- If property is directly taken by Congress for
MOST ARE IN THE BOOK, CARA
DEAR.
Power of Eminent Domain – power of state to forcibly
acquire private properties upon payment of just
compensation – coercive power of the state
- Negotiate with owner the amicable disposition
of the property
- It is only in situations where property owner
doesn’t want to sell property and can’t agree on
price.
- City of Mandaluyong vs. Francisco: small
property owner’s rights must be respected.
- Eminent domain as last recourse.
- Primarily vested in Congress. If there is law
enacted by Congress, ED may be delegated.
- Barangays can even exercise ED (Moday case)
- Yusay vs. CA – SC ordained that if ED is exercised
by LGU, it has to be done under local ordinance
(similar to law but local in character) not a mere
resolution (just an expression of opinion of
legislative body)
- Taking of property by reason of necessity –
taking of private property; best illustrated in
American Print Works vs. Lawrence – owner of
building sued mayor of New York but SC denied
claim holding that there was taking but such
taking was done via PP not with ED.
- If your demand of payment is addressed to
government, you cannot demand payment from
government. There is taking but such taking
wasn’t in cognizance with ED such is akin with
destruction of property via necessity. 432 of the
CC
- You can’t demand payment from state but from
those persons whose houses were saved
because of the destruction of your property.
- ED involves taking of property for public purpose
upon payment of just compensation.
- Requirements:
1. Taking is impelled by necessity
- LEGITIMATE NEED to take away private property
not for personal wishes of politicians.
- Directly exercised by Congress then issue on
necessity of the taking is generally not open to
judicial scrutiny (primarily vested in Congress)
public purpose, you can’t question necessity of
taking by arguing that it is not necessary nor
must be done in some other place. Except if
there is GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXECESS OF
JURISDICTION.
- Gen rule: not open to review if directly exercised
by Congress unless there is grave abuse of
discretion
- If exercised by delegate of Congress, the
necessity of taking may be validly reviewed by
courts of law. (City of Manila vs. Chinese
Cemetery – SC sustained action of courts
because expropriator was not Congress but city
of Manila)
2. Property taken is private property
- Reason: If property is owned by government, no
need for government to exercise its power.
- Property: anything that is under dominion of
man (real, personal, tangible properties,
intangible properties, services (PLDT vs. NPC))
- Properties owned by church? Yes. What is
granted under Constitution is exemption from
payment of real property tax. It doesn’t exempt
properties of church from coverage of ED.
- How about money? Can they expropriate this?
No because it is an absurd situation and in return
pays you back. He state can’t also expropriate
right to demand payment. Right to demand
payment from another person shouldn’t be
expropriated by state even with ED power.
- How about properties already devoted for public
purpose? Possible but city must need special
authority (enacted by CONGRESS) authorizing it
to expropriate the property already for public
purpose. LGU grant isn’t even sufficient. (City of
Manila vs Chinese Cemetery)
3. Taking in strict constitutional sense
- If property is taken by state in the exercise of ED,
the owner is disposed of his property. Ordinarily,
taking of property in ED entails the dispossession
of owner. Owner is physically deprived of use
and utilization of property.
- Republic vs. Castellvi: Valid taking of private
property – expropriator must enter private
property; entry is for more than momentary
period; entry must be under warrant (consent of
owner); public purpose; entry must be in such
 manner to oust owner (not in case). Mere service amount to taking under ED without just
of expropriation is not equivalent to taking. compensation
- Taking is a broader concept. Taking in ED is - Telecommunications vs. Attorneys: Giving of
actual dispossession. Even without free air time is valid
dispossession, there is taking when there is - PP: noxious hazardous property
trespass, material impairment, or prevention of - ED: beneficial property for public purpose
ordinary uses. 4. Public purpose
- People vs. Fajardo: prohibiting construction of - If parcel of land is taken by state for public plaza,
anything that obstructs public plaza view. this requirement is met. It doesn’t matter if
Fajardo violated this ordinance and was entrance if for free or for fee as long as for public
convicted. SC: The ordinance was invalid purpose
because it would amount to taking of property - NHA vs. Reyes: Public purpose shouldn’t be given
without just compensation. Fajardo wasn’t a restrictive meaning but a liberal construction
dispossessed yet our SC declared that there was that public purpose could be equated with public
taking already. safety, public heath, and public convenience.
- Republic vs. Salem Investment: The mere - If government will expropriate property used as
passage of law to expropriation is not akin to dumpsite to be used as condo, that is public
actual taking. purpose even if few is accommodated. Even if
- While you aren’t evicted, there is no gain saying land is sold to private corp. for private purpose,
that burden is already imposed that you can’t it is for public purpose because it helps solves
use it anymore. Prevention of ordinary use = you squatting and helps with sanitation. That’s why
can demand just compensation even if you it shouldn’t be restrictive. What mater is that it
aren’t necessarily evicted from property – you trickled down to public purpose.
are still owner and will be compensated in full. 5. Just compensation
- Cosby and etc. : no need for dispossession for 6. Observance of due process
taking.
- Not all taking is compensable. Cabrera vs. Lapid:
Not taking pursuant to ED. If you own concrete
wall on the verge of collapsing, it can be
demolished without you receiving just
compensation.
- If there is injury, that is damnum absque injuria
(damage without injury) – applied only if
perceived damage is shared by those with the
act complained. If person has more damage than
others. Exception: Richards s. Washington
Terminal – Richards sued for damages because
government installed exhaust fans to remove
smoke from tunnels. One of the fans is installed
directly in house. In defense, authorities
imposed damnum absque injuria. SC imposed
damages on Richards because he suffered more
than neighbors. Damnum isn’t applicable is one
person suffers more than others.
- Carlos Superdrugs case: it was argued by
petitioners that it was taking based on ED. SC
agreed that it was taking under PP.
- Phil. Press Institute: Donation of ½ of print space
to be used by COMLEC. Invalid because it would