J.M. TUASON and Co, Inc.

v The Land Tenure Administraton,

G.R. No. L-21064
February 18, 1970

FACTS:

In this special civil action for prohibition to nullify a legislative act,

Republic Act. 2616, directing the expropriation of a specific property Tatalon Estate in Quezon City jointly owned by the J.M. Tuason and
Company, Inc, Gregorio Araneta & Comp., Inc. and Florencio, et al. who
were the petitioner-appellee. Said Act claimed to be unconstitutional as
it may affect Right of Property upon its exercise. It took effect without
the executive approval on August 3, 1959.

Thereafter, on November 15, 1960, respondent Land Tenure

Administration was directed by the then Executive Secretary to
institute the proceeding for the expropriation on November 17, 1960. A
special action for prohibition with preliminary injunction against
respondents praying that the above act be declared unconstitutional,
seeking in the meanwhile a preliminary injunction to restrain
respondents from instituting such expropriation proceeding, thereafter
to be made permanent after trial. The next day, on November 18,
1960, the lower court granted the prayer for the preliminary injunction
upon the filing of a P20,000.00 bond. After trial, the lower court
promulgated its decision on January 10, 1963 holding that Republic Act
No. 2616 as amended is unconstitutional and granting the writ of
prohibition prayed for.

ISSUE:

1. WON the challenged legislative act passed by the Congress or the

RA No. 2616 is a valid statute.

HELD:

The framers of the constitution were more seriously concerned with the
grave problems of inequality of wealth resulting in the generous scope
accorded the eminent domain prerogatives of the state to promote
social justice and general welfare. This is not to say of course that
property rights are disregarded. This is merely to emphasize that the
philosophy of our Constitution embodying a nationalistic and socialist
traits. Thus, The RAs intention delineates eminent domain of which is
inherent to the Government to insure domestic tranquility and as
explicitly provided on the Constitution. Expropriations are valid for the
purpose of public use solving the housing problem of increasing
population on the city and implement the land-for-the-landless
program of the present Administration. Wherefore, the decision of the
lower court is reversed and writs are denied.