed &ith the 5upreme Court the petition for
re%ie&*
#ssue" 6hether the %aluation of the 3ust compensation that &hich &as recommended by the appointed
commissioners*
$el%" @minent domain is a fundamental 5tate po&er that is inseparable from so%ereinty* It is the
;o%ernment1s riht to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the 5tate, pri%ate property for public
use or purpose* <o&e%er, the ;o%ernment must pay the o&ner thereof 3ust compensation as consideration
therefor* <erein, the applicable la& as to the point of rec(onin for the determination of 3ust compensation is
5ection 19 of "epublic $ct 916:, &hich e!pressly pro%ides that 3ust compensation shall be determined as of
the time of actual ta(in* Further, the Court did not cateorically rule in the case of 7$.OCO" %s* Court of
$ppeals that 3ust compensation should be determined as of the filin of the complaint* 6hat the Court
e!plicitly stated therein &as that althouh the eneral rule in determinin 3ust compensation in eminent
domain is the %alue of the property as of the date of the filin of the complaint, the rule ?admits of an
e!ceptionF &here this Court fi!ed the %alue of the property as of the date it &as ta(en and not at the date of
the commencement of the e!propriation proceedins*? Furthermore, the parties, by a solemn document freely
and %oluntarily areed upon by them, areed to be bound by the report of the commission and appro%ed by
the trial court* "ecords sho& that the City consented to conform &ith the %aluation recommended by the
commissioners* It cannot detract from its areement no& and assail correctness of the commissioners1
assessment*
4) :?(ort ,rocessin. Aone 'uthority vs. /ulay [GR -159&)3, +9 '(ril 192*
En Banc, -utierre. Jr/ (J): ! concur, concurs in resu't, on 'eave
!acts" On 1E 4anuary 1999, the .resident of the .hilippines, issued .roclamation 1>11, reser%in a certain
parcel of land of the public domain situated in the City of Aapu=Aapu, Island of Mactan, Cebu and co%erin a
total area of 1,19),669 s2uare meters, more or less, for the establishment of an e!port processin #one by
petitioner @!port .rocessin Bone $uthority (@.B$)* 7ot all the reser%ed area, ho&e%er, &as public land*
+he proclamation included, amon others, 8 parcels of land &ith an areate area of 00,)0> s2uare meters
o&ned and reistered in the name of the 5an $ntonio De%elopment Corporation* +he @.B$, therefore,
offered to purchase the parcels of land from the corporation in accordance &ith the %aluation set forth in
5ection 90, .residential Decree (.D) 868, as amended* +he parties failed to reach an areement reardin the
sale of the property* @.B$ filed &ith the then Court of First Instance of Cebu, 'ranch HJI, Aapu=Aapu City, a
complaint for e!propriation &ith a prayer for the issuance of a &rit of possession aainst the corporation, to
e!propriate the aforesaid parcels of land pursuant to .D 66, as amended, &hich empo&ers @.B$ to ac2uire
by condemnation proceedins any property for the establishment of e!port processin #ones, in relation to
.roclamation 1>11, for the purpose of establishin the Mactan @!port .rocessin Bone* On 01 October 19>:,
4ude Ceferino @* Dulay issued a &rit of possession authori#in @.B$ to ta(e immediate possession of the
premises* $t the pre=trial conference on 1) February 19>1, the 3ude issued an order statin that the parties
ha%e areed that the only issue to be resol%ed is the 3ust compensation for the properties and that the pre=trial
is thereby terminated and the hearin on the merits is set on 0 $pril 19>1* On 19 February 19>1, the 3ude
issued the order of condemnation declarin @.B$ as ha%in the la&ful riht to ta(e the properties souht to
be condemned, upon the payment of 3ust compensation to be determined as of the filin of the complaint* +he
respondent 3ude also issued a second order appointin certain persons as commissioners to ascertain and
report to the court the 3ust compensation for the properties souht to be e!propriated* On 19 4une 19>1, the
three commissioners submitted their consolidated report recommendin the amount of .1E*:: per s2uare
meter as the fair and reasonable %alue of 3ust compensation for the properties* On 09 4uly 19>1, @.B$ filed a
Motion for "econsideration of the order of 19 February 19>1 and Ob3ection to Commissioner1s "eport on the
rounds that .D 1E)) has superseded 5ections E to > of "ule 69 of the "ules of Court on the ascertainment of
3ust compensation throuh commissioners/ and that the compensation must not e!ceed the ma!imum amount
set by .D 1E))* On 18 7o%ember 19>1, the trial court denied @.B$1s motion for reconsideration* On 9
February 19>0, @.B$ filed the petition for certiorari and mandamus &ith preliminary restrainin order,
en3oinin the trial court from enforcin the order dated 19 February 19>1 and from further proceedin &ith
the hearin of the e!propriation case*
#ssue" 6hether the e!clusi%e and mandatory mode of determinin 3ust compensation in .residential Decree
1E)) is %alid and constitutional, and &hether the lo&er %alues i%en by pro%incial assessors be the %alue of
3ust compensation*
$el%" .residential Decree 96 pro%ides that ?For purposes of 3ust compensation in cases of pri%ate property
ac2uired by the o%ernment for public use, the basis shall be the current and fair mar(et %alue declared by the
o&ner or administrator, or such mar(et %alue as determined by the $ssessor, &hiche%er is lo&er*? 5ection 90
of .D 868 pro%ides that ?In determinin 3ust compensation &hich pri%ate property is ac2uired by the
o%ernment for public use, the basis shall be the mar(et %alue declared by the o&ner or administrator or
anyone ha%in leal interest in the property, or such mar(et %alue as determined by the assessor, &hiche%er is
lo&er*? 5ection 90 of .D 998, on the other hand, pro%ides that ?In determinin 3ust compensation &hen
pri%ate property is ac2uired by the o%ernment for public use, the same shall not e!ceed the mar(et %alue
declared by the o&ner or administrator or anyone ha%in leal interest in the property, or such mar(et %alue as
determined by the assessor, &hiche%er is lo&er*? Aastly, 5ection 1 of .D 1E)) pro%ides that ?In determinin
3ust compensation for pri%ate property ac2uired throuh eminent domain proceedins, the compensation to be
paid shall not e!ceed the %alue declared by the o&ner or administrator or anyone ha%in leal interest in the
property or determined by the assessor, pursuant to the "eal .roperty +a! Code, &hiche%er %alue is lo&er,
prior to the recommendation or decision of the appropriate ;o%ernment office to ac2uire the property*? +he
pro%isions of the Decrees on 3ust compensation unconstitutional and %oid as the method of ascertainin 3ust
compensation under the said decrees constitutes impermissible encroachment on 3udicial preroati%es* It tends
to render the 5upreme Court inutile in a matter &hich under the Constitution is reser%ed to it for final
determination* +he %aluation in the decree may only ser%e as a uidin principle or one of the factors in
determinin 3ust compensation but it may not substitute the court1s o&n 3udment as to &hat amount should
be a&arded and ho& to arri%e at such amount* Further, %arious factors can come into play in the %aluation of
specific properties sinled out for e!propriation* +he %alues i%en by pro%incial assessors are usually uniform
for %ery &ide areas co%erin se%eral barrios or e%en an entire to&n &ith the e!ception of the poblacion*
Indi%idual differences are ne%er ta(en into account* +he %alue of land is based on such eneralities as its
possible culti%ation for rice, corn, coconuts, or other crops* Jery often land described as ?coonal? has been
culti%ated for enerations* 'uildins are described in terms of only t&o or three classes of buildin materials
and estimates of areas are more often inaccurate than correct* +hus, ta! %alues can ser%e as uides but cannot
be absolute substitutes for 3ust compensation*
41 'nsal%o vs. 0antuico [GR 5)14*, 3 'u.ust 199)
First Division, :arvasa (J): 4 concur
!acts" +&o lots of pri%ate o&nership &ere ta(en by the ;o%ernment and used for the &idenin of a road more
than forty=three years ao, &ithout benefit of an action of eminent domain or areement &ith its o&ners,
albeit &ithout protest by the latter* +he lots belon to 4ose Ma* $nsaldo and Maria $nela $nsaldo, are
co%ered by title in their names, and ha%e an areate area of 1,:81 s2uare meters* +hese lots &ere ta(en
from the $nsaldos sometime in 1989 by the Department of .ublic 6or(s, +ransportation and Communication
and made part of &hat used to be 5ta* Mesa 5treet and is no& "amon Masaysay $%enue at 5an 4uan, Metro
Manila* 5aid o&ners made no mo%e &hate%er until 06 years later* +hey &rote to as( for compensation for
their land on 00 4anuary 199)* +heir claim &as referred to the 5ecretary of 4ustice &ho rendered an opinion
dated 00 February 199), that 3ust compensation should be paid in accordance &ith .residential Decree (.D)
96, and thus ad%ised that the correspondin e!propriation suit be forth&ith instituted to fi! the 3ust
compensation to be paid to the $nsaldos* .ursuant to the said opinion, the Commissioner of .ublic <ih&ays
re2uested the .ro%incial $ssessor of "i#al to ma(e a redetermination of the mar(et %alue of the $nsaldos1
property in accordance &ith .D 96* +he ne& %aluation &as made, after &hich the $uditor of the 'ureau of
.ublic <ih&ays for&arded the $nsaldos1 claim to the $uditor ;eneral &ith the recommendation that
payment be made on the basis of the ?current and fair mar(et %alue and not on the fair mar(et %alue at the
time of ta(in*? +he Commission on $udit, ho&e%er, declined to adopt the recommendation* In a decision
handed do&n on 06 5eptember 199), the $ctin Chairman ruled that ?the amount of compensation to be paid
to the claimants is to be determined as of the time of the ta(in of the sub3ect lots,? i*e* 1989* +he rulin &as
reiterated by the Commission on > 5eptember 199>, and aain on 0E 4anuary 1999 &hen it denied the
$nsaldos1 motion for reconsideration* +he $nsaldos appealed to the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the %aluation of 3ust compensation should be determined at the time of ta(in in 1989,
especially in liht of the absence of any e!propriation proceedin underta(en before the said ta(in*
$el%" 6here the institution of an e!propriation action precedes the ta(in of the property sub3ect thereof, the
3ust compensation is fi!ed as of the time of the filin of the complaint* +his is so pro%ided by the "ules of
Court, the assumption of possession by the e!propriator ordinarily bein conditioned on its deposits &ith the
7ational or .ro%incial +reasurer of the %alue of the property as pro%isionally ascertained by the court ha%in
3urisdiction of the proceedins* +here are instances, ho&e%er, &here the e!propriatin aency ta(es o%er the
property prior to the e!propriation suit* In these instances, the 3ust compensation shall be determined as of the
time of ta(in, not as of the time of filin of the action of eminent domain* +here &as undoubtedly a ta(in of
the $nsaldos1 property &hen the ;o%ernment obtained possession thereof and con%erted it into a part of a
thorouhfare for public use* It is as of the time of such a ta(in, to repeat, that the 3ust compensation for the
property is to be established* +he %alue of the $nsaldos1 property must be ascertained as of the year 1989,
&hen it &as actually ta(en, and not at the time of the filin of the e!propriation suit, &hich, by the &ay, still
has to be done* It is as of that time that the real measure of their loss may fairly be ad3uded* +he %alue, once
fi!ed, shall earn interest at the leal rate until full payment is effected, conformably &ith other principles laid
do&n by case la&* +he Court thus directed the Department of .ublic 6or(s and <ih&ays to institute the
appropriate e!propriation action o%er the land in 2uestion so that the 3ust compensation due its o&ners may be
determined in accordance &ith the "ules of Court, &ith interest at the leal rate of 6G per annum from the
time of ta(in until full payment is made*
4+ <ational ,o=er Cor(oration vs. Court of '((eals [GR 1)*&31, +& !ebruary 199&
"hird Division, Francisco (J): 4 concur
!acts" $ contract &as fored bet&een the o%ernment throuh the 7ational .o&er Corporation (7$.OCO")
and .@CO"., Inc* (.@CO"., formerly .acific @2uipment Corporation, as party=CO7+"$C+O" on 09 4une
1998 for the construction of the Mari%eles Dam 1 and appurtenant structures of the &ater supply system of the
'ataan @!port .rocessin Bone at Mari%eles, 'ataan* It &as areed upon that the contract is of a ?Cost=.lus a
.ercentae? type M meanin, .@CO". &ill be paid a certain percentae as fee based on the ?$ctual Final
Cost? of the &or(, and &hat constitutes ?$ctual Final Cost? is the total cost to 7$.OCO" of all the &or(
performed by .@CO". &hich includes cost of materials and supplies, structures, furnitures, chares, etc* and
all other e!penses as are inherent in a Cost= .lus and .ercentae Contract and necessary for the prosecution of
the &or( that are appro%ed by 7$.OCO"* In a letter dated 11 4uly 1998, 7$.OCO" communicated to
.@CO". that it &as inclined to contract directly and separately &ith .hilippine ;routin and ;unitin*, Inc*
(;"O;D7) for the drillin and routin &or( on the construction pro3ect and conse2uently, .@CO". &ill
not be entitled to any fees for said tas(* Contendin that such 7$.OCO"=;"O;D7 arranement &ill %iolate
its rihts under the 7$.OCO"=.@CO". contract, .@CO". made (no&n to 7$.OCO" its desire to brin
the matter to arbitration* +he 7$.OCO"=;"O;D7 drillin and routin contract, nonetheless, pushed
throuh on 0) $uust 1998* $s a result of such purported ?&ithdra&al?, it appeared that the drillin and
routin &or( ceased to be a .art of the 7$.OCO"=.@CO". contract* "ouhly E years after, .@CO". on
18 4une 1999 presented to 7$.OCO" 8 claims, i*e* (1) Fee on the cost of drillin and routin &hich is 1:G
of the $ctual Final Cost of .6,960,E19*E:, or .696*0E1*9E/ (0) Fee on the minimum uaranteed e2uipment
rental &hich is 1:G of the $ctual Final Cost of .1*69 million, or .169,:::*::/ ()) Fee on the in%entory of
unused stoc(s and .OA, .1EE,>88*9E/ and (8) "eimbursement of Medical <ospital e!penses reF +N=::1
$ccident case, or .E:,:>E*9), coupled &ith a re2uest for arbitration* $ board of arbitrators &as thereafter
con%ened* 'ut after a series of &ritten communications amon the board, 7$.OCO" and .@CO"., it
appeared that 7$.OCO" &as &illin to arbitrate on claims ()) and (8) only* $s 7$.OCO" &as
uncompromisin, .@CO". filed an action in the "eional +rial Court of Manila to compel 7$.OCO" to
submitIconfirmIcertify all the 8 claims for arbitration, &here 3udment &as thereafter rendered in fa%or of
.@CO".* $fter the trial court denied 7$.OCO"1s motion for reconsideration of its decision, the Court of
$ppeals, on appeal, affirmed the same but deleted the a&ard of attorney1s fees* <o&e%er, in affirmin said
decision &hich merely ordered 7$.OCO" and .@CO". to arbitrate on all 8 claims, the appellate court &ent
further in disposin of issues &hich could ha%e been appropriately %entilated and passed upon in the
arbitration proceedins* From the ad%erse 3udment, 7$.OCO" filed the petition for re%ie& &ith the
5upreme Court*
IssueF 6hether .@CO". is entitled to the collection of fees for drillin and routin &or( conducted by
;"O;D7 under the 7$.OCO"=;"O;D7 contract*
$el%" +he 7$.OCO"=.@CO". Contract is for the construction, complete, of the Mari%eles Dam 1* Drillin
and routin &or( is 3ust a part of the complete construction of the total pro3ect, hence, co%ered by and &ithin
the scope of the 7$.OCO"=.@CO". Contract* +he &ord ?.ro3ect? is defined in the contract to mean the
Dam and $ppurtenant 5tructures* Drillin and ;routin is part of the dam or appurtenant structures, and
therefore a part of .@CO".1s scope of &or(* $rticle 190E of the 7e& Ci%il Code, &hich pro%ides that ?+he
o&ner may &ithdra& at &ill from the construction of the &or(, althouh it may ha%e been commenced,
indemnifyin the contractor for all the latter1s e!penses, &or( and the usefulness &hich the o&ner may obtain
therefrom, and damaes,? is not applicable herein inasmuch as (a) there &as actually no &ithdra&al from the
?construction of the &or(,? but only a transfer of a part of the construction, &hich is the drillin and routin
&or(, and (b) said drillin and routin still forms part of the pro3ect as a mere 7$.OCO"=;"O;D7 sub=
contract* 5ince the 7$.OCO"=;"O;D7 Contract did not amend nor nullify the ?cost plus? pro%ision of the
7$.OCO"=.ecorp Contract, therefore, appellee .ecorp is still entitled to the said 1:G fee* Further, the
alleation that .@CO". &ithdre& its claim for fee on the minimum uaranteed e2uipment rental hours of
.169,:::*:: is &ithout merit, as it is clear that &ithdra&al is only a proposal conditioned upon 7$.OCO"1s
ad3udication, endorsement and appro%al of all the ) other claims* <o&e%er, as the record sho&s, 7$.OCO"
refused to certify for arbitration all the said ) other claims, hence, the &ithdra&al &as rendered null and %oid*
+hese &ere the findins of the Court of $ppeals &hich &ere appro%ed by the 5upreme Court*
43 'ssociation of 5mall -an%o=ners in the ,hili((ines #nc. vs. 5ecretary of '.rarian Reform [GR
*2*41, 14 3uly 1929@ 'lso 'cuna vs. 'rroyo [GR *931), ,abico vs. 3uico [GR *9*44, an%
Manaay vs. 3uico [GR *9***
En Banc, 4ru. (J): 4 concur
!acts" On 19 4uly 19>9, .resident Cora#on C* $2uino issued @!ecuti%e Order (@O) 00>, declarin full land
o&nership in fa%or of the beneficiaries of .residential Decree (.D) 09 and pro%idin for the %aluation of still
un%alued lands co%ered by the decree as &ell as the manner of their payment* +his &as follo&ed on 00 4uly
19>9 by .D 1)1, institutin a comprehensi%e ararian reform proram (C$".), and @O 009, pro%idin the
mechanics for its implementation* 5ubse2uently, &ith its formal orani#ation, the re%i%ed Conress of the
.hilippines too( o%er leislati%e po&er from the .resident and started its o&n deliberations, includin
e!tensi%e public hearins, on the impro%ement of the interests of farmers* +he result, after almost a year of
spirited debate, &as the enactment of "epublic $ct ("$) 66E9, other&ise (no&n as the Comprehensi%e
$rarian "eform Aa& of 19>>, &hich .resident $2uino sined on 1: 4une 119>>* +his la&, &hile
considerably chanin "$ )>88 ($ricultural Aand "eform Code, > $uust 196)) and .D 09 (01 October
1990), ne%ertheless i%es them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent &ith its pro%isions*
[-R *1***] 7icolas Manaay and his &ife o&ned a 9=hectare riceland &or(ed by 8 tenants, &hile $uustin
<ermano 4r* o&ned a E=hectare riceland &or(ed by four tenants* +he tenants therein &ere declared full
o&ners of these lands by @O 00> as 2ualified farmers under .D 09* Manaay and <ermano 2uestioned the
constitutionality of .D 09, and @Os 00> and 009, before the 5upreme Court, in ;" 99999, on rounds inter
alia of separation of po&ers, due process, e2ual protection and the constitutional limitation that no pri%ate
property shall be ta(en for public use &ithout 3ust compensation* In the amended petition dated 00 7o%ember
19>>, it &as contended that .D 09, @Os 00> and 009 (e!cept 5ections 0: and 01) ha%e been impliedly
repealed by "$ 66E9, but that the latter statute should itself also be declared unconstitutional because it
suffers from substantially the same infirmities as the earlier measures* $ petition for inter%ention &as filed
&ith lea%e of court on 1 4une 19>> by Jicente Cru#, o&ner of a 1*>)=hectare land, &ho complained that the
department of $rarian "eform (D$") &as insistin on the implementation of .D 09 and @O 00> despite a
compromise areement he had reached &ith his tenant on the payment of rentals*
[-R *1&!] $rsenio $l* $cuPa, 7e&ton 4ison, Jictorino Ferraris, Dennis 4ere#a, <erminiildo ;ustilo, and
.aulino D* +olentino are lando&ners and suar planters in the Jictorias Mill District, Jictorias, 7eros
Occidental/ &hile the .lanters1 Committee, Inc* is an orani#ation composed of 1,8:: planter=members* +hey
filed a petition (;" 99)1:) see(in to prohibit the implementation of .roclamation 1)1 and @O 009, claimin
that the po&er to pro%ide for a Comprehensi%e $rarian "eform .roram as decreed by the Constitution
belons to Conress and not the .resident/ that althouh they aree that the .resident could e!ercise
leislati%e po&er until the Conress &as con%ened, she could do so only to enact emerency measures durin
the transition period/ and that, e%en assumin that the interim leislati%e po&er of the .resident &as properly
e!ercised, .roclamation 1)1 and @O 009 &ould still ha%e to be annulled for %iolatin the constitutional
pro%isions on 3ust compensation, due process, and e2ual protection* Furthermore, they contend that ta(in
must be simultaneous &ith payment of 3ust compensation as it is traditionally understood, i*e*, &ith money
and in full, but no such payment is contemplated in 5ection E of the @O 009* On the contrary, 5ection 6,
thereof pro%ides that the Aand 'an( of the .hilippines ?shall compensate the lando&ner in an amount to be
established by the o%ernment, &hich shall be based on the o&ner1s declaration of current fair mar(et %alue as
pro%ided in 5ection 8 hereof, but sub3ect to certain controls to be defined and promulated by the .residential
$rarian "eform Council*? +his compensation may not be paid fully in money but in any of se%eral modes
that may consist of part cash and part bond, &ith interest, maturin periodically, or direct payment in cash or
bond as may be mutually areed upon by the beneficiary and the lando&ner or as may be prescribed or
appro%ed by the .$"C* $ motion for inter%ention &as filed on 09 $uust 19>9 by the 7ational Federation of
5uarcane .lanters (7$5.) &hich claims a membership of at least 0:,::: indi%idual suar planters all o%er
the country* On 1: 5eptember 19>9, another motion for inter%ention &as filed, this time by Manuel
'arcelona, et al*, representin coconut and riceland o&ners* 'oth motions &ere ranted by the Court* On 11
$pril 19>>, .rudencio 5errano, a coconut planter, filed a petition on his o&n behalf, assailin the
constitutionality of @O 009* In addition to the aruments already raised, 5errano contends that the measure is
unconstitutional because (1) only public lands should be included in the C$"./ (0) @O 009 embraces more
than one sub3ect &hich is not e!pressed in the title/ ()) +he po&er of the .resident to leislate &as terminated
on 0 4uly 19>9/ and (8) +he appropriation of a .E: billion special fund from the 7ational +reasury did not
oriinate from the <ouse of "epresentati%es*
[-R *1*44] Inocentes .abico in his petition (;" 99988) allees that the then 5ecretary of Department of
$rarian "eform, in %iolation of due process and the re2uirement for 3ust compensation, placed his
landholdin under the co%erae of Operation Aand +ransfer* Certificates of Aand +ransfer &ere subse2uently
issued to 5al%ador +alento, 4aime $boado, Conrado $%ancePa, and "oberto +aay, &ho then refused payment
of lease rentals to him* On ) 5eptember 19>6, .abico protested the erroneous inclusion of his small
landholdin under Operation Aand +ransfer and as(ed for the recall and cancellation of the Certificates of
Aand +ransfer in the name of the +alento, et* al* .abico claims that on 08 December 19>6, his petition &as
denied &ithout hearin* On 19 February 19>9, he filed a motion for reconsideration, &hich had not been acted
upon &hen @O 00> and 009 &ere issued* +hese orders rendered his motion moot and academic because they
directly effected the transfer of his land to +alento, et* al* .abico arues that (1) @Os 00> and 009 &ere
in%alidly issued by the .resident of the .hilippines/ 90) the said e!ecuti%e orders are %iolati%e of the
constitutional pro%ision that no pri%ate property shall be ta(en &ithout due process or 3ust compensation/ and
()) .abico is denied the riht of ma!imum retention pro%ided for under the 19>9 Constitution*
[-R *;*42] +he $ssociation of 5mall Aando&ners in the .hilippines, Inc*, 4uanito D* ;ome#, ;erardo '*
$larcio, Felife $* ;uico, 4r*, 'ernardo M* $lmonte, Canuto "amir '* Cabrito, Isidro +* ;uico, Felisa I*
Alamido, Fausto 4* 5al%a, "eynaldo ;* @strada, Felisa C* 'autista, @smenia 4* Cabe, +eodoro '* Madriaa,
$urea 4* .restosa, @merenciana 4* Isla, Felicisima C* $presto, Consuelo M* Morales, 'en3amin "*
5eismundo, Cirila $* 4ose, and 7apoleon 5* Ferrer in%o(e in their petition (;" 9>980) the riht of retention
ranted by .D 09 to o&ners of rice and corn lands not e!ceedin 9 hectares as lon as they are culti%atin or
intend to culti%ate the same* +heir respecti%e lands do not e!ceed the statutory limit but are occupied by
tenants &ho are actually culti%atin such lands* +hey claim they cannot e3ect their tenants and so are unable to
en3oy their riht of retention because the Department of $rarian "eform (D$") has so far not issued the
implementin rules re2uired under .D )16, implementin .D 09* +hey therefore as( the Court for a &rit of
mandamus to compel the 5ecretary of $rarian "eform to issue the said rules*
#ssue" 6hether 3ust compensation should e!clusi%ely be made in money and not other thins of %alue*
$el%" +his is not an ordinary e!propriation &here only a specific property of relati%ely limited area is souht
to be ta(en by the 5tate from its o&ner for a specific and perhaps local purpose* 6hat is dealt &ith herein is a
re%olutionary (ind of e!propriation* +he Court assumes that the framers of the Constitution &ere a&are of this
difficulty &hen they called for ararian reform as a top priority pro3ect of the o%ernment* It is a part of this
assumption that &hen they en%isioned the e!propriation that &ould be needed, they also intended that the 3ust
compensation &ould ha%e to be paid not in the orthodo! &ay but a less con%entional if more practical
method* +here can be no doubt that they &ere a&are of the financial limitations of the o%ernment and had no
illusions that there &ould be enouh money to pay in cash and in full for the lands they &anted to be
distributed amon the farmers* +he court may therefore assume that their intention &as to allo& such manner
of payment as is no& pro%ided for by the C$". Aa&, particularly the payment of the balance (if the o&ner
cannot be paid fully &ith money), or indeed of the entire amount of the 3ust compensation, &ith other thins
of %alue* +he Court has not found in the records of the Constitutional Commission any cateorical areement
amon the members reardin the meanin to be i%en the concept of 3ust compensation as applied to the
comprehensi%e ararian reform proram bein contemplated* On the other hand, there is nothin in the
records either that militates aainst the assumptions &e are ma(in of the eneral sentiments and intention of
the members on the content and manner of the payment to be made to the lando&ner in the liht of the
manitude of the e!penditure and the limitations of the e!propriator* $cceptin the theory that payment of the
3ust compensation is not al&ays re2uired to be made fully in money, the Court find further that the proportion
of cash payment to the other thins of %alue constitutin the total payment, as determined on the basis of the
areas of the lands e!propriated, is not unduly oppressi%e upon the lando&ner* It is noted that the smaller the
land, the bier the payment in money, primarily because the small lando&ner &ill be needin it more than
the bi lando&ners, &ho can afford a bier balance in bonds and other thins of %alue* 7o less importantly,
the o%ernment financial instruments ma(in up the balance of the payment are ?neotiable at any time*? +he
other modes, &hich are li(e&ise a%ailable to the lando&ner at his option, are also not unreasonable because
payment is made in shares of stoc(, A'. bonds, other properties or assets, ta! credits, and other thins of
%alue e2ui%alent to the amount of 3ust compensation* $dmittedly, the compensation contemplated in the la&
&ill cause the lando&ners, bi and small, not a little incon%enience* <o&e%er, this cannot be a%oided*
44 /e(artment of '.rarian Reform vs. Court of '((eals [GR 112*45, & October 1995@ also -an%
4anC of the ,hili((ines vs. Court of '((eals [GR 112*1+
Second Division, Francisco (J): & concur, on 'eave
!acts" On 8 5eptember 1990, the +C+s of .edro A* Sap &ere totally cancelled by the "eistrar of Deeds of
Aeyte and &ere transferred in the names of farmer beneficiaries collecti%ely, based on the re2uest of the
Department of $rarian "eform (D$") toether &ith a certification of the Aandban( that the sum of
.9)E,))9*99 and .919,>69*E8 ha%e been earmar(ed for Sap for the parcels of lands co%ered by +C+s 60>0
and 60>) respecti%ely, &ithout notice to Sap and &ithout complyin &ith the re2uirement of 5ection 16 (e) of
"$ 66E9 to deposit the compensation in cash and Aandban( bonds in an accessible ban(* On the other hand,
in 7o%ember and December 199:, &ithout notice to the heirs of @miliano F* 5antiao, the o&ners of a parcel
of land located at Aaur, 7ue%a @ci3a (1>*E61E hectares, +C+ 7+=6:)E9 of the reistry of Deeds of 7ue%a
@ci3a), the Aandban( (or D$", accordin to Aandban() re2uired and the beneficiaries e!ecuted $ctual tillers
Deed of Dnderta(in to pay rentals to the Aandban( for the use of their farmlots e2ui%alent to at least 0EG of
the net har%est* On 08 October 1991 the D$" "eional Director issued an order directin the Aandban( to
pay the heirs directly or throuh the establishment of a trust fund in the amount of .1)E,8>0*10* On 08
February 1990, the Aandban( reser%ed in trust .1)E,8>0*10 in the name of @miliano F* 5antiao* +he
beneficiaries stopped payin rentals to the heirs after they sined the $ctual +iller1s Deed of Dnderta(in
committin themsel%es to pay rentals to the Aandban( (+he Aandban(, althouh armed &ith the $+DD,
alleedly did not collect any amount as rental from the substitutin beneficiaries)* Aastly, the $ricultural
Manaement and De%elopment Corporation ($M$DCO") o&ned properties in 5an Francisco, Lue#on (a
parcel of land &ith an area of 0:9*901E hectares, +C+ )8)18/ another parcel &ith an area of 16)*61>9
hectares, +C+ 1:>)0), and in +abaco, $lbay (a parcel of land &ith an area of 1,609*8E9> hectares, +C+ +=
0866 of the "eister of Deeds of $lbay)* 6ithout notice to $M$DCO", a summary administrati%e
proceedin to determine compensation of the property co%ered by +C+ )8)18 &as conducted by the D$"$'
in Lue#on City* $ decision &as rendered on 08 7o%ember 1990 fi!in compensation for the parcel of land
co%ered by +C+ )8)18 &ith an area of 0:9*901E hectares at .0,96>,)06*)8 and orderin the Aandban( to pay
or establish a trust account for said amount in the name of $M$DCO"* 6ith respect to $M$DCO"1s
property in $lbay, emancipation patents &ere issued co%erin an area of 9:1*>999 hectares &hich &ere
reistered on 1E February 19>> but no action &as ta(en thereafter by the D$" to fi! the compensation for
said land* On 01 $pril 199), a trust account in the name of $M$DCO" &as established in the amount of
.10,089,019*>), three notices of ac2uisition ha%in been pre%iously re3ected by $M$DCO"* +hus, Sap, the
<eirs of 5antiao, $M$DCO", bein lando&ners &hose landholdins &ere ac2uired by the D$" and
sub3ected to transfer schemes to 2ualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensi%e $rarian "eform Aa&, and
&ere arie%ed by the alleed lapses of the Department of $rarian "eform (D$") and the Aandban( &ith
respect to the %aluation and payment of compensation for their land pursuant to the pro%isions of "epublic
$ct ("$) 66E9, filed &ith the 5upreme Court a .etition for Certiorari and Mandamus &ith prayer for
preliminary mandatory in3unction, 2uestionin the %alidity of D$" $dministrati%e Order 6, 5eries of 1990
and D$" $dministrati%e Order 9, 5eries of 199:, and souht to compel the D$" to e!pedite the pendin
summary administrati%e proceedins to finally determine the 3ust compensation of their properties, and the
Aandban( to deposit in cash and bonds the amounts respecti%ely ?earmar(ed?, ?reser%ed? and ?deposited in
trust accounts? for pri%ate respondents, and to allo& them to &ithdra& the same* +hrouh a "esolution of the
5econd Di%ision dated 9 February 1998, the 5upreme Court referred the petition to respondent Court of
$ppeals for proper determination and disposition* On 0: October 1998, the Court of $ppeals ranted the
petition, declarin that D$" $dministrati%e order 9, 5eries of 199:, null and %oid insofar as it pro%ides for
the openin of trust accounts in lieu of deposits in cash or bonds/ orderin Aandban( to immediately deposit
M not merely ?earmar(,? ?reser%e? or ?deposit in trust? M &ith an accessible ban( desinated by D$" in the
names of Sap, the <eirs of 5antiao, and $M$DCO the amounts of .1,8EE,0:9*)1, .1)E,8>0*10, and
.1E,918,109*99 respecti%ely in cash and in o%ernment financial instruments &ithin the parameters of 5ec* 1>
(1) of "$ 66E9/ orderin the D$"=desinated ban( to allo& Sap, et* al* to &ithdra& the amounts &ithout
pre3udice to the final determination of 3ust compensation by the proper authorities/ and orderin D$" to
immediately conduct summary administrati%e proceedins to determine the 3ust compensation for the lands in
2uestion i%in Sap, et* al* 1E days from notice &ithin &hich to submit e%idence and to decide the cases
&ithin ): days after they are submitted for decision* D$" and Aandban( mo%ed for reconsideration, but &ere
denied on 1> 4anuary 199E* D$" and Aandban( filed their respecti%e petitions for re%ie& &ith the 5upreme
Court*
#ssue" 6hether the deposit may be made in other forms besides cash or A'. bonds, and &hether there should
be a distinction bet&een the deposit of compensation and the determination of 3ust compensation*
$el%" It is %ery e!plicit in 5ection 16(e) of "epublic $ct 66E9 that the deposit must be made only in ?cash? or
in ?A'. bonds?* 7o&here does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form*
If it &ere the intention to include a ?trust account? amon the %alid modes of deposit, that should ha%e been
made e!press, or at least, 2ualifyin &ords ouht to ha%e appeared from &hich it can be fairly deduced that a
?trust account? is allo&ed* In sum, there is no ambiuity in 5ection 16(e) of "$ 66E9 to &arrant an e!panded
construction of the term ?deposit?* <erein, the D$" clearly o%erstepped the limits of its po&er to enact rules
and reulations &hen it issued $dministrati%e Circular 9* +here is no basis in allo&in the openin of a trust
account in behalf of the lando&ner as compensation for his property because 5ection 16(e) of "$ 66E9 is %ery
specific that the deposit must be made only in ?cash? or in ?A'. bonds?* In the same %ein, D$" and
Aandban( cannot in%o(e A"$ Circular 09, 09=$ and E8 because these implementin reulations cannot
out&eih the clear pro%ision of the la&* +here should be no distinction bet&een the deposit of compensation
under 5ection 16(e) of "$ 66E9 and determination of 3ust compensation under 5ection 1>* +o &ithhold the
riht of the lando&ners to appropriate the amounts already deposited in their behalf as compensation for their
properties simply because they re3ected the D$"1s %aluation, and not&ithstandin that they ha%e already been
depri%ed of the possession and use of such properties, is an oppressi%e e!ercise of eminent domain* +he
irresistible e!propriation of Sap, et* al*1s properties &as painful enouh for them/ but D$" rubbed it in all the
more by &ithholdin that &hich rihtfully belons to Sap, et* al* in e!chane for the ta(in, under an
misplaced appreciation of the $ssociation of 5mall Aando&ners case* It must be noted that the immediate
effect in both situations, the deposit of compensation and determination of 3ust compensation, is the same/ the
lando&ner is depri%ed of the use and possession of his property for &hich he should be fairly and immediately
compensated* +hus, to reiterate the cardinal rule, ?&ithin the conte!t of the 5tate1s inherent po&er of eminent
domain, 3ust compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the o&ner of
the land but also the payment of the land &ithin a reasonable time from its ta(in* 6ithout prompt payment,
compensation cannot be considered 13ust1 for the property o&ner is made to suffer the conse2uence of bein
immediately depri%ed of his land &hile bein made to &ait for a decade or more before actually recei%in the
amount necessary to cope &ith his loss*?
45 Manila :lectric Com(any DM:R'-COE vs. ,ine%a [GR 59*91, 13 !ebruary 199+
First Division, 9edia'dea (J): & concur
!acts" For the purpose of constructin a 0): NJ +ransmission line from 'arrio Malaya to +o&er 00: at
.ililla, "i#al, the Manila @lectric Company (M@"$ACO) needed portions of the land of +eofilo $rayon, 5r*,
;il de ;u#man, Aucito 5antiao and +eresa 'autista (simple fee o&ners), consistin of an areate area of
0)9,)01 s2uare meters* Despite M@"$ACO1s offers to pay compensation and attempts to neotiate &ith
$rayon, et* al*, the parties failed to reach an areement* On 09 October 1998, a complaint for eminent domain
&as filed by M@"$ACO aainst 80 defendants (includin +eofilo $rayon 5r*, ;il de ;u#man, Aucito
5antiao, and +eresa 'autista) &ith the Court of First Instance (no& "eional +rial Court) of "i#al, 'ranch
HHII, .asi, Metro Manila* Despite the opposition of $rayon, et* al*, the court issued an Order dated 1)
4anuary 199E authori#in M@"$ACO to ta(e or enter upon the possession of the property souht to be
e!propriated* On 1) 4uly 1996, $rayon, et* al*, filed a motion for &ithdra&al of deposit claimin that they are
entitled to be paid at .8:*:: per s2uare meter or an appro!imate sum of .090,:::*:: and prayed that they be
allo&ed to &ithdra& the sum of .91,991*E: from M@"$ACO1s deposit=account &ith the .hilippine 7ational
'an( (.7'), .asi 'ranch* <o&e%er, $rayon, et* al*1s motion &as denied in an order dated ) 5eptember
1996* .ursuant to a o%ernment policy, M@"$ACO on ): October 1999 sold to the 7ational .o&er
Corporation (7$.OCO") the po&er plants and transmission lines, includin the transmission lines tra%ersin
$rayon, et* al*1s property* On 11 February 19>:, the court issued an Order appointin the members of the
'oard of Commissioners to ma(e an appraisal of the properties* On E 4une 19>:, M@"$ACO filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint on the round that it has lost all its interests o%er the transmission lines and
properties under e!propriation because of their sale to the 7$.OCO"* In %ie& of this motion, the &or( of the
Commissioners &as suspended* On 9 4une 19>1, $rayon, et* al* filed another motion for payment, but despite
the opposition of M@"$ACO, the court issued an order dated 8 December 19>1 rantin the motion for
payment of $rayon, et* al* (.0:,8:: or .)*:: per s2uare meter &ithout pre3udice to the 3ust compensation that
may be pro%ed in the final ad3udication of the case)* On 1E December 19>1, $rayon, et* al* filed an Omnibus
Motion prayin that they be allo&ed to &ithdra& an additional sum of .9:,10E*E: from M@"$ACO1s
deposit=account &ith .7'* 'y order dated 01 December 19>1, the court ranted the Omnibus Motion*
$rayon, et* al* filed another motion dated > 4anuary 19>0 prayin that M@"$ACO be ordered to pay the sum
of .169,0::*::* On 10 4anuary 19>0, M@"$ACO filed a motion for reconsideration of the Orders and to
declare $rayon, et* al* in contempt of court for forin or causin to be fored the recei%in stamp of
M@"$ACO1s counsel and falsifyin or causin to be falsified the sinature of its recei%in cler( in their
Omnibus Motion* On 9 February 19>0, the court denied M@"$ACO1s motion for reconsideration and motion
for contempt* In said order, the Court ad3uded in fa%or of $rayon, et* al* the fair mar(et %alue of their
property ta(en by M@"$ACO at .8:*:: per s2uare meter for a total of .)69*90:*::/ the amount to bearin
leal interest from 08 February 199E until fully paid plus conse2uential damaes in terms of attorney1s fees in
the sum of .1:,:::*::/ all these sums to be paid by M@"$ACO the former &ith costs of suit, minus the
amount of .1:0,>::*:: already &ithdra&n by $rayon, et* al* Furthermore, the court stressed in said order that
?at this stae, the Court starts to appoint commissioners to determine 3ust compensation or dispenses &ith
them and adopts the testimony of a credible real estate bro(er, or the 4ude himself &ould e!ercise his riht to
formulate an opinion of his o&n as to the %alue of the land in 2uestion* 7e%ertheless, if he formulates such an
opinion, he must base it upon competent e%idence*? M@"$ACO filed a petition for re%ie& on certiorari*
#ssue" 6hether the court can dispense &ith the assistance of a 'oard of Commissioners in an e!propriation
proceedin and determine for itself the 3ust compensation*
$el%" In an e!propriation case &here the principal issue is the determination of 3ust compensation, a trial
before the Commissioners is indispensable to allo& the parties to present e%idence on the issue of 3ust
compensation* +he appointment of at least ) competent persons as commissioners to ascertain 3ust
compensation for the property souht to be ta(en is a mandatory re2uirement in e!propriation cases* 6hile it
is true that the findins of commissioners may be disrearded and the court may substitute its o&n estimate of
the %alue, the latter may only do so for %alid reasons, i*e*, &here the Commissioners ha%e applied illeal
principles to the e%idence submitted to them or &here they ha%e disrearded a clear preponderance of
e%idence, or &here the amount allo&ed is either rossly inade2uate or e!cessi%e (Manila "ailroad Company
%* Jelas2ue#, )0 .hil* 0>6) +hus, trial &ith the aid of the commissioners is a substantial riht that may not be
done a&ay &ith capriciously or for no reason at all* Moreo%er, in such instances, &here the report of the
commissioners may be disrearded, the trial court may ma(e its o&n estimate of %alue from competent
e%idence that may be athered from the record* +he ?4oint Jenture $reement on 5ubdi%ision and <ousin
.ro3ects? e!ecuted by $'$ <omes and $rayon, et* al* relied upon by the 3ude, in the absence of any other
proof of %aluation of said properties, is incompetent to determine 3ust compensation* +he 3ude1s act of
determinin and orderin the payment of 3ust compensation &ithout the assistance of a 'oard of
Commissioners is a flarant %iolation of M@"$ACO1s constitutional riht to due process and is a ross
%iolation of the mandated rule established by the "e%ised "ules of Court*
4& <ational ,o=er Cor(oration vs. $enson [GR 1+9992, +9 /ecember 1992
"hird Division, #ardo (J): & concur
!acts" On 01 March 199:, the 7ational .o&er Corporation (7$.OCO") oriinally instituted &ith the
"eional +rial Court ("+C), +hird 4udicial District, 'ranch 86, 5an Fernando, .ampana a complaint for
eminent domain, later amended on 11 October 199:, for the ta(in for public use of E parcels of land, o&ned
or claimed by Aourdes <enson (married to @uenio ;al%e#), 4osefina <enson (married to .etronio Natiba(,
4esusa <enson, Cora#on <enson (married to 4ose "icafort), $lfredo +anchiatco, 'ien%enido Da%id, Maria
'ondoc Capili (married to "omeo Capili), and Miuel Manoloto, &ith a total areate area of E>,)11 s2uare
meters, for the e!pansion of the 7$.OCO" Me!ico 5ub=5tation* On 0> March 199:, 7$.OCO" filed an
urent motion to fi! the pro%isional %alue of the sub3ect parcels of land* On 0: $pril 199:, <enson, et* al*
filed a motion to dismiss* +hey did not challene 7$.OCO"1s riht to condemn their property, but declared
that the fair mar(et %alue of their property &as from .1>:*:: to .0E:*:: per s2uare meter* On 1: 4uly 199:,
the trial court denied <enson, et* al*1s motion to dismiss, but the court did not declare that 7$.OCO" had a
la&ful riht to ta(e the property souht to be e!propriated* <o&e%er, the court fi!ed the pro%isional %alue of
the land at .1::*:: per s2uare meter, for a total area of 6),00: s2uare meters of <enson, et* al*1s property, to
be deposited &ith the .ro%isional +reasurer of .ampana* 7$.OCO" deposited the amount on 09 $uust
199:* On E 5eptember 199:, the trial court issued a &rit of possession in fa%or of 7$.OCO", and, on 11
5eptember 199:, the court1s deputy sheriff placed 7$.OCO" in possession of the sub3ect land* On 00
7o%ember 199:, and 0: December 199:, the trial court ranted the motions of <enson, et* al* to &ithdra& the
deposit made by 7$.OCO" of the pro%isional %alue of their property amountin to .E,>)1,1::*::, &ith a
balance of .69:,9::*::, remainin &ith the .ro%isional +reasurer of .ampana* On E $pril 1991, the trial
court issued an order appointin ) commissioners to aid the in the reception of e%idence to determine 3ust
compensation for the ta(in of sub3ect property* $fter recei%in the e%idence and conductin an ocular
inspection, the commissioners submitted to the court their indi%idual reports* <o&e%er, the trial court did not
conduct a hearin on any of the reports* On 19 May 199), the trial court rendered 3udment fi!in the amount
of 3ust compensation to be paid by the 7$.OCO" for the ta(in of the entire area of 6),00: s2uares meters at
.8::*:: per s2uare meter, &ith leal interest thereon computed from 11 5eptember 199:, &hen 7$.OCO"
&as placed in possession of the land, plus attorney1s fees of .0:,:::*::, and costs of the proceedins* In due
time, 7$.OCO" appealed to the Court of $ppeals* On 0) 4uly 1999, the Court of $ppeals rendered decision
affirmin that of the "eional +rial Court, e!cept that the a&ard of .0:,:::*:: as attorney1s fees &as deleted*
7$.OCO" filed a petition for re%ie& before the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether the determination of the court &ould be %alid &ithout hearin on the report of the
Commissioners*
$el%" +he trial court and the Court of $ppeals fi!ed the %alue of the land at .8::*:: per s2uare meter, &hich
&as the sellin price of lots in the ad3acent fully de%eloped subdi%ision, the 5anto Domino Jillae
5ubdi%ision* +he parcels of land souht to be e!propriated, ho&e%er, are undeniably idle, unde%eloped, ra&
aricultural land, bereft of any impro%ement* @!cept for the <enson family, all the other lando&ners &ere
admittedly farmer beneficiaries under operation land transfer of the Department of $rarian "eform*
<o&e%er, the land has been reclassified as residential* +he nature and character of the land at the time of its
ta(in is the principal criterion to determine 3ust compensation to the lando&ner* Dnfortunately, the trial
court, after creatin a board of commissioners to help it determine the mar(et %alue of the land did not
conduct a hearin on the report of the commissioners* +he trial court fi!ed the fair mar(et %alue of sub3ect
land in an amount e2ual to the %alue of lots in the ad3acent fully de%eloped subdi%ision* +his finds no support
in the e%idence* +he %aluation &as e%en hiher than the recommendation of anyone of the commissioners
(Commissioner Mariano C* +ilao fi!ed the fair mar(et %alue at .)E:*:: per s2uare meter, &hile
Commissioner $rnold .* $tien#a fi!ed it at .)9E*:: per s2uare meter, and Commissioner Jictorino Oracio
fi!ed it at .19:*:: per s2uare meter)* Commissioner $tien#a1s recommendation appears to be the closest
%aluation to the mar(et %alue of lots in the ad3oinin fully de%eloped subdi%ision* Considerin that the sub3ect
parcels of land are unde%eloped ra& land, the price of .)9E*:: per s2uare meter &ould appear to the Court as
the 3ust compensation for the ta(in of such ra& land*
4* <ational ,o=er Cor(oration vs. 'n.as [GR &)++51+&, 2 May 199+
Second Division, #aras (J): 4 concur
!acts" On 1) $pril and ) December 1998, the 7ational .o&er Corporation (7$.OCO"), a o%ernment=
o&ned and controlled corporation and the aency throuh &hich the o%ernment underta(es the on=oin
infrastructure and de%elopment pro3ects throuhout the country, filed t&o complaints for eminent domain &ith
the Court of First Instance (no& "eional +rial Court) of Aanao del 5ur (aainst Aacsamana 'atuan, andIor
;uimba 5hippin U De%elopment Corporation, Maancon Diayan, Moctara Aampaco, Aampaco
.asandalan, Dimaporo 5uban, <ad3i Daluma Ninidar, Dimaampao 'aute, .anonotan Cosna +aol, 5alacop
Dimacalin, <ad3i 5ittie 5ohra Ainan 'atara, 'ertudan .impin $ndIOr Caduro .impin, 'utuan +aol,
Disancopan Marabon, and <ad3i 5alic 5a&a in Ci%il Case 008>/ and aainst Manorsi Casan, Casnanan
'atuan, .undamaru $tocal, .asayod .ado, Dimaampao 'aute, Casnanan 'aute, Dimaporo 5uban,
+ambila&an Ote, Manisun $tocal, and Masacal +omiara in Ci%il Case 0099)* +he complaint &hich souht to
e!propriate certain specified lots situated at Aimoao, 5auiaran, Aanao del 5ur &as for the purpose of the
de%elopment of hydro=electric po&er and production of electricity as &ell as the erection to such subsidiary
&or(s and constructions as may be necessarily connected there&ith* 'oth cases &ere 3ointly tried upon
areement of the parties* $fter a series of hearins &ere held, on 1E 4une 1999, a consolidated decision &as
rendered by the lo&er court, declarin and confirmin that the lots mentioned and described in the complaints
ha%e entirely been la&fully condemned and e!propriated by 7$.OCO", and orderin the latter to pay the
lando&ners certain sums of money as 3ust compensation for their lands e!propriated ?&ith leal interest
thereon until fully paid* +&o consecuti%e motions for reconsideration of the consolidated decision &ere filed
by 7$.OCO"* +he same &ere denied by the court* 7$.OCO" did not appeal on the consolidated decision,
&hich became final and e!ecutory* +hus, on 16 May 19>:, one of the lando&ners (5ittie 5ohra 'atara) filed
an e!=parte motion for the e!ecution of the decision, prayin that petitioner be directed to pay her the unpaid
balance of .18,)::*:: for the lands e!propriated from her, includin leal interest &hich she computed at 6G
per annum* +he said motion &as ranted by the lo&er court* +hereafter, the lo&er court directed the petitioner
to deposit &ith its Cler( of Court the sums of money as ad3uded in the 3oint decision dated 1E 4une 1999*
7$.OCO" complied &ith said order and deposited the sums of money &ith interest computed at 6G per
annum* On 1: February 19>1, another lando&ner (.anonatan Cosna +aol) filed &ith the trial court an e!=
parte motion prayin, for the first time, that the leal interest on the 3ust compensation a&arded to her by the
court be computed at 10G per annum as alleedly ?authori#ed under and by %irtue of Circular 816 of the
Central 'an( issued pursuant to .residential Decree 116 and in a decision of the 5upreme Court that leal
interest allo&ed in the 3udment of the courts, in the absence of e!press contract, shall be computed at 10G
per annum*? On 11 February 19>1, the lo&er court ranted the said motion allo&in 10G interest per annum*
5ubse2uently, the other lando&ners filed motions also prayin that the leal interest on the 3ust compensation
a&arded to them be computed at 10G per annum, on the basis of &hich the lo&er court issued on 1: March
19>1 and 0> $uust 19>1 orders bearin similar import* 7$.OCO" mo%ed for the reconsideration of the
lo&er court1s last order dated 0> $uust 19>1, &hich the court denied on 0E 4anuary 19>0* 7$.OCO" filed a
petition for certiorari and mandamus &ith the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether, in the computation of the leal rate of interest on 3ust compensation for e!propriated lands,
the rate applicable as leal interest is 6G ($rticle 00:9 of the Ci%il Code) or 10G (Central 'an( Circular
816)*
$el%" $rticle 00:9 of the Ci%il Code, &hich pro%ides that ?If the obliation consists in the payment of a sum
of money, and the debtor incurs a delay, the indemnity for damaes, there bein no stipulation to the contrary,
shall be the payment of the interest areed upon, and in the absence of stipulation, the leal interest, &hich is
si! percent per annum,? and not Central 'an( Circular 816, is the la& applicable* +he Central 'an( circular
applies only to loan or forbearance of money, oods or credits and to 3udments in%ol%in such loan or
forbearance of money, oods or credits* +his is e%ident not only from said circular but also from .residential
Decree 116, &hich amended $ct 06EE, other&ise (no&n as the Dsury Aa&* On the other hand, $rticle 00:9 of
the Ci%il Code applies to transactions re2uirin the payment of indemnities as damaes, in connection &ith
any delay in the performance of the obliation arisin therefrom other than those co%erin loan or forbearance
of money, oods or credits* <erein, the transaction in%ol%ed is clearly not a loan or forbearance of money,
oods or credits but e!propriation of certain parcels of land for a public purpose, the payment of &hich is
&ithout stipulation reardin interest, and the interest ad3uded by the trial court is in the nature of indemnity
for damaes* +he leal interest re2uired to be paid on the amount of 3ust compensation for the properties
e!propriated is manifestly in the form of indemnity for damaes for the delay in the payment thereof*
+herefore, since the (ind of interest in%ol%ed in the 3oint 3udment of the lo&er court souht to be enforced in
this case is interest by &ay of damaes, and not by &ay of earnins from loans, etc* $rticle 00:9 of the Ci%il
Code shall apply*
42 Re(ublic of the ,hili((ines vs. 5alem #nvestment Cor(oration [GR 13*5&9, +3 3une +)))
!acts" On 19 February 19>), 'atas .ambansa )8: &as passed authori#in the e!propriation of parcels of
lands in the names of Maria del Carmen "o!as de @li#alde and Concepcion Cabarrus Jda* de 5antos,
includin a portion of the land, consistin of 1,)>: s2uare meters, belonin to Milaros and Inocentes De la
"ama co%ered by +C+ 1691)* On 18 December 19>>, or E years thereafter, Milaros and Inocentes De la
"ama entered into a contract &ith $lfredo ;uerrero &hereby the De la "amas areed to sell to ;uerrero the
entire property co%ered by +C+ 1601), consistin of 8,:9E s2uare meters for the amount of .11,>::,:::*::*
+he De la "amas recei%ed the sum of .0,0::,:::*:: as partial payment of the purchase price, the balance
thereof to be paid upon release of the title by the .hilippine Jeterans 'an(* On ) 7o%ember 19>9, ;uerrero
filed in the "eional +rial Court in .asay City a complaint for specific performance (Ci%il Case 6998=.) to
compel the De la "amas to proceed &ith the sale* On 1: 4uly 199:, &hile the case &as pendin, the "epublic
of the .hilippines filed the case (Ci%il Case 9)09) for e!propriation pursuant to '. )8:* $mon the
defendants named in the complaint &ere Milaros and Inocentes De la "ama as reistered o&ners of Aot >)8,
a portion of &hich (Aot >)8=$) &as part of the e!propriated property* Dpon the deposit of .10,99:,)E:*::
representin 1:G of the appro!imate mar(et %alue of the sub3ect lands, a &rit of possession &as issued on 09
$uust 199: in fa%or of the o%ernment* On 0 May 1991, ;uerrero filed a motion for inter%ention allein
that the De la "amas had areed to sell to him the entire Aot >)8 on 18 December 19>> and that a case for
specific performance had been filed by him aainst the De la "amas* On 9 5eptember 1991, the trial court
appro%ed payment to the De la "amas at the rate of .0),996*:: per s2uare meter for the ta(in of 90: s2uare
meters out of the 1,)>: s2uare meters* Mean&hile, on 1> 5eptember 1991, the trial court rendered a decision
in the case for specific performance upholdin the %alidity of the contract to sell and orderin the De la
"amas to e!ecute the correspondin deed of sale co%erin the sub3ect property in fa%or of ;uerrero* +he De
la "amas appealed to the Court of $ppeals (C$=;" CJ=)E116) but their petition &as dismissed on 0> 4uly
1990* +hey tried to appeal to the 5upreme Court (;" 1:68>>) but aain they failed in their bid as their
petition for re%ie& &as denied on 9 December 1990* Mean&hile, on 0 October 1991, ;uerrero filed an
Omnibus Motion prayin that the 3ust compensation for the land be deposited in court pursuant to "ule 69, T9
of the "ules of Court* $s his motion for inter%ention and omnibus motion had not yet been resol%ed, ;uerrero
filed &ith the Court of $ppeals a petition for mandamus, certiorari, and in3unction &ith temporary restrainin
order (C$=;" 5. 0>)11) to en3oin the "epublic from releasin or payin to the De la "amas any amount
correspondin to the payment of the e!propriated property and to compel the trial court to resol%e his t&o
motions* On 10 4anuary 199), the Court of $ppeals rendered a decision rantin the &rit of mandamus*
7onetheless, the De la "amas filed on 19 March 199) a Motion for $uthority to 6ithdra& the deposit made
by the "epublic in 1991, &hich &as denied on 9 May 199)* On 16 4une 199), the De la "amas filed a Motion
for @!ecution aain prayin that the court1s order dated 9 5eptember 1991, appro%in the recommendation of
the appraisal committee, be enforced* On 00 4une 199), the trial court denied the motion of the De la "amas
holdin that there had been a chane in the situation of the parties, therefore, ma(in the e!ecution of 9
5eptember 1991 Order ine2uitable, impossible, or un3ust* +hus, &ith the decision in the action for specific
performance in Ci%il Case 6998=. ha%in become final, an order of e!ecution &as issued by the .asay City
"+C, and as a result of &hich, a deed of absolute sale &as e!ecuted by the 'ranch Cler( of Court on > March
1998 in fa%or of ;uerrero upon payment by him of the sum of .>,>:>,:::*:: on 11 4anuary 1998 and the
further sum of .1,6:>,9::*:: on 1 February 1998 as full payment for the balance of the purchase price under
the contract to sell* +he entire amount &as &ithdra&n and duly recei%ed by the De la "amas* +hereafter, the
De la "amas souht the nullification of the 00 4une 199) order of the trial by filin a petition for certiorari
and mandamus in the Court of $ppeals* +his petition &as, ho&e%er, dismissed in a decision dated 09 4uly
1998 of the appellate court* Finally, on E $pril 199E, the .asay City "eional +rial Court, 'ranch 111,
declared ;uerrero the rihtful o&ner of the 90:=s2uare meter e!propriated property and ordered payment to
him of 3ust compensation for the ta(in of the land* +his decision &as subse2uently affirmed by the Court of
$ppeals* +he De la "amas filed a petition for re%ie&*
#ssue" 6hether the leal interest should be 6G or 10G
$el%" +he decision dated 1> 5eptember 1991 has lon become final and e!ecutory* +he decision therein
ordered the De la "amas to pay ;uerrero, amon others, the leal interest of the amount of .0,0::,:::*::
from 0 $uust 19>9 until the deed of absolute sale is e!ecuted in fa%or of ;uerrero* 5pecifically, the court
therein rationali#ed that (1) the leal rate of interest for damaes, and e%en for loans &here interest &as not
stipulated, is 6G per annum ($rticle 00:9, Ci%il Code)/ that (0) the rate of 10G per annum &as established by
the Monetary 'oard &hen, under the po&er %ested in it by .D 116 to amend $ct 06EE (more commonly
(no&n as the $nti Dsury Aa&), it amended 5ection 1 by increasin the rate of leal interest for loans,
rene&als and forbearance thereof, as &ell as for 3udments, from 6G per annum to 10G per annum/ and that
()) inasmuch as the Monetary 'oard may not repeal or amend the Ci%il Code, in the face of the apparent
conflict bet&een $rticle 00:9 and $ct 06EE as amended, the rulin of the Monetary 'oard applies only to
ban(s, financin companies, pa&nshops and intermediaries performin 2uasi=ban(in functions, all of &hich
are under the control and super%ision of the Central 'an( and of the Monetary 'oard* +hus, the court held
therein that (1) the interest rate on the .0,0::,:::*:: paid to the de la "amas by ;uerrero at the inception of
the transactions should be only 6G per annum from 0 $uust 19>9, and as of 0 4anuary 1998 this amounts to
the sum of .E>),:::*:: and .11,:::*:: e%ery month thereafter until the deed of absolute sale o%er the
property sub3ect matter of this case is e!ecuted/ that (0) the amounts payable by the de la "amas to ;uerrero
therefore stands at a total of .1,)>),:::*::* Offsettin this amount from the balance of .>,>::,:::*::,
;uerrero must still pay to the de la "amas the sum of .9,819,:::*::/ and that ()) since ;uerrero has already
deposited &ith the Cler( of Court of the court the sum of .E,>:>,1::*:: as of 11 4anuary 1998/ he should add
to this the sum of .l,6:>,9::*::* +he De la "amas can no loner 2uestion a 3udment &hich has already
become final and e!ecutory* <ence, they are already barred from 2uestionin it in a proceedin before the
5upreme Court*
49 City of Manila, vs. 5errano [GR 14+3)4, +) 3une +))1
!acts" On 01 December 199), the City Council of Manila enacted Ordinance 9>)), authori#in the
e!propriation of certain properties in Manila1s First District in +ondo, co%ered by +C+s 9:>69, 1:E0:1,
1:E0:0, and 1)>09) of the "eister of Deeds of Manila, &hich are to be sold and distributed to 2ualified
occupants pursuant to the Aand Dse De%elopment .roram of the City of Manila* One of the properties
souht to be e!propriated, denominated as Aot 1=C, consists of )8)*1: s2uare meters, and &as in the name of
Feli#a de ;uia* Aot 1=C &as assined to @dardo De ;uia, one of the heirs of $lberto De ;uia, in turn one of
the heirs of Feli#a de ;uia* On 09 4uly 1998, the said property &as transferred to Aee Nuan <ui, in &hose
name +C+ 019:1> &as issued* +he property &as subse2uently sold on 08 4anuary 1996 to Demetria De ;uia
to &hom +C+ 006:8> &as issued* On 06 5eptember 1999, the City of Manila filed an amended complaint for
e!propriation (Ci%il Case 98=900>0) &ith the "eional +rial Court, 'ranch 16, Manila, aainst the supposed
o&ners of the lots co%ered by +C+s 9:>69 (includin Aot 1=C), 1:E0:1, 1:E0:0, and 1)>09), &hich included
herein respondents Oscar, Felicitas, 4ose, 'en3amin, @stelita, Aeonora, $delaida, all surnamed 5errano* On 10
7o%ember 1999, the 5erranos filed a consolidated ans&er, prayin the e!emption of Aot 1=C from
e!propriation* Dpon motion by the City, the trial court issued an order, dated 9 October 199>, directin the
City to deposit the amount of .1,>0E,081*:: e2ui%alent to the assessed %alue of the properties* $fter the City
had made the deposit, the trial court issued another order, dated 1E December 199>, directin the issuance of a
&rit of possession in fa%or of the City* +he 5erranos filed a petition for certiorari &ith the Court of $ppeals*
On 16 7o%ember 1999, the Court of $ppeals rendered a decision holdin that althouh Aot 1=C is not e!empt
from e!propriation because it undeniably e!ceeds ):: s2uare meters &hich is no loner considered a small
property &ithin the frame&or( of "$ 9099, the other modes of ac2uisition of lands enumerated in TTE9=1: of
the la& must first be tried by the city o%ernment before it can resort to e!propriation, and thus en3oined the
City from e!propriatin Aot 1=C* In its resolution, dated 0) February 0:::, the Court of $ppeals li(e&ise
denied t&o motions for reconsideration filed by the City* +he City filed a petition for re%ie& on certiorari
before the 5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether it &as premature to determine &hether the re2uirements of "$ 9099, TT9=1: ha%e been
complied &ith*
$el%" "ule 69, T0 pro%ides that ?Dpon the filin of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due
notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall ha%e the riht to ta(e or enter upon the possession of the real
property in%ol%ed if he deposits &ith the authori#ed o%ernment depositary an amount e2ui%alent to the
assessed %alue of the property for purposes of ta!ation to be held by such ban( sub3ect to the orders of the
court* 5uch deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authori#es the deposit of a certificate of
deposit of a o%ernment ban( of the "epublic of the .hilippines payable on demand to the authori#ed
o%ernment depositary* If personal property is in%ol%ed, its %alue shall be pro%isionally ascertained and the
amount to be deposited shall be fi!ed by the court* $fter such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff
or other proper officer to forth&ith place the plaintiff in possession of the property in%ol%ed and promptly
submit a report thereof to the court &ith ser%ice of copies to the parties*? +hus, a &rit of e!ecution may be
issued by a court upon the filin by the o%ernment of a complaint for e!propriation sufficient in form and
substance and upon deposit made by the o%ernment of the amount e2ui%alent to the assessed %alue of the
property sub3ect to e!propriation* Dpon compliance &ith these re2uirements, the issuance of the &rit of
possession becomes ministerial* <erein, these re2uirements &ere satisfied and, therefore, it became the
ministerial duty of the trial court to issue the &rit of possession* +he distinction bet&een the Filstream and the
present case is that in the former, the 3udment in that case had already become final &hile herein, the trial
court has not one beyond the issuance of a &rit of possession* <earin is still to be held to determine
&hether or not petitioner indeed complied &ith the re2uirements pro%ided in "$ 9099* 6hether the City has
complied &ith these pro%isions re2uires the presentation of e%idence, althouh in its amended complaint
petitioner did allee that it had complied &ith the re2uirements* +he determination of this 2uestion must a&ait
the hearin on the complaint for e!propriation, particularly the hearin for the condemnation of the properties
souht to be e!propriated* @!propriation proceedins consists of t&o staesF first, condemnation of the
property after it is determined that its ac2uisition &ill be for a public purpose or public use and, second, the
determination of 3ust compensation to be paid for the ta(in of pri%ate property to be made by the court &ith
the assistance of not more than three commissioners*
5) City of 4a.uio vs. <ational Fater=orCs an% 5e=era.e 'uthority [GR -11+)3+, 31 'u.ust 1959
En Banc, Bautista <n$e'o (J): = concur, concurs in resu't
!acts" +he City of 'auio filed on 0E $pril 19E6, in the Court of First Instance of 'auio, a complaint for
declaratory relief aainst the 7ational 6ater&or(s and 5e&erae $uthority (7$6$5$), a public corporation
created by "epublic $ct 1)>), contendin that said $ct does not include &ithin its pur%ie& the 'auio
6ater&or(s 5ystem/ that assumin that it does, said $ct is unconstitutional because it has the effect of
depri%in the City of the o&nership, control and operation of said &ater&or(s system &ithout compensation
and &ithout due process of la&, and that it is oppressi%e, unreasonable and un3ust to plaintiff and other cities,
municipalities and municipal districts similarly situated* On 00 May 19E6, 7$6$5$ filed a motion to
dismiss* On 01 4une 19E6, the Court, actin on the motion to dismiss as &ell as on the ans&er and re3oinder
filed by both parties, denied the motion and ordered 7$6$5$ to file its ans&er to the complaint* On 6 4uly
19E6, 7$6$5$ filed its ans&er reiteratin and amplifyin the rounds already ad%anced in its motion to
dismiss* On 18 $uust 19E6, the parties submitted a &ritten stipulation of facts and filed &ritten memoranda*
$nd after allo&in the City to file a supplementary complaint, the Court on E 7o%ember 19E6, rendered
decision holdin that the &ater&or(s system of the City of 'auio falls &ithin the cateory of ?pri%ate
property,? as contemplated by our Constitution and may not be e!propriated &ithout 3ust compensation*
7$6$5$ filed a motion for reconsideration, and upon its denial, it too( the present appeal*
#ssue" 6hether the 'auio 6ater&or(s parta(es of the nature of public property or pri%ateIpatrimonial
property of the City*
$el%" +he 'auio 6ater&or(s 5ystem is not li(e any public road, par(, street or other public property held in
trust by a municipal corporation for the benefit of the public but it is rather a property o&ned by the City in its
proprietary character* 6hile the cases may differ as to the public or pri%ate character of &ater&or(s, the
&eiht of authority as far as the leislature is concerned classes them as pri%ate affairs* (sec* 0)9, Jol* I,
"e%ised, McLuillin Municipal Corporations, p* 0)9/ 5hri( %s* City of Aancaster, )1) .a* 1E>, 169 $tl* EE9)*
$nd in this 3urisdiction, this Court has already e!pressed the %ie& that a &ater&or(s system is patrimonial
property of the city that has established it* (Mendo#a %s* De Aeon, )) .hil* E:9)* $nd bein o&ned by a
municipal corporation in a proprietary character, &ater&or(s cannot be ta(en a&ay &ithout obser%in the
safeuards set by our Constitution for the protection of pri%ate property* +he 5tate may, in the interest of
7ational &elfare, transfer to public o&nership any pri%ate enterprise upon payment of 3ust compensation* $t
the same time, one has to bear in mind that no person can be depri%ed of his property e!cept for public use
and upon payment of 3ust compensation* Dnless the City is i%en its due compensation, the City cannot be
depri%ed of its property e%en if 7$6$5$ desires to ta(e o%er its administration in line &ith the spirit of the
la& ("epublic $ct 1)>))* +he la&, insofar as it e!propriates the &ater&or(s in 2uestion &ithout pro%idin for
an effecti%e payment of 3ust compensation, %iolates our Constitution*
51 ,rovince of Aamboan.a %el <orte v. City of Aamboan.a [G.R. <o. -1+444). March +2, 19&2.
En Banc, Ben$.on (J): ; concur, on 'eave
!acts" .rior to its incorporation as a chartered city, the Municipality of Bamboana used to be the pro%incial
capital of the then Bamboana .ro%ince* On 10 October 19)6, Common&ealth $ct (C$) )9 &as appro%ed
con%ertin the Municipality of Bamboana into Bamboana City* 5ection E: of the $ct also pro%ided that
?buildins and properties &hich the pro%ince shall abandon upon the transfer of the capital to another place
&ill be ac2uired and paid for by the City of Bamboana at a price to be fi!ed by the $uditor ;eneral*? +he
properties and buildins referred to consisted of E: lots and some buildins constructed thereon, located in the
City of Bamboana and co%ered indi%idually by +orrens certificates of title in the name of Bamboana
.ro%ince* +he lots are utili#ed as the Capitol 5ite (1 lot), 5chool site () lots), <ospital site () lots),
Aeprosarium () lots), Curuan school (1 lot), +rade school (1 lot), 'urleih school (0 lots), burleih (9 lots),
hih school playround (0 lots), hydro=electric site (1 lot), san ro2ue (V1 lot), and another 0) %acant lots* In
198E, the capital of Bamboana .ro%ince &as transferred to Dipolo and on 16 4une 198>, "epublic $ct ("$)
0>6 created the municipality of Mola%e and ma(in it the capital of Bamboana .ro%ince* On 06 May 1989,
the $ppraisal Committee formed by the $uditor ;eneral, pursuant to C$ )9, fi!ed the %alue of the properties
and buildins in 2uestion left by Bamboana .ro%ince in Bamboana City at .1,098,088*::* <o&e%er, on 18
4uly 19E1, a Cabinet "esolution &as passed, con%eyin all the said E: lots and buildins thereon to
Bamboana City for .1*::, effecti%e as of 198E, &hen the pro%incial capital of the Bamboana .ro%ince &as
transferred to Dipolo* On 6 4une 19E0, "$ 911 &as appro%ed di%idin the pro%ince of Bamboana into
Bamboana del 7orte and Bamboana del 5ur* $s to ho& the assets and obliations of the old pro%ince &ere
to be di%ided bet&een the t&o ne& ones, 5ection 6 of the la& pro%ided that Qupon the appro%al of the $ct, the
funds, assets and other properties and the obliations of the pro%ince of Bamboana shall be di%ided e2uitably
bet&een the .ro%ince of Bamboana del 7orte and the .ro%ince of Bamboana del 5ur by the .resident of the
.hilippines, upon the recommendation of the $uditor ;eneral*? On 11 4anuary 19EE, the $uditor ;eneral
apportioned the assets and obliations of the defunct .ro%ince of Bamboana, apportionin E8*)9G for
Bamboana del 7orte and 8E*61G for Bamboana del 5ur* On 19 March 19E9, the @!ecuti%e 5ecretary, by
order of the .resident, issued a rulin holdin that Bamboana del 7orte had a %ested riht as o&ner (should
be co=o&ner pro=indi%iso) of the properties mentioned in 5ection E: of C$ )9, and is entitled to the price
thereof, payable by Bamboana City* +his effecti%ely re%o(ed the Cabinet "esolution of 18 4uly 19E1* +he
5ecretary of Finance then authori#ed the Commissioner of Internal "e%enue to deduct an amount e2ual to
0EG of the reular internal re%enue allotment for the City of Bamboana for the 2uarter endin )1 March
196:, then for the 2uarter endin ): 4une 196:, and aain for the first 2uarter of the fiscal year 196:=1961*
+he deductions, all areatin .E9,)9)*86 &as credited to the pro%ince of Bamboana del 7orte, in partial
payment of the .9:8,00:,:E due it* <o&e%er, on 19 4une 1961, "$ ):)9 &as appro%ed amendin 5ection E:
of C$ )9 by pro%idin that ?all buildins, properties and assets belonin to the former pro%ince of
Bamboana and located &ithin the City of Bamboana are hereby transferred, free of chare, in fa%or of the
said City of Bamboana*? On 10 4uly 1961, the 5ecretary of Finance ordered the Commissioner of Internal
"e%enue to stop from effectin further payments to Bamboana del 7orte and to return to Bamboana City
the sum of .E9,)9)*86 ta(en from it out of the internal re%enue allotment of Bamboana del 7orte*
Bamboana City admits that since the enactment of "$ ):)9, .8),:):*11 of the .E9,)9)*86 has already been
returned to it* +his constrained Bamboana del 7orte to file on E March 1960, a complaint entitled
?Declaratory "elief &ith .reliminary Mandatory In3unction? in the CFI Bamboana del 7orte aainst
Bamboana City, the 5ecretary of Finance and the Commissioner of Internal "e%enue* On 8 4une 1960, the
lo&er court ordered the issuance of preliminary in3unction as prayed for* $fter trial and on 10 $uust 196),
3udment &as rendered declarin "$ ):)9 unconstitutional as it depri%es the pro%ince of its pri%ate
properties, ordered the city to pay the pro%ince the sum of .9:8,0::*:E and in relation to this ordered the
finance secretary to direct the Commissioner of Internal re%enue to deduct from its reular 2uarterly internal
re%enue allotment e2ui%alent to 0EG, 0EG from the reular 2uarterly internal re%enue allotment for the City
and to remit the same to the pro%ince until the sum has been fully paid/ ordered the pro%ince to e!ecute the
correspondin public instrument deedin to the city the E: parcels of land and the impro%ements thereon
under the certificates of title upon full payment/ dismissed the counterclaim of the city/ and declared
permanent the preliminary mandatory in3unction issued on > 4une 1969* +he pro%ince filed a motion to
reconsider prayin that the City be ordered instead to pay the .9:8,00:*:E in lump sum &ith 6G interest per
annum* O%er the cityKs opposition, the lo&er court ranted the pro%inceKs motion* <ence, the appeal to the
5upreme Court*
#ssue" 6hether Bamboana del 7orte is entitled to its share of the %alue of the properties belonin to the
former Bamboana pro%ince that &ere transferred to the City of Bamboana*
$el%" $rticle 80) of the Ci%il Code pro%ides that Qthe property of pro%inces, cities and municipalities, is
di%ided into property for public use and patrimonial properly*? $rticle 808 of the same code pro%ides that
Qproperty for public use, in the pro%inces, cities, and municipalities, consists of the pro%incial roads, city
streets, municipal streets, the s2uares, fountains, public &aters, promenades, and public &or(s for public
ser%ice paid for by said pro%inces, cities, or municipalities* $ll other property possessed by any of them is
patrimonial and shall be o%erned by this Code, &ithout pre3udice to the pro%isions of special la&s*?
$pplyin the norm in the Ci%il Code, all the properties in 2uestion, e!cept the t&o (0) lots used as <ih
5chool playrounds, could be considered as patrimonial properties of the former Bamboana pro%ince* @%en
the capitol site, the hospital and leprosarium sites, and the school sites &ill be considered patrimonial for they
are not for public use inasmuch as they &ould not fall under the phrase ?public &or(s for public ser%ice*?
Dnder the e3usdem eneris rule, such public &or(s must be for free and indiscriminate use by anyone, 3ust
li(e the precedin enumerated properties in the first pararaph of $rticle 808* +he playrounds, ho&e%er,
&ould fit into this cateory* +he records do not disclose, ho&e%er, &hether the buildins &ere constructed at
the e!pense of the former .ro%ince of Bamboana* Considerin ho&e%er the fact that said buildins must
ha%e been erected e%en before 19)6 &hen C$ )9 &as enacted and the further fact that pro%inces then had no
po&er to authori#e construction of buildins at their o&n e!pense, it can be assumed that said buildins &ere
erected by the 7ational ;o%ernment, usin national funds* <ence, Conress could %ery &ell dispose of said
buildins in the same manner that it did &ith the lots in 2uestion* On the other hand, "epublic $ct ):)9
cannot be applied to depri%e Bamboana del 7orte of its share in the %alue of the rest of the 06 remainin lots
&hich are patrimonial properties since they are not bein utili#ed for distinctly o%ernmental purposes* +he
fact that these 06 lots are reistered strenthens the proposition that they are truly pri%ate in nature* +hus,
Bamboana del 7orte is still entitled to collect from the City of Bamboana the former1s E8*)9G share in the
06 properties &hich are patrimonial in nature, said share to be computed on the basis of the %aluation of said
06 properties as contained in "esolution 9, dated 06 March 1989, of the $ppraisal Committee formed by the
$uditor ;eneral* +he share, ho&e%er, cannot be paid in lump sum, e!cept as to the .8),:):*11 already
returned to the City, as the return of said amount to the city &as &ithout leal basis* "$ ):)9 too( effect only
on 19 4une 1961 after a partial payment of .E9,)9)*86 had already been made* 5ince the la& did not pro%ide
for retroacti%ity, it could not ha%e %alidly affected a completed act* <ence, the amount of .8),:):*11 should
be immediately returned by the City to the pro%ince* +he remainin balance, if any, in the amount of
plaintiff1s E8*)9G share in the 06 lots should then be paid by the City in the same manner oriinally adopted
by the 5ecretary of Finance and the Commissioner of Internal "e%enue, and not in lump sum*

Eminent Domain Case Digests

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Eminent Domain Case Digests

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Narratives

Você também pode gostar