article iii section 9

8/6/2019 Article III Section 9

1/6

1

Article III Section 9

Eminent Domain: Definition, Nature

1. Bardillon v. BarangauMasili

An expropriation suit is incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be filed with theregional trial courts. It does not involve the recovery of a sum of money. Rather, it dealswith the exercise by the government of its authority and right to take property for publicuse. It should be stressed that the primary consideration in an expropriation suit iswhether the government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisitesfor the taking of private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of thegovernment entity, the necessity of the expropriation and the observance of dueprocess. The RTC has the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right ofeminent domain and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for it.

2. Estate of JBL Reyes v. City of Manila

The issue is whether or not the City of Manila deprived petitioners of their propertywithout due process of law which in turn depends on whether or not the City compliedwith the legal requirements for expropriation.

It must be emphasized that the State has a paramount interest in exercising its power ofeminent domain for the general good considering that the right of the State toexpropriate private property as long as it is for public use always takes precedence overthe interest of private property owners. However, we must not lose sight of the fact thatthe individual rights affected by the exercise of such right are also entitled to protection.The exercise of this right cannot override the guarantee of due process extended by thelaw to owners of the property to be expropriated.

Note: Municipal Property (see case book)

Elements of Taking

3. Republic v. Vda. De Castellvi

Requirements for taking are enumerated as follows:(a) the expropriator must enter a private property(b) the entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period(c) the entry should be under warrant or color of legal authority(d) the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or

injuriously affected(e) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the

owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property

4. City Government v. Judge Ericta

This is a petition for review seeking the reversal of the decision declaring Section 9 nulland void.

The power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit or to confiscate. Theordinance in question not only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a memorial


2/6

2

park cemetery. Police power is usually exercised in the form of mere regulation orrestriction in the use of liberty or property for the promotion of general welfare. It doesnot involve the taking or confiscation of property with the exception of a few cases wherethere is a necessity to confiscate private property in order to destroy it for the purpose ofprotecting the peace and order and of promoting the general welfare.

5. U.S. v. Causby

The issue is whether respondents property was taken by frequent and regular flights ofarmy and navy aircraft over respondents land at low altitudes.

It is the owners loss, not the takers gain which is the measure of the value of theproperty taken.

Though, it would only be an easement of flight which was taken, that easement, ifpermanent and not merely temporary normally would be equivalent of a fee interest. Itwould be a definite exercise of complete dominion and control over the surface of theland.

The court stated that an owner is entitled to the absolute and undisturbed possession ofevery part of his premises, including the space above, as much as a mine beneath. Thereason is that there would be an intrusion so immediate and direct as to subtract fromthe owners full enjoyment of the property and to limit his exploitation of it.

Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as tobe a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land.

6. People v. Fajardo

7. Republc v. PLDT

While the Republic may not compel PLDT to celebrate a contract with it, the Republicmay, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, require the telephonecompany to permit interconnectedness of the government telephone system and that ofthe PLDT, as the needs of the government service may require, subject to the paymentof just compensation, to be determined by the court.

8. NPC v. Jocson

Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, the petitioner has the right totake or enter the possession of the property involved upon compliance with PD 42 whichrequires, after due notice to the defendant, to deposit with the PNB an amount

equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation. Notice to theparties is not indispensable. Of course there is nothing in the statute which denies theright of the judge to hear all persons claiming an interest in the land. Failure to hear shallin no wise affect the validity of the order.

9. Didipidio Earth Savers v. Secretary

Where a property interest is merely restricted because the continued use thereof wouldbe injurious to public welfare or where property is destroyed because its continued


3/6

3

existence would ne injurious to public interest, there is no compensable taking. When aproperty interest is appropriated and applied to some public purpose, there iscompensable taking.

Taking may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material impairment ofvalue of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was

intended such as the establishment of an easement.

That public use in negated by the fact that the state would be taking private propertiesfor the benefit of private mining firms or mining contractors is not at all true. The rule ofdeference to legislative policy even if such policy might mean taking from one privateperson and conferring on another private person applies as well in the Philippines.

10. Bennis v. Michigan

11. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NYC

The case involves the Landmarks law and the issue of taking.

The government may execute laws or programs that adversely affect recognizedeconomic values without its action constituting as taking and, in instances such aszoning laws where a state tribunal has reasonably concluded that the health, safety,morals or general welfare would be promoted by prohibiting particular contemplateduses of land, this Court has upheld land use regulations that destroyed or adverselyaffected real property interests. In many instances use restrictions that served asubstantial public purpose have been upheld against taking challenges though astatute that substantially furthers important public policies may so frustrate distinctinvestment-backed expectations as to constitute as taking.

Public Use

12. Sumulong v. Guerrero

Socialized Housing

As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comesinto play. It is accurate to state that at the present whatever may be beneficiallyemployed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.

Housing is a basic human need. The public character of housing measures does notchange because units in housing projects cannot be occupied by all but only by thosewho satisfy prescribed qualifications. The court is satisfied that socialized housing fallswithin the confines of public use.

13. Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals

Extent of power of eminent domain of local government

In delegating the power to expropriate, the legislature may retain certain control orimpose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by local governments. While such


4/6

4

delegated power may be a limited authority, it is complete within its limits. Moreover, thelimitations on the exercise of delegated power must be clearly expressed, either in thelaw conferring the power or in other legislations. Statutes conferring the power ofeminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be broadened or constricted byimplication.

14. Masikip v. City of Pasig

The right to take private property for public purpose necessarily originates from thenecessity and the taking must be limited to such necessity. The very foundation of theexercise of the right is a genuine necessity and that necessity must of public character.Moreover, the ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany and notfollow, the taking of the land. The necessity does not mean an absolute but only areasonable or practical necessity, such as would combine the greatest benefit to thepublic with the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and theproperty owner consistent with such benefit.

The inviolable sanctity which the Constitution attaches to the property of the individual

requires not only that the purpose for the taking of private property be specified. Thegenuine necessity for the taking, which must be of a public character, must also beshown to exist.

15. Mactan Cebu International Airport v. Lozada, Jr.

The expropriator should commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in thepetition, failing which, it should file another petition for the new purpose. If not, it is thenincumbent upon the expropriator to return the said property to its private owner, if thelatter desires to reacquire the same. In such a case, the exercise of the power ofeminent domain has become improper for lack of the required factual justification.

Just Compensation

16. EPZA v. Dulay

The question is whether or not the P.D. 76, 464, 794 and 1533 have repealed andsuperseded sections 5 to 8 of Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court.

The valuation in the decrees may only serve as a guiding principle or one of the factorsin determining just compensation but it may not substitute the courts own judgment asto what amount should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount.

Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking. It means afair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. All the facts as to the condition of theproperty and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, should be considered.

17. City of Manila v. Estrada

The market value of a piece of land is attained by a consideration of all those facts whichmake it commercially valuable. The inquiry in such cases must be what is the propertyworth in the market, viewed not merely with reference to the uses to which it is at thetime applied but with reference to the uses to which it is plainly adapted; that is to say,


5/6

5

what is it worth from its availability for valuable uses? The compensation to the owner isto be estimated by reference to the uses for which the property is suitable, having regardto the existing business or wants of the community, or such as may be reasonablyexpected in the immediate future.

18. Maddumba v. GSIS

The issue is whether or not the GSIS may be compelled to accept Land Bank bonds attheir face value in payment for a residential house and lot purchased by the bondholderfrom the GSIS.

It is not disputed that under section 85 of RA 3844, a government owned or controlledcorporation, like the GSIS, is compelled to accept the bonds as payment.

For agrarian reform cannot be fully realized without the intervention of the governmentparticularly in the payment of just compensation. It is only with the full support and activeassistance of the government principally through its financial institutions that payment of

just compensation to the landowner may be realized.

19. NPC v. CA

At what point in time should the value of the land subject of expropriation be computed:at the date of the taking or the date of the filing of the complaint for eminent domain?

The general rule in determining just compensation is the value of the property as of thedate of the filing of the complaint.

It admits of exceptions; where this Court fixed the value of the property as of the date ofthe commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Simply stated, the exception findsapplication where the owner would be given undue incremental advantages arising from

the use to which the government devotes the property expropriated.

20. Meralco v. Pineda

The issue is whether or not the Court can dispense with the assistance of a Board ofCommissioners in an expropriation proceeding and determine for itself the justcompensation.

A trial before the Commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to presentevidence on the issue of just compensation. The appointment of at least 3 competentpersons as commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to betaken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation cases. While it is true that findings of

the commissioners may be disregarded and the court may substitute its own estimate ofthe value, the latter may only do so for valid reasons, i.e., where the Commissionershave applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them or where they havedisregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or where the amount allowed is eithergrossly inadequate or excessive.

21. Land Bank v. Spouses Orilla


6/6

article iii section 9

Documents