Você está na página 1de 3

Power of Eminent Domain use of cand for campaign or other pol purp.

Takes prop
without just comp. Yes. All broad, radio or tv is licensed by
1. Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Jr., govt. Airwave freq, not owned by them, merely given temp
February 25, 2010 priv to use them. Such priv, fair exchange, burden of doing
some pub serv. No priv prop was taken by requirement of
Lot 88; Expropriation proceedings, project improvement and
COMELEC to stations.
expansion plan of old Lahug Airport; not pursued; recovery of
property yes. Fail to file new petition for part pub purpose Regulation of broadcast industry; spending of public funds,
not in case of PM. Fair exchange for what industry gets.
2. Republic vs. Lim, GR No. 161656, June 29, 2005
8. NPC v. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1
Expro of land, Cebu, mil reservation of Phil Army; Denzon
successor Valde Pane, expressed to claim, Rep not yet pay, NPC, Mexico-Limay Transmission lines, pass lands of
recovery with damages, Title issued, owners, but annotation, respondents. Unsuccessful, file eminent domain proc. Lower
mortgage, Lim, owner of lot, quieting the title against NAC court ordered pay def 10 pesos per sq. for right of way
no. doctrine; non-payment, recover, government failed pay JC easement of affected area. NAPOCOR MR CA erred petitioner
within 5 years; recovery of right of posession liable for payment of full market value land, mere simple
right-of way easement transmits no right, except easement.
3. National Power Corporation vs. Heirs of Macabangkit
Yes. Easement taking under power of ED. Nature and effect of
Sangkay, 656 SCRA 60 (2011)
installation of transmission lines; limitation imposed by NPC
Agus Hydro Electric Power Plant Project, construct of several against use of land (no plant higher than 3m allowed below
underground tunnels; resp recovery of damages, the lines) for an indefinite period deprives priv prop for ord use.
operation of project traversed their land, without knowledge Entitled to JC, not be more nor less.
and consent, deprive them; NPC, no right to comp mere legal
9. Republic v. Salem Investment Corporation, G.R. No. 137569,
easement on land was established; JC, yes. Evidence on
June 23, 2000
tunnel substantial topographic survey map; existence of
tunnel traversing the entire and whole length of property; BP 340, expro of land of defendants, including land owned by
construct of tunnel; NPC first move to acquire land either by De la Ramas. Latter entered contract with Guerrero, G RTC
voluntary tender to purchase or through expropriation speci perf, Pending, RP filed expro, wherein land of De la
proceedings. Either, NPC liable to pay for fair market value. Ramas part, G motion intervene De la Ramas sell lot, SP filed
by him, TC uphold validity of contract to sell, De la Ramas
4. Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong, 328 SCRA
execute deed of sale, G, JC deposited in court, enjoin RP
137, March 14, 2000
paying D any amt expro prop. Declared that G is rightful
Mandaluyong; Expansion of city hospital, buy peti land. owner of the expro prop, payment of JC for taking of land. Yes.
Refused; SP resolution Mayor, file expro case. RTC allowed; Expropriation 2 stages: determ autho, payment of JC,
Manda took possession; in contravention with LGC, ordinance completion of 2 stages, expro completed, title of prop passes
is requisite for valid expro of property by LGU. No. Requisites to govt. until action of expr not been comp, ownership of prop
of valid exer by LGU, ordinance enacted by LLC, behalf of LGU, remains with registered owner, owner can exer all rights,
exer for pub use, payment of JC, and valid and definite offer, dispose prop. BP did not effectively expropriate land of D.
not accepted. Manda expro property on basis of mere reso, in
10. Secretary of the DPWH vs. Spouses Tecson, G.R. No.
contravention with first requisite. Not VALID.
179334. July 1, 2013
5. SMI Development Corporation v. Republic, 323 SCRA 862,
Heracleo, owners land, Malolos, taken govt, without owners
Jan. 28, 2000
consent and necessary expro procee, construction of McArthur
RP DOH National Children Hospital; complaint for eminent Highway, demanded payment to Contreras, Engineer of peti
domain against SMDC for purpose of expro lands. Def alleged DPWH, pay 0.70 per sq, PAC. Unsatisfied, return of their
that complaint lacked sufficient cause of action, yes. property or payment of comp at current fair market value. TC
Complaint stated cause of action for ED. Necessity public use dismissed comp, CA reversed and remanded case to TC for
payment of JC alleged complaint. Use to improve delivery of determ JC. Branch clerk of court appointed as chairman
health services satisfied req of nece and pub use. RAC, Pres determ JC, case referred to PAC for submission of recommend
determine when necessary or advantageous exer power of report, 1,500 per sq. JC. No. Petitioners acted in disregard of
eminent domain, provision not require prior unsuccessful resp prop rights; resp entitled to adequate compen; actual
negotiation as a condition precedent for the exer of ED, and compensatory damages (6% per annum at the time of
additional requirement. In case, no such voluntary restriction taking until full payment) 0.70 + interest of 6%
imposed.
11. Secretary of the DPWH vs. Spouses Tecson, January 2015,
6. PPI v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119694. May 22, 1995 Resolution to the MR

Comelec space, free print space; one newspaper of gen in Second look, Respondent filed MR decision of 2013, payment
every prov or city; obtained from any mag or periodic, in line of JC, SC division reversed ruling of CA (1,500 +6%) and held
with election. PPI petition, declare Reso unconsti; taking of that computation should be based at the time the prop was
priv property for pub use without JC. No. taking of priv prop taken in 1940; 0.70/sq.m. Case en banc for resolution. Yes.
authorized; necessity of paying comp; Reso not provide consti Appear inequitable to receive an outdated valuation, long-
basis for compelling publishers, against their will, to provide established rule, fair equivalent of prop computed not at time
free print space for COMELEC purposes, hence, not valid. of payment, but time of taking. Just compen, not to reward
owner for the property, compensate him for the loss. Maintain
7. TELEBAP, Inc. v. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337, April 21, 1998 decision 2013 with modification on amt of int
involved/awarded, additional grant of damages and fees.
TELEBAP; org of lawy of radio and tv broad companies, no
legal standing; one, GMA, bring consti challenge. BP Blg. 881, 11. Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)
requiring TV and radio to provide free airtime to COMELEC for
PTA 4 eminent domain; expro of rolling land, Malubog/Babag 5. Constitutionally exempt properties cannot be taxed;
Cebu, PD 564 devt into integ resort complexes for use of 6. In the assessment and collection of certain kinds of taxes,
public/sports complex,, heirs of ardona, not public use, no notice and opportunity for hearing must be provided.
specific provision authorize taking for tourism purposes.
Tourism purposes by PTA considered pub use? Yes. Concept of
2. THE BILL OF RIGHTS
pub use not anymore traditional, public use, limited use by
pub discarded. PTA, devt of 808 hec expro, plans give Heirs a. (1) Due process Right to life, liberty and property
et al, productive employment, income, water and elec
facilities and better living standard, right of PTA to expro fit for i. Doctrine of Relative Constitutionality
resort to promote tourism, sustained. 1. Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. vs. Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas, 446 SCRA 299 (2004)
12. EPZA (now PEZA) vs. Pulido, 656 SCRA 315 (2011)
ii. Hierarchy of rights
Three parcels of irrigated riceland situated in Rosario, Cavite; 1. Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Philippine
Blooming Mills Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189 (1973)
lot 1406, 1408 and 1409 B-2, pendency, 1406 was subdivided
into A and B. reconsidered, A was released from expro. iii. Property right
Petitioner and Estate of Salud, entered compro agreement, 1. Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534 (2004)
petitioner failed to transfer title of Lot 434, Motion to partially
annul the order return lot B. Petitioner, JC, 41K, equivalent of iv. Constitutional vs. Statutory Due Process
the zonal valuation in 1981, Estate maintain that JC based on 1. Agabon vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004
the value of prop in 1993 when parties entered into Comp
v. Aspects of due process
agreement. 1993, court upheld annulment of Compro 1. Substantive due process - prohibition against arbitrary laws.
Agreement, mode of payment was cancelled. Court a. Requisites
mentioned nothing about the invalidation of the amt of JC
corres to the mode of payment silence court acknowledged 1. The INTERESTS of the public generally, as distinguished
parties understood and accept, 2,600/sq.m correct JC; entitled from those of a particular class, requires the interference by
to 12% interest per annum, petitioner solely responsible for the government and
the delay. Estate was compelled to seek rescission of the 2. The MEANS employed are necessary for the
CAgr, which prolong more the delay in payment of JC. CAs accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
legal int of 6% should be corrected, 12%, for long delay of upon individuals.
payment.
b. Void-for-vagueness Doctrine, Overbreadth Doctrine
13. The Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land and facial challenges
Incorporated, G.R. No. 177056, September 18, 2009 1. When it lacks COMPREHENSIBLE STANDARDS
2. That men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily GUESS
Respondent, operators of shopping mall that have parking as to its meaning
facilities, Senate Committee on trade and on justice 3. And differ as to its application
conducted joint inves re legality of parking fees; basis and
i. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148560, November 19,
reasonableness. Concluded contrary to NBC; interp of code;
2001
spaces are for free; recommended OSG to enjoin collec of
2. Procedural due process - refers to the mode of
parking fee; NBC has expro land for parking. procedure which government agencies must follow in the
enforcement and application of laws.
a. Requisites

Requisites of PROCEDURAL due process:


b. Taxation For JUDICIAL proceedings: CODE: C J N O H
1. A court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and
i. Requisites for valid exercise determine the matter before it.
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person
POWER OF TAXATION
of the defendant or over the property which is the subject of
It is the inherent power of the state to raise revenues to
the proceedings.
defray the expenses of the government or for any public
3. The defendant must be given notice and an opportunity
purpose. This can be done through the imposition of burdens
to be heard.
or imposition on persons, properties, services, occupations or
4. Judgment must be rendered upon a lawful hearing.
transactions.
The importance of taxation derives from the unavoidable For ADMINISTRATIVE proceedings: CODE: H E D S H I P
obligation of the government to protect the people and extend
them benefits in the form of public projects and services. 1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present
Taxation is based on necessity and the reciprocal duties of ones case and submit evidence in support thereof.
protection and support between the state and those that are 2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
subject to its authority. 3. The decision must have something to support itself.
4. Evidence supporting the conclusion must be substantial.
Who may exercise the power of taxation? 5. The decision must be based on the evidence
It is the Congress who exercises the plenary power to tax. presented at the hearing or at least contained in the
However, it may be delegated by congress to local record and disclosed to the parties affected.
government units under such terms and conditions as 6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on
may prescribed by law. its or his own independent consideration of the law and
The following are the requisites or limitations on the power to facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
tax: subordinate in arriving at a decision.
1. Public purpose; 7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions,
2. Territoriality; render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the
3. Uniformity; proceeding can know the various issues involved and
4. Due process and equal protection clause; the reasons for the decision rendered.
1. White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila, GR No. 122846,
b. Fabella vs. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 256 (1997) January 20, 2009\

Fabella v. CA public school teachers striking DUE PROCESS A law which hears before it condemns. Due process of law
IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before
Requisites: 1) actual or constructive notice of the institution of judgment is rendered affecting ones person or property
the proceedings which may affect ones legal rights; (Lopez v. Dir. of Lands)
2) Real opportunity to be heard personally or with counsel; Due process depends on circumstances; it varies with the
3) To present witnesses and evidence is ones favor and to subject matter and the necessities of the situation.
defend his rights; 4) tribunal vested with competent Note: What is required is not actual hearing, but a real
jurisdiction reasonable guarantee of honesty and opportunity to be heard.
impartiality; The requirement of due process can be satisfied by
5) Finding is supported by substantial evidence Contained subsequent due hearing.
and made known to the parties Violation of due process: when same person reviews his own
decision on appeal.
vi. Standards of judicial review Notice and hearing are required in judicial and quasi-judicial
proceedings, but not in the promulgation of general rule.