1. Republic vs.

Lim
Facts:
A case assailing the validity of the decision of CA which in effect transferred ownership of an expropriated
land from government to respondent- Vicente Lim, a private individual due to non-payment of just compensation.
Petitioner contends that expropriated land cannot revert back to private owners as such was the doctrine set
forth by the SC.
Respondent countered that since no payment has been made, technically the expropriated land still belong
to the original owners of which he had legally foreclosed. Despite the lapse of 50 years since promulgation of
judgment, still no payment had been made.
Issue:
WON the payment of expropriation constitute a violation of the proper exercise of eminent domain and that
CA is correct in reverting/transferring ownership of said land to respondent Vicente Lim.
Ruling:
Yes because the non-payment, despite the lapse of more than 50 years in the judgement of expropriation,
constituted a taking without just compensation. Petitioner cannot avail of the doctrine of non-reversal to private
owner by virtue of prescription for to do so would perpetuate injustice.
Decision of CA is affirmed.
Moreover, the court also said, “Since the said land is no longer serving public purpose, then it should
rightfully be returned to the private individual who has the right to own it.

2. Manila vs. Arellano Law Colleges

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of expropriation proceeding by the City of Manila over the lands owned by
Arellano Law Colleges. The purpose of the expropriation is to redistribute said lands for the squatters living therein.
Petitioner based their argument on Act No. 267 which empowers them to contract loans and expropriates
lands for purposes of home sites.
Respondent countered that, the necessity of the expropriation is not well-grounded because only a few
families will be benefited as compared to its vast number of enrolment who will be deprived of university education.
CFI nullified the expropriation proceeding in favour of the respondent.
Issue:
WON said expropriation is a valid exercise of eminent domain and the ground for providing homesites
constitute a proper basis for its necessity.
Ruling:
No because said expropriation is not reasonably grounded on necessity. The provision of homesites for
squatters is not a valid necessity for the intended benefit does not outweight the destruction it will make, in which it
will deprive the owner and its students a greater public necessity, which is education.
Judgment of CFI affirmed.
Note: In expropriation cases, necessity is determined by means of weighing the greater public welfare and the least
of damage to the person whose property is expropriated.

3. City of Manila vs. Chinese Community

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of the decision of CFI of Manila which annulled the necessity of expropriating
lands which cuts across the cemetery of the Chinese Community in Binondo. The purpose of the expropriation is for
the extension of Rizal Street.
Respondent contends that expropriation is not necessary because there are still other available ways to
achieve the intended purpose. They also cited sentimental and religious reasons for their opposition.
Petitioner argued that the court function in expropriation is merely to appraise the value of the property in
question and should not rule on the necessity of the taking. In short, expropriation is a political question and not
justiciable one.
CFI rendered a favourable decision to respondent Chinese Community.
Hence, the case.
Issue:
WON the determination of necessity on expropriation is justiciable and that courts serve mere appraisers
and do not have the authority to nullify it.
Ruling:
Yes it is justiciable insofar as expropriation is deprivation of property and so therefore its necessity is
within the province of the Court’s determination. Courts are not mere appraisers and that they are allowed to
determine whether or not there is necessity in the taking. Court stands as the protector of the property of the people
from the arbitrary and wanton taking by the State.
Necessity serves as the limitation for the taking and as such is within the jurisdiction of the courts.
CFI decision affirmed.

Note: Two conditions before courts can determine necessity of taking:

a. That a law or authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain; but
b. Also the right or authority is being exercised in accordance with law.

 In all such cases the necessity of public utility of the proposed work or improvement is a judicial question. In all
such cases, where the authority into taking property necessary for the purpose, the necessity of taking particular
property for a particular purpose is a judicial one, upon which the owner is entitled to be heard.
 The taking of private property for any use which is not required by the necessities or convenience of the
inhabitants of the State is an unreasonable exercise of the right of eminent domain, and beyond the power of the
legislature to delegate.
 The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity, and that necessity must be
public character. The ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany, and not follow, the taking of
the land.

4. Republic vs. PLDT

Facts:
This is a case assailing the validity of CFI decision dismissing the petitioner plea to compel PLDT to
reconnect the services of Bureau of Telecommunications relative to its rented trunk line.
PLDT disconnected their services with BOT because it became its competitor.
BOT countered that although it may have offered similar services to PLDT, it does so only in areas not
serviced by PLDT.
. Case was appealed and both parties not satisfied, hence, the case.
Issue:
WON the action of BOT is a legitimate exercise of the eminent domain.
Ruling:
Yes because telecommunication services is impressed with public interest. The court ruled that there is
sufficient reason for the exercise of eminent domain because telephone services, similar to that of easement of the
right of way, can be expropriated provided it is for public use and benefit. Telephone services offered by PLDT are
public utility which the same can be subjected for expropriation.

5. Republic vs. Sarabia

Facts:
A case questioning the validity of expropriation or an exercise of the power of eminent domain relative to
the payment of just compensation for the land used as airport by the petitioners – Air Transportation Office (ATO)
in Lahug, Cebu City.
ATO has been in possession of said land prior to the expropriation proceeding. Not satisfied with the
decision of the lower court where it pegged the compensation based on the current value of the property and not
from the date of its actual possession, petitioner appealed before CA and said court affirmed the decision, hence, the
case.
ATO assured that computation should be based on the date of actual possession and not from the current
value because actual possession constitutes the taking.
Issue:
WON the expropriation is valid considering that the lower court pegged the amount of compensation based
on the current value of the land and not from the actual date of possession by ATO
Ruling:
Yes the expropriation is valid insofar as the lands actually possessed by ATO, but the computation for just
compensation is not because it should be based on the date of actual possession. The court ruled that taking
commences from the date of actual possession where the owner of the private properties expropriated has been
deprived of its property and its right. Lands not actually possessed by ATO should be reverted to its original owners
as it no longer served public purpose. Taking is justified payment of just compensation and when it still serves the
intended purpose for which it was taken.

6. Municipal of La Carlota (MLC) vs. NAWASA

Facts:
This is a case assailing the validity of trial court decision reverting back the ownership of waterworks
system from NAWASA to the Municipality of La Carlota (MCL) despite the passage of law phasing out local
waterworks system in favour of the former.
NAWASA averred that it can legally assume ownership if the said waterworks system, by virtue of said
law. MLC countered that said law is illegal because it allowed transfer of ownership without payment of just
compensation.
NAWASA not satisfied with the ruling of the trial court appealed, hence, the case.
Issue:
WON there was valid exercise of eminent domain by virtue of a law despite non-payment of just
compensation by NAWASA and that the trial court erred in reverting back the ownership of the waterworks system
to MLC.
Ruling:
No, the exercise of eminent domain is not valid, even by virtue of a law, because the said law did not
provide for payment of just compensation of the subject waterworks system. The court in effect ruled that there can
be no ownership, devoid of possession, control and enjoyment of property.
Moreover the court held that there is taking when the owner is deprived of the ordinary and beneficial use
of his property for public use.
In this case there is no taking because MLC still retains ownership of the waterworks system although it
was stripped of its jurisdiction, supervision and control.
The trial court is correct in reverting the ownership back to MCL. Judgement affirmed. No costs.

7. NPC vs. Heirs of Macabangkit

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of trial decision affirming the grant of payment of compensation plus interest
and damages to the heirs of Macabangkit, Heirs of Macabangkit whose land was traversed by a tunnel of NPC
hydro-electric power plant, claimed for damages because NPC acted in bad faith and their land was used without
payment of just compensation. They also claimed damages because their land has been rendered useless because of
the NPC tunnels.
NPC countered that there can be no payment of just compensation because the tunnel were in a form of
easement and so not subject for payment. Furthermore, it said that claim for damages under existing laws had
already prescribed.
Issue:
WON there is valid exercise of eminent domain considering that the NPC tunnels are for a public purpose
in a form of easement or right of way and that the claim for damages has prescribed and so therefore, CA is not
correct in affirming the claim of the respondent.
Ruling:
No because NPC could have first expropriated the land before constructing the tunnels and that the
contention for non-payment of easement or right of way is not applicable. Prescription of claims is not also
applicable because it is not a result of tort but it is constitutionally granted right of claims under article II where, “No
property shall be deprived without due process of law, and payment of just compensation”.
The discreet method of constructing tunnels done by NPC constituted a taking without just compensation
and so therefore the heirs of Macabangkit should be compensated for the value of their land with valuation thereof
reckon from the date of filing of the complaint. Only the compensation plus interest is granted Rentals are in the CFI
decision. CA decision affirmed without modification.
 8. Republic vs. Castellvi
Facts:
This is a case assailing the validity of valuation fixed by the trial court on an expropriated land used by the
Philippine Air Force. Petitioner – Republic contends that the trial court committed error in fixing the reckoning date
of the computation from the day of the expropriation proceeding was filed rather than on their actual possession of
the property. Because then the payment would be much higher. They reasoned that the date should be fixed from
the time when the air force entered into rental contract with the Castellvi’s.
But the trial court rationale was based on the two (2) elements of taking be under the power of eminent
domain, to wit: (1) Entrance and occupation by condemner upon the private property for more than a
momentary/limited period; and (2) Devoting it to a public use in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of
all beneficial enjoyment of the property. Of those elements mentioned, the republic is found wanting.
Issue:
WON the valuation set by trial court is court is correct and was there a valid exercise of eminent domain.
Ruling:
Yes, because the republic did not satisfy the two element of taking when it entered into rental agreement
with the Castellvi’s. The trial court is correct in fixing the date of reckoning of valuation from the time expropriation
case was filed. Indeed, there was valid exercise of eminent domain because of the filing of the expropriation case.
However the amount/valuation of property per square meter was modified.
Trial court decision is affirmed.

9. Amigable vs. Cuenca

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of the trial court decision dismissing the claim for compensation on the land of
petitioner which was used as extension for the Gorondo and Mango Avenue without negotiated sale or
expropriation. Trial court relied on the doctrine that the state cannot be sued without its consent.
The petitioner sought for recovery and payment of compensatory damages as well as Attorney’s fees for
the illegal occupation premised on the TCT as proof of ownership of said land. Case was filled on admin agencies,
then to the trial court, CA and then finally to SC.
Issue:
WON the trial court is correct in dismissing the claim of the petitioner upon the reliance of the non-
suability doctrine and in effect so holds that government may take lands without expropriation and payment of just
compensation.
Ruling:
No because said doctrine cannot be applied when government takes away property from private
landowners for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale. If said
doctrine be applied, government would be acting unjustly. Court said that when government takes away property for
public use, it should pay with just compensation.
Decision of the trial court is set aside and the case remanded for determination of the compensation.
Petitioner can no longer recover said land as it has already been rendered to public use, however it is
entitled to payment of compensation to be determined by the court of competent jurisdiction.

10. Ardona v Reyes, CFI Cebu and PTA

Facts:
This is a case assailing the constitutionality and validity of a law authorizing the Philippine Tourism
Authority (PTA) to expropriate land under Agrarian Reform for tourism purpose.
Petitioner contends that tourism is not a constitutional ground for expropriation and neither is it
constitutional and valid to subject the lands under Agrarian Reform Program to expropriation. They said that tourism
is not a basis for a lawful taking under eminent domain.
Case was filed in CFI Cebu, decision not being favorable, thus the case at bar.
Issue:
WON the law and the expropriation are valid considering that tourism is not one of the basis for lawful
taking under eminent domain.
Ruling:
Yes, because the Court inferred that under the provision of Social Justice in the Constitution, tourism can
be a valid basis for lawful taking. Court cited both American and Philippine jurisdiction that Congress may also
determine the basis and means of a lawful taking under eminent domain. In the said law, Congress has expressly
determined that tourism can be a valid ground for expropriation. Agrarian Reform Program cannot be invoked in
assailing the expropriation because said lands are not actually covered by it.
The petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit.

11. Ouano v Republic

Facts:
The case assails the validity of a CA decision setting aside ruling of the trial court which allowed the re-
conveyance of expropriated land used as airport back to its owners. Said land was expropriated upon promise that
owners has right of repurchase in case the property is no longer used for the purpose when it was taken.
The Ouanos, knowing that the said land, now Lahug Airport, will no longer be used because of the Mactan
Airport, invoke their right of repurchase and thereby demand re-conveyance.
Originally, trial court favored the stance of the Ouanos but subsequently another judge took over and
reversed its previous decision. The petitioner went to CA which affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence, the
case.
Issue:
1. WON CA’s decision was correct insofar as it derogated the Ouanos right of repurchase and re-
conveyance based on the promise of MCIAA that such condition did not exist in the expropriation contract; and
2. WON said land may validly re-conveyed back to its original owners because it no longer served the
purpose of which it was taken.
Ruling:
No, CA was not correct in holding that there was no condition that a right of repurchase and reconveyance
in case the expropriated land no longer serves the purpose of which it was taken. It was sufficiently established in
the previous decision of the trial court, and yes, the subject may validly be repurchased and re-conveyed back to the
original owners by paying the expropriator the same amount of the just compensation they received plus interest.
Court ruled that for “taking” under power of eminent domain, two mandatory requirements need to be
completed before its validity.
(1) That it is for a particular public purpose;
(2) That just compensation be paid to the owner of the property.
Wherefore, petition granted, CA decision set aside and MCIAA ordered to re-convey the properties back to
its original owners.

12. Manosca vs. CA

Facts:
An instant case assailing the validity of CA decision upholding the trial court’s decision that dismissed the
petitioner’s complaint against the expropriation of inherited house, the expropriation of said house was filed by INC.
The said house was the birth site of INC Founder, Felix Manalo, a well known historical figure.
Petitioner countered the expropriation on the grounds that the purpose of expropriation did not serve public
purpose, albeit the fact INC, as a religious organization, benefited which was contrary to the constitution.
Issue:
WON the expropriation was valid insofar as its main purpose is to preserve the birth of a religious
organization founder.
Ruling:
Yes, because the primary purpose which was historical in nature, constitute a valid ground for the taking.
INC’s involvement and interest was just secondary.
Court defined eminent domain as broad and expansive similar to that of police power so long as Congress
determines the purpose of the taking. Courts are not allowed to intervene because the purpose is the primary driver
and reason of expropriation.

13. MCIAA v. Lozada

Facts:
This is a case assailing the validity of an expropriation where CA decided in affirmation of the re-
conveyance of a portion of land in Lahug Airport because it no longer operates as what is in the expressed purpose
of which it was originally taken for and also based on the agreement of right of repurchase during the expropriation
proceeding.
MCIAA countered that no such agreement during expropriation existed and if there is any, it was only
verbal and not at all binding.
 Respondent Lozada contends that such agreement though verbal, is binding and that such land should be re-
conveyed to them as it no longer serves the purpose for which it was expropriated.
MCIAA, not satisfied with the decision of CA, appealed hence, the case.
Issue:
WON there was valid expropriation considering that said property no longer serves the purpose it was
expropriated for and that CA was correct in re-conveying back the property to the owners.
Ruling:
No, the expropriation is no longer valid because it no longer serves the purpose and that CA is correct in
holding that the property be re-conveyed back to the original owners.
The court laid down two conditions as basis for a valid expropriation: (1) that it is for a particular public
purpose; (2) that just compensation be paid to the property owner. These are mandatory requirements.
Since the Lahug property is no longer an airport and in fact it was already converted to a commercial
complex, then said property should be re-conveyed to its original owners as previously agreed.
CA’s decision affirmed and MCIAA ordered to re-convey said property upon payment by the owners at the
price of expropriation plus legal interests.

14. NPC v Chiong

Facts:
The case is brought into being assailing valuation of payment for expropriation where CA affirmed the
decision of the trial court. The subjects of the expropriation are the lands owned by Chiong. The purpose of which is
to establish easement and right of way for the transmission lines in Iba, Zambales.
NPC not agreeable to CA decision countered that the valuation made by the commissions duly assigned by
the trial court is too expensive and during the hearings of the commission, they were not afforded due process.
Trial Court and CA favored the claim of Chiong, that NPC has been given due process and they are now
barred from questioning such valuation.
Issue:
WON expropriation is valid in consideration of the valuation set by the RTC and and affirmed by CA.
Ruling:
Yes, because said valuation has been set following the prescribe procedures in the determination of just
compensation.
The court explained that in expropriation proceedings, the general rule is that, just compensation to which
the owner of the condemned property is entitled to be the market value which will be the agreed price between the
owner and buyer.
CA decision affirmed, costs against petitioner.

15. NPC vs. Dela Cruz

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of eminent domain where the valuation of the subject property was set by the
trial court without hearing the side of the petitioner.
The subject of eminent proceeding is the property owned by the Dela Cruz’s of which it was traversed with
NPC power lines. The property is located in Dasmarinias and Imus, Cavite, a well-known commercial and
residential district.
Petitioners, not agreeing with the decision of CA decision because it thinks that the valuation is exorbitant,
filed this case citing grave error of trial court for not hearing there side during the valuation hearings.
Issue:
WON exercise of eminent domain is valid considering that the trial court, as affirmed by CA, approved the
valuation made by the commissioners without hearing the side of the petitioners.
Ruling:
No, the eminent domain proceeding is not valid insofar as the valuation was approved by the trial court
hearing the side of the petitioners. The court explained that commissioners appointed by trial courts in expropriation
hearing should hear both sides and on that basis set forth its valuation of the subject property.
Court explained further, that valuation set by the commissioner is just recommendatory and not binding
upon the courts, for it is the Court who is going to determine the value of the property.
 16. Provincial Government of Sorsogon vs. Vda. Villaroza
Facts:
A case assailing the validity of expropriation where trial court decided to allow the respondents to take
possession of the land that has already been expropriated. The land in question is the portion of Gubat HS, used as
athletic field. Trial court allowed such possession because the respondents have not been paid for a period of 30
years despite order of payment is an expropriation case. The non-payment was caused by piecemeal requirements set
by COA for such transaction to take place. Such requirement was imposed upon the respondents which they were
not able to comply easily.
The frustration and delay prompted the respondent to take matters into their own hands, thus they said
property.
Petitioner, not agreeing with the trial court decision, hence, the case.
Issue:
WON expropriation is valid and that trial court is correct when it allowed the respondents to take
possession of the land because of delayed or non-payment.
Ruling:
Yes it is valid insofar as it has already been decided by the trial court but the piecemeal requirement by
COA should not be ground for delayed or non-payment of expropriated property.
The trial court is wrong when it allowed the respondents to take possession of the subject property.
Decision of CFI Sorsogon is set aside and the Provincial Government is to immediate pay the respondents.

17. Urtula vs Republic

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of trial court decision finding for petitioner-Urtula that it is entitled to receive
payment of balance of expropriated land, reimbursement for taxes, legal interests and attorney’s fees.
The contention is that delay in payment entitles the petitioner of the abovementioned payments.
Respondents countered that decision in the expropriated land did not provide for interest payments and so
therefore, operates as a bar for its recovery of the payments mentioned.
Issue:
WON interest in payments, attorney’s fees as well as reimbursement in taxes can be validly collected in
cases involving expropriation, and that CFI is correct.
Ruling:
No, because if interests are not pleaded before the lower court then it operates as a bar for its subsequent
resurrection. No attorney’s fee is allowed in cases involving expropriation since the respondent is a government
entity. However, the owner may be reimbursed for land taxes prior to the transfer of ownership of property, CFI is
not correct.
Decision of CFI is reversed, costs to the petitioner.

18. Municipality of Paranaque vs VM Realty

Facts:
A case assailing the validity of expropriation of land by virtue of a resolution and not of an ordinance. The
purpose of said expropriation is for the building of socialized housing project.
Petitioner, not satisfied with CA decision which upheld RTC decision, dismissing their expropriation case
for lack of valid basis, countered, that resolution is sufficient enough for expropriation cases as it is synonymous
with an ordinance in which both are acts of the Sangguniang Panglungsod.
Issue:
WON a resolution is synonymous with an ordinance and the same can be a valid ground/basis for
expropriation and that both CA and RTC are not correct in their decision.
Ruling:
No, resolution cannot be a valid ground for basis for appropriation cases, only ordinance. They are not
synonymous because resolution operates as a collective opinion but ordinance operates a s a law. RA 7160- LGU
requires ordinance to be passed for an expropriation case to commence. CA and RTC decision upheld without
prejudice to petitioner refilling said case.