Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ISSUE:
Whether or not the municipal mayor committed a grave abuse of discretion
HELD:
The Court ruled that the property involved cannot be classified as
a nuisance per se which can therefore be summarily abated. Here, it is
merely the hotels particular incident, its location and not its inherent
qualities that rendered it a nuisance. Had it not been constructed in the no
build zone, Boracay West Cove could have secured the necessary permits
without issue. As such, even if the hotel is not a nuisance per se, it is still a HELD:
nuisance per accidens. The Court held that the MMDA does not have the capacity to exercise
police power. Police power is primarily lodged in the National
Generally, LGUs have no power to declare a particular thing as a nuisance Legislature. However, police power may be delegated to
unless such a thing is a nuisance per se. Despite the hotels classification government units. Petitioner herein is a development authority and not a
as a nuisance per accidens, however, the LGU may nevertheless properly political government unit. Therefore, the MMDA cannot exercise police
order the hotels demolition. power because it cannot be delegated to them. It is not a legislative unit of
the government. Republic Act No. 7924 does not empower the MMDA to
This is because, in the exercise of enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the
police power and the general welfare clause, general welfare of the inhabitants of Manila. There is no syllable in the said
property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and act that grants MMDA police power.
burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government.
It is an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies and
Moreover, the Local Government Code authorizes city and coordinating with various national government agencies, peoples
municipal governments, acting through their local chief organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector for
executives, to issue demolition orders. The office of the mayor has the efficient and expeditious delivery of basic services in the vast
quasi-judicial powers to order the closing and demolition of metropolitan area.
establishments.
PASEI v Drilon
FACTS: The disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and
The Legislature passed R.A. 1180 (An Act to Regulate the Retail Business). danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and control
Its purpose was to prevent persons who are not citizens of the Phil. from of the retail business and free citizens and country from such
having a strong hold upon the peoples economic life. A prohibition against dominance and control; that the enactment clearly falls within the
aliens and against associations, partnerships, or corporations the capital of scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by which it
which are not wholly owned by Filipinos, from engaging directly or protects its own personality and insures its security and future.
indirectly in the retail trade
Lutz v Araneta
Citizens and juridical entities of the United States were exempted from this FACTS:
Act. Walter Lutz in his capacity as the Judicial Administrator of the intestate of
the deceased Antonio Jayme Ledesma, seeks to recover from the Collector
of the Internal Revenue the total sum of P 14, 666.40 paid by the estate as
Lao Ichong, in his own behalf and behalf of other alien residents,
taxes, under section 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 567, also known as the
corporations and partnerships affected by the Act, filed an action to
Sugar Adjustment Act
declare it unconstitutional.
Contentions of Lao Ichong: Commonwealth Act. 567 Section 2 provides for an increase of the existing
RA 1180 denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and tax on the manufacture of sugar on a graduated basis, while section 3
deprives them of their liberty and property without due process levies on the owners or persons in control of the land devoted to the
cultivation of sugarcane and ceded to others for consideration, on lease or
Contentions of the Fiscal City of Manila: otherwise.
It was alleged that such tax is unconstitutional and void, being levied for In G.R. No. 79310, the petitioners in this case claim that the power to
the aid and support of the sugar industry exclusively, which in plaintiff's provide for a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as decreed by the
opinion is not a public purpose for which a tax may be constitutionally Constitution belongs to the Congress and not to the President, the also
levied. The action was dismissed by the CFI thus the plaintiff appealed allege that Proclamation No. 131 and E.O No. 229 should be annulled for
directly to the Supreme Court. violation of the constitutional provisions on just compensation, due process
and equal protection. They contended that the taking must be
ISSUE: simultaneous with payment of just compensation which such payment is
Whether or not the tax imposition in the Commonwealth Act No. 567 are not contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O No. 229.
unconstitutional.
In G.R. No. 79744, the petitioner argues that E.O Nos. 228 and 229 were
RULING: invalidly issued by the President and that the said executive orders
Sugar production is one of the greatest industries of our nation, sugar violate the constitutional provision that no private property shall be taken
occupying a leading position among its export product, giving employment without due process or just compensation which was denied to the
to thousands of laborers in the country, it is a great source of the state's petitioners.
wealth, and is one of the most important source of foreign exchange
needed by our government and is thus pivotal in the plans of a regime In G.R. No 78742 the petitioners claim that they cannot eject their tenants
committed to a policy of currency stability. and so are unable to enjoy their right of retention because the Department
of Agrarian Reform has so far not issued the implementing rules of the
As the protection and promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of public decree. They therefore ask the Honorable Court for a writ of mandamus to
concern the Legislature may determine within reasonable bounds what is compel the respondents to issue the said rules.
necessary for its protection and expedient for its promotion. Here, the
legislative must be allowed full play, subject only to the test of ISSUE:
reasonableness; and it is not contended that the means provided in section Whether or not the laws being challenged is a valid exercise of Police
6 of Commonwealth Act No. 567 bear no relation to the objective pursued power or Power of Eminent Domain.
or are oppressive in character. If objective and methods are alike
constitutionally valid, no reason is seen why the state may not levy taxes RULING:
to raise funds for their prosecution and attainment. Taxation may be made There are traditional distinctions between the police power and the power
the implement. Taxation may be made the implement of the state's police of eminent domain that logically preclude the application of both powers at
power the same time on the same subject. The cases before us present no knotty
complication insofar as the question of compensable taking is concerned.
The subject tax is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for To the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe
the rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. In retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police power for
other words, the act is primarily a valid exercise of police power. the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But
where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such
Association of Small Land Owners v Secretary of Agrarian Reform owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area
allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for
FACTS: which payment of just compensation is imperative. The taking
These are consolidated cases involving common legal questions including contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is
serious challenges to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657 also known as required is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the
the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988" said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the
farmer-beneficiary. This is definitely an exercise not of the police power but
In G.R. No. 79777, the petitioners are questioning the P.D No. 27 and E.O of the power of eminent domain.
Nos. 228 and 229 on the grounds inter alia of separation of powers, due
process, equal protection and the constitutional limitation that no private Lozano v Martinez
property shall be taken for public use without just compensation.
FACTS:
This is a consolidated case, the petition arose from cases involving challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it
prosecution of offenses under the BP 22 also known as Bouncing Check arbitrary or oppressive. The right to quality education is not absolute. The
Law. The defendant in these case moved seasonably to quash Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to choose a
the information on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute an profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable
offense, the statute being unconstitutional. The motions were denied by admission and academic requirements. It is not enough to simply invoke
the respondent trial court, except in one case, which is the subject of G.R the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution but one
must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise.
No. 75789, wherein the trial court declared the law unconstitutional and
dismissed the case. The parties adversely affected have come to the court
The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the
for remedy. ambit of the police power. It is the right and indeed the
responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is
ISSUE: not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily
Whether or not BP 22 or the Bouncing Check Law is unconstitutional. entrust their lives and health. The method employed by the
challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law
RULING: nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is intended to
No, the enactment of the assailed statute is a valid exercise of Police power insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from
and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors. Petition was granted and
for debt. It may be constitutionally impermissible for the legislature to the RTC ruling was reversed.
penalize a person for non-payment of debt ex contractu, but certainly it is
within the prerogative of the lawmaking body to prescribe certain acts Ynot v Intermediate Appellate Court
deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Acts mala in se are not
FACTS:
only acts which the law can punish. An act may not be considered by
On January 13, 1984, the petitioner transported six carabaos in a pump
society as inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se, but because of the
boat from Masbate to Iloilo when the same was confiscated by the police
harm that it inflicts on the community, it can be outlawed and criminally
station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo for the violation of E.O. 626-A.
punished as malum prohibitum. The state can do this in the exercise
A case was filed by the petitioner questioning the constitutionality of
of its police power.
executive order and the recovery of the carabaos. After considering the
merits of the case, the confiscation was sustained and the court declined
The enactment of the said statute is a declaration by the legislature that,
to rule on the constitutionality issue. The petitioner appealed the decision
as a matter of public policy, the making and issuance of a worthless check
to the Intermediate Appellate Court but it also upheld the ruling of RTC.
is deemed a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal
sanctions.
ISSUE:
Is E.O. 626-A unconstitutional?
Department of Education, Culture and Sports v San Diego
Facts:
RULING:
Respondent San Diego has flunked the NMAT (National Medical Admission
Test) three times. When he applied to take again, petitioner rejected his The SC ruled that the EO is not valid as it indeed violates due process. EO
application based on the three-flunk-rule. He then filed a petition before 626-A ctreated a presumption based on the judgment of the executive. The
the RTC on the ground of due process and equal protection and challenging movement of carabaos from one area to the other does not mean a
the constitutionality of the order. The petition was granted by the RTC subsequent slaughter of the same would ensue. Ynot should be given to
therefore this petition. defend himself and explain why the carabaos are being transferred before
they can be confiscated. The SC found that the challenged measure
Issue: is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method
Whether or not the NMAT three-flunk-rule order is valid and employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to
constitutional. the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due
process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied
Ruling: the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and
Yes. It is the right and responsibility of the State to insure that the medical punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to
profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on
unwarily entrust their lives and health. The method employed by the judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of
powers. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to
the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the of the few who resisted mandatory vaccinations for smallpox in the early
distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken. 20th century in Cambridge, Massachusetts. While many were pleased to
hear about a vaccine for smallpox, others were alarmed by the idea of
City Government of Quezon City v Ericta being stabbed by a needle and having cowpox injected inside of them.
Jacobson was distraught by this and took his case to the Supreme Court in
1905 against mandatory vaccinations. He refused the vaccine stating it
FACTS: was an "invasion of his liberty.
FACTS:
The Kohler Act prohibited mining that would cause subsidence of homes
HELD: and surfaces near residential properties. The Pennsylvania Coal Co. had
relied in contract and deeds to retain the valuable estate in the land
The SC held the law as an invalid exercise of police power. There is no beneath the surface. The property owners sought to enjoin the
reasonable relation between the setting aside of at least six (6) percent of Pennsylvania Coal Co. from mining beneath their homes. The trial court
the total area of all private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of found that the Pennsylvania Coal Co.s mining would cause the subsidence
deceased paupers and the promotion of health, morals, good order, safety, damage and danger prohibited by the Kohler Act and sought prevention by
or the general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually a taking injunction. The subsurface estate could not be valuably mined for profit
without compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit and still support the surface above. The owner had consented to the deed
paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of building with the express reservation of the coal rights. As such the deed gave
or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the Pennsylvania Coal Co. both contract and property rights which the Kohler
burden to private cemeteries. Act rendered useless.
ISSUE:
Jacobson v Massachusetts Whether the statute was permissible under the police power or instead
constituted an exercise of eminent domain that required just
FACTS:
compensation.
Cities in Massachusetts could require that all residents be vaccinated, as
authorized by a state statute. This type of regulation was adopted by the
HELD:
city of Cambridge. Pastor Henning Jacobson refused to comply with the
The Court argued as follows: (1) The damage done by the activity
requirement for vaccination. A leader in his community, Jacobson was one
prohibited by the act is a private, not a public nuisance; there is no public
safety justification for the statute, as notice before mining would suffice to Definition/Scope:
protect public safety. On the other hand, the damage done by the statute is
significant, insofar as it abolishes an estate in land and a binding contract.
(2) The statute, in general, purports to extinguish the mining rights to Eminent domain is a fundamental state power that is
valuable properties under surfaces owned by the public and the inseparable from sovereignty. It is the power of a sovereign
government. The statute makes prohibitively expensive the mining of coal state to appropriate private property within its territorial
in these areas, and thereby effectively destroys the right, after all owning sovereignty to promote public welfare. The exercise of this
coal is not worth anything if the coal cannot be mined. The rights of the
power is based on the State's primary duty to serve the
public to its streets and other property are rights paid for. If the
representatives of the public have been so shortsighted as not to pay for common need and advance the general welfare. It is an
the mining rights of the land as well, there is no authority to grant those inherent power and is not conferred by the Constitution. It is
rights without compensation. (If the land above required compensation, so inalienable and no legislative act or agreement can serve to
therefore does the land below.) abrogate the power of eminent domain when public necessity
and convenience require its exercise. (Republic v. Mupas,
The doctrine of regulatory taking, "The general rule at least is that while
property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it
G.R. Nos. 181892, 209917, 209696 & 209731, [September 8,
will be recognized as a taking." The regulation that went "too far" was a 2015])
law prohibiting mining which might cause the subsidence of structures for
human habitation constructed on the land surface. This was resisted by a The government's exercise of eminent domain is not
coal company which had earlier granted a deed to the land over its mine
absolute. It is subject, first and foremost, to constitutional
but reserved all mining rights thereunder, with the grantee assuming all
risks and waiving any damage claim. The Court held the law could not be restrictions enshrined in the Bill of Rights, viz.:
sustained without compensating the grantor. Justice Brandeis filed a lone
dissent in which he argued that there was a valid exercise of the police Section 1. No person shall be
power. deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.
FACTS:
Spouses Heracleo are the co-owners of a land which is among the private
The RTC fixed the value of the structures and improvements on the land properties traversed by MacArthur Highway in Bulacan, a government
in the amount of P827,000.00, based on the value determined by the project undertaken sometime in 1940. The taking was taken without the
commissioners. It ordered the NPC to deposit an additional amount of requisite expropriation proceedings and without their consent. In 1994,
P262,639.17. The National Power Corporation failed to deposit the Heracleo demanded the payment of the fair market value of the property.
additional amount. The writ of possession was correctly recalled by the The DPWH offered to pay 0.70 centavos per sqm., as recommended by the
lower court. appraiser committee of Bulacan. Unsatisfied, Heracleo filed a complaint for
recovery of possession with damages. Favorable decisions were rendered
by the RTC and the CA, with valuation of P 1,500 per sqm and 6% interest
per annum from the time of filing of the until full payment. The SC Division
ISSUE:
reversed the CA ruling and held that computation should be based at the
Whether or not NPC must first pay respondents the amount determined by
time the property was taken in 1940, which is 0.70 per sqm. But because
the trial court before they take possession of the property
of the contrasting opinions of the members of the Division and
transcendental importance of the issue, the case was referred to the En
HELD:
Banc for resolution.
The rule, therefore, is that expropriation proceedings must be dismissed
when it is determined that it is not for a public purpose, except when:
ISSUE:
First, the trial court's order already became final and executory; W/N the taking of private property without due process should be nullified
Second, the government already took possession of the property; and HELD:
No. The governments failure to initiate the necessary expropriation
Lastly, the expropriation case already caused prejudice to the landowner. proceedings prior to actual taking cannot simply invalidate the States
exercise of its eminent domain power, given that the property subject of
The expropriation case is not automatically dismissed when the property expropriation is indubitably devoted for public use, and public policy
ceases to be for public use. The state must first file the appropriate Motion imposes upon the public utility the obligation to continue its services to the
to Withdraw before the trial court having jurisdiction over the proceedings. public. To hastily nullify said expropriation in the guise of lack of due
The grant or denial of any Motion to Withdraw in an expropriation process would certainly diminish or weaken one of the States inherent
proceeding is always subject to judicial discretion. powers, the ultimate objective of which is to serve the greater good.
Thus, the non-filing of the case for expropriation will not necessarily lead to between the Government Telephone System and that of PLDT, so that the
the return of the property to the landowner. What is left to the landowner is Government Telephone System could make use of the lines and facilities of
the right of compensation. the PLDT. Private respondent contends that it cannot be compelled to enter
into a contract where no agreement is had between them.
City of Manila v Chinese Community
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether or not interconnection between PLDT and the Government
The City of Manila, plaintiff herein, prayed for the expropriation of a portion Telephone System can be a valid object for expropriation.
private cemetery for the conversion into an extension of Rizal Avenue.
Plaintiff claims that it is necessary that such public improvement be made
HELD:
in the said portion of the private cemetery and that the said lands are
Yes, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, the
within their jurisdiction.
Republic may require the telephone company to permit interconnection as
Defendants herein answered that the said expropriation was not necessary the needs of the government service may require, subject to the payment
because other routes were available. They further claimed that the of just compensation. The use of lines and services to allow inter-service
expropriation of the cemetery would create irreparable loss and injury to connection between the both telephone systems, through expropriation
them and to all those persons owing and interested in the graves and can be a subject to an easement of right of way.
monuments that would have to be destroyed.
The lower court ruled that the said public improvement was not necessary
on the particular-strip of land in question. Plaintiff herein assailed that they People v Fajardo
have the right to exercise the power of eminent domain and that the courts
have no right to inquire and determine the necessity of the expropriation. FACTS:
Thus, the same filed an appeal. Juan Fajardo was the mayor of Baoo, Camarines Sur. During his term the
municipal council passed Ordinance No. 7 which prohibited the
construction or repair of any building without a written permit from the
Issue: Whether or not the courts may inquire into, and hear proof of the mayor prior to construction or repairing.
necessity of the expropriation.
Fajardo and Babillonia (Fajardos son-in-law) applied for a permit to
Held: The courts have the power of restricting the exercise of eminent
construct a building adjacent to their gas station, still on Fajardos private
domain to the actual reasonable necessities of the case and for the
purposes designated by the law. The moment the municipal corporation or land, separated from public plaza by a creek. The request denied because
entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must comply with the it would destroy the view of the public plaza. But proceeded to construct
conditions accompanying the authority. The necessity for conferring the even without a permit because they claimed that they needed a residence
authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent badly due to a typhoon destroying their previous place of residence
domain is admittedly within the power of the legislature. But whether or
not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a particular Fajardo et at., were charged and convicted by peace court of Baoo for
case under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a question violating Ordinance no. 7
that the courts have the right to inquire to.
ISSUE:
Egranting that a necessity exists for the opening of the street in question, W/N Ordinance No. 7 is a valid exercise police power in its regulation of
the record contains no proof of the necessity of opening the same through property.
the cemetery. The record shows that adjoining and adjacent lands have
been offered to the city free of charge, which will answer every purpose of
HELD:
the plaintiff.
NO. Ordinance No. 7 went beyond the authority that the municipality could
Republic v PLDT enact and is therefore null and void. Fajardo et al., acquitted.
FACTS: The ordinance is not merely lacking in providing standards to guide and/or
Public petitioner commenced a suit against private respondent praying for control the discretion vested by the ordinance. STANDARDS ARE ENTIRELY
the right of the Bureau of Telecommunications to demand interconnection LACKING IN THIS CASE. Ordinance grants mayor arbitrary and unrestricted
power to grant/deny construction/repair permits. Legislation may validly shall be allocated by the Commission, free of charge, among all candidates
regulate property in the interest of general welfare Prohibition of to enable them to make known their qualifications, their stand on public
offensive structures. HOWEVER, the state may not under the guise of Issue and their platforms of government. The Comelec space shall also be
police power permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their used by the Commission for dissemination of vital election information.
property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the
aesthetic appearance of the community. Petitioner Philippine Press Institute, Inc. (PPI), a non-profit organization of
newspaper and magazine publishers, asks the Supreme Court to declare
Comelec Resolution No. 2772 unconstitutional and void on the ground that
Republic v Vda. De Castellvi
it violates the prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the
government against the taking of private property for public use without
FACTS:
just compensation. On behalf of the respondent Comelec, the Solicitor
After the owner of a parcel of land that has been rented and occupied by
General claimed that the Resolution is a permissible exercise of the power
the government in 1947 refused to extend the lease, the latter of supervision (police power) of the Comelec over the information
commenced expropriation proceedings in 1959. During the assessment of operations of print media enterprises during the election period to
just compensation, the government argued that it had taken the property safeguard and ensure a fair, impartial and credible election.
when the contract of lease commenced and not when the proceedings
begun. The owner maintains that the disputed land was not taken when ISSUE:
the government commenced to occupy the said land as lessee because the Whether or not Comelec Resolution No. 2772 is unconstitutional
essential elements of the taking of property under the power of eminent
domain, namely (1) entrance and occupation by condemnor upon the HELD:
private property for more than a momentary period, and (2) devoting it to The Supreme Court declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. It held
a public use in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all that to compel print media companies to donate Comelec space amounts
beneficial enjoyment of the property, are not present. to taking of private personal property without payment of the just
compensation required in expropriation cases. Moreover, the element of
necessity for the taking has not been established by respondent Comelec,
ISSUE:
considering that the newspapers were not unwilling to sell advertising
Whether or not the taking of property has taken place when the space. The taking of private property for public use is authorized by the
condemnor has entered and occupied the property as lesse. constitution, but not without payment of just compensation. Also
Resolution No. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of the police
HELD: power of the state. In the case at bench, there is no showing of existence
No, the property was deemed taken only when the expropriation of a national emergency to take private property of newspaper or
proceedings commenced in 1959. magazine publishers.
The essential elements of the taking are: (1) Expropriator must enter a Sumulong v Guerrero
private property, (2) for more than a momentary period, (3) and under
warrant of legal authority, (4) devoting it to public use, or otherwise FACTS:
informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as (5) The National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a complaint for expropriation of
substantially to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment parcels of land for the expansion of Bagong Nayon Hosing Project to
thereof. provide housing facilities to low-salaried government employees, covering
approximately twenty five (25) hectares in Antipolo, Rizal. This included
In the case at bar, these elements were not present when the government the lots of petitioners Lorenzo Sumulong (6,667 sq.m.) and Emilia Vidanes-
entered and occupied the property under a contract of lease. Balaoing (3,333 sq.m.). The land sought to be expropriated were valued by
the NHA at one peso (P1.00) per square meter adopting the market value
fixed by the provincial assessor in accordance with presidential decrees
PPI v Comelec prescribing the valuation of property in expropriation proceedings.
FACTS: The NHA deposited the amount of P158,980.00 with the Phil. Natl Bank,
Respondent Comelec promulgated Resolution No. 2772 directing representing the total market value of the subject 25 ha. of land,
newspapers to provide free Comelec space of not less than one-half page pursuant to P.D. No. 1224 which defines the policy on the expropriation of
for the common use of political parties and candidates. The Comelec space
private property for socialized housing upon payment of just
compensation. HELD:
Yes. The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time when it
Judge Buenaventura S. Guerrero issued a writ of possession pertaining to was felt that a literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement.
the subject parcels of land. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the
the ground that they had been deprived of the possession of their property case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not
without due process of law. This was however, denied. Hence, this petition so any more. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power
challenging the orders of respondent Judge and assailing the of eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at
constitutionality of P.D. No. 1224, as amended. least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what public use is. One
is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at
Petitioners contend that the taking of their property subsumed under the cost to individuals. The other is the transfer, through the exercise of this
topics of public use, just compensation, and due process. power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is
accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially
ISSUE: employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.
Whether socialized housing as defined in P.D. 1224, as amended, for the
purpose of condemnation proceedings is not public use since it will EPZA v Dulay
benefit only a handful of people, bereft of public character, hence it is
not a valid exercise of the States power of eminent domain. FACTS:
The four parcels of land which are the subject of this case is where the
HELD: Mactan Export Processing Zone Authority in Cebu (EPZA) is to be
P.D. 1224 defines socialized housing as, the construction of dwelling constructed. Private respondent San Antonio Development Corporation
units for the middle and lower class members of our society, including (San Antonio, for brevity), in which these lands are registered under,
the construction of the supporting infrastructure and other facilities. The claimed that the lands were expropriated to the government without them
reaching the agreement as to the compensation. Respondent Judge Dulay
public use requirement for a valid exercise of the power
then issued an order for the appointment of the commissioners to
of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by
determine the just compensation. It was later found out that the payment
changing conditions. The taking to be valid must be for public use. As long of the government to San Antonio would be P15 per square meter, which
as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain was objected to by the latter contending that under PD 1533, the basis of
comes into play. It is accurate to state then that at present, whatever may just compensation shall be fair and according to the fair market
be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement valuedeclared by the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, or
of public use. Ergo, socialized housing falls within the confines of public by the assessor, whichever is lower. Such objection and the subsequent
use. Motion for Reconsideration were denied and hearing was set for the
reception of the commissioners report. EPZA then filed this petition for
Manosca v CA certiorari and mandamus enjoining the respondent from further hearing
the case.
FACTS:
Petitioners inherited a piece of land when the parcel was ascertained by ISSUE:
the National Historical Institute to have been the birth site of Felix Y. Whether or Not the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just
Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No. 1, compensation in PD 1533 is unconstitutional.
declaring the land to be a national historical landmark. Petitioners moved
HELD:
to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis that the intended expropriation
The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determination of just
was not for a public purpose and, incidentally, that the act would constitute
compensation in PD 1533 is unconstitutional.
an application of public funds, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of The method of ascertaining just compensation constitutes impermissible
Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution. encroachment to judicial prerogatives. It tends to render the courts inutile
in a matter in which under the Constitution is reserved to it for financial
ISSUE: determination. The valuation in the decree may only serve as guiding
Whether or not the expropriation of the land whereat Manalo was born is principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation, but it may
valid and constitutional. not substitute the courts own judgment as to what amount should be
awarded and how to arrive at such amount. The determination of just Municipality of Paranaque v VM Realty Corp.
compensation is a judicial function. The executive department or the
legislature may make the initial determination but when a party claims a FACTS:
violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that the private party may Petitioner sought to exercise its power of eminent domain based on a
not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute, decree, resolution by the municipal council. Petitioner cites a previous case
or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall prevail wherein a resolution gave authority to exercise eminent domain. Petitioner
over the courts findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from also relies on the Implementing Rules, which provides that a resolution
looking into the justness of the decreed compensation. authorizes a Local Government Unit to exercise eminent domain.
Thus, although in an expropriation proceeding the court technically would
ISSUE:
still have the power to determine the just compensation for the property,
following the applicable decrees, its task would be relegated to Whether or Not an LGU can exercise its power of eminent domain pursuant
simply stating the lower value of the property as declared either by the to a resolution by its law-making body.
owner or the assessor. As a necessary consequence, it would be useless for
the court to appoint commissioners under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. HELD:
Moreover, the need to satisfy the due process clause in the taking of Under Section 19, of the present Local Government Code (RA 7160), it is
private property is seemingly fulfilled since it cannot be said that a judicial stated as the first requisite that LGUs can exercise its power of
proceeding was not had before the actual taking. However, the strict eminent domain if there is an ordinance enacted by its legislative body
application of the decrees during the proceedings would be nothing short enabling the municipal chief executive. A resolution is not an ordinance,
of a mere formality or charade as the court has only to choose between the the former is only an opinion of a law-making body, the latter is a law. The
valuation of the owner and that of the assessor, and its choice is always case cited by Petitioner involves BP 337, which was the previous Local
limited to the lower of the two. The court cannot exercise its discretion or Government Code, which is obviously no longer in effect. RA 7160 prevails
independence in determining what is just or fair. Even a grade school pupil
over the Implementing Rules, the former being the law itself and the latter
could substitute for the judge insofar as the determination of constitutional
only an administrative rule which cannot amend the former.
just compensation is concerned.