Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Eminent Domain and Taxation
Eminent Domain and Taxation
CITY OF MANILA v.
COMMUNITY OF MANILA
CHINESE
REPUBLIC v. PLDT
Facts:
Joint appeals heard and CFI decided a
permanent mandatory injunction for
PLDT on the interconnection of
telephone
facilities
owned
and
operated by the said parties.
Republic of the Phils is a political
entity exercising govt powers thru its
branches and instrumentalities, one of
which
is
Bureau
of
Telecommunications.
Powers: (a)To operate and maintain
existing wire telegraph and radiotelegraph
offices,
stations,
and
facilities, etc.; (b)
To investigate,
consolidate, and negotiate for operate
and maintain wire-telephone or radio-
PEOPLE v. FAJARDO
FACTS:
Appeal from decision of CFI convicting
Juan F. Fajardo and Pedro Babilonia for
violating Ordinace No.7 of Baao, Cam
Sur for having constructed w/o permit
from the mayor a bldg that destroys
the view of the public plaza.
During the incumbency of Fajardo as
mayor, they passed an Ordinance in
its Sec.3: If said bldg destroys the
ELEMENTS
IN
substantially
the
same
position)
3. Entry into the ppty shd be under
warrant of color of legal
authority (Republic entered as a
lessess)
4. The ppty must be devoted for
public
use
or
otherwise
informally
appropriated
or
injuriously affected. (Used by
the AFP)
5. Utilization must be to oust the
owner and deprive him of all the
beneficial enjoyment of the ppty
(utilization of the same did not
oust Castellvi and deprive her
of all the beneficial enjoyment
of the ppty as shown by the
renewal of contract
ERGO, the TAKING of Castellvis
ppty cannot be considered to
have taken place in 1947 when it
commenced the lease.
ALSO, the 2 elements of taking as
cited by Castellvi were not met. Also,
the
COURT
did
not
sustain
Republics contention that a yearto-year basis or renewal means
permanent right to occupy. This
is devoid as legal provisions say
that a lease on a determinate time
ceases upon the dayfixed, without
any demand.
SC: Neither can we see how a right
to buy the land could be merged in a
contract
of
lease
without
any
agreement to that effect.
WHY is the Republic asserting that its
taking must be reckoned from the very
moment of its lease? This is a
deceptive scheme so much so that
the value of ppty is lower than the
present depriving the owner of
the TRUE AND FAIR MV of the ppty.
WHAT WAS IN THE CONTRACT: the
lessee would have a right and
privilege of paying the lessor
what it would fairly cost to put
the
premises
in
the
same
condition.
AMIGABLE v. CUENCA
taken
into
Strategc
location:
theres
national road fronting them
(lowest price to be awarded is
P10/sqm; near Basa Air base;
near
first
calss
town
of
Floridablanca
Ocular
inspection,
find
similarities with other lands in
Pamapanga
FACTS:
Without prior expropriation, the govt
used a portion of Victoria Amigables
lot for the construction of Mango and
Gorordo aves.
HELD:
In MInsiterio v. City of Cebu,
thru J. Fernando: where the govt
takes away the ppty from a
private landowner for public use
w/o
legal
process
of
expropriation , the proper
party may maintain a suit
against the govt.
THE DOCTRINE OF GOVT IMUNITY
CANNOT SERVE AS AN INSTURMENT
FOR PERPETRAING INJUSTICE ON A
CITIZEN.
Note: Considering that no annotation
in favour of the govt appears at the
back of the Certificate of title and has
not executed conveyance, defendant
remains owner of the lot.
ONLY
AVAILABLE
COMPENSATION
RELIEF:
JUST
PPI v. COMELEC
FACTS:
COMELEC Resolution 2772 OR THE
COMELEC space free print space not
less than page in a newspaper of
general circulation.
COMELEC then sent letters to Phil Star,
Malaaya, Business World, and the Phil
Times Journal, all mems of PPI
PPI asks that said
Resol was
unconstitutional on the ground that it
prohibits govt from taking ppty for
public use without JC and violative of
freedom of speech, of the press, and
expression.
To compel print media companies
to donate Comelec space amounts to
TAKING of private personal ppty for
public or purposes.Sec. 2 failed to
specify frequency of such compulsory
donation. The extent of the
taking is NOT INSUBSTANTIAL. The
monetary value of the compulsory
donation may be very substantial
indeed.
THRESHOLD REQUISITES FOR LAWFUL
TAKING:
1. Necessity of the taking it has
not been said that PPI was
unwilling to sell print space at
their normal rates to COMELEC
for election purposes. NOTE: If
the owner is willing to sell and
aprties agree to the price and
other conditions of the sale no
need for judicial action. BUT,
when there is unwillingness or
cannot agree to the conditions,
then it is necessary for the govt
to
exercise
its
COERCIVE
POWER.
2. Legal authority to effect the
taking
Sec. 2 of the COMELEC Resol does not
provide constitutional basis compelling
MANOZCA v. CA
Petitioners inherited piece of land
located at P. Burgos, Taguig, M.M, with
an area of about 492sqm.
When the NHI ascertained the site to
have been the birthplace of Felix
Manalo, INC founder, it passed Resol 1
that land to be a national historical
landmark.
ISSUE: WN the public use reqt of E.D
is
extant
in
the
attempted
expropriation by the Republic of a 492
sqm land so declared by National
Historical Institute as a national
landmark (NHI)
HELD:
E.D need not be clothed with any
constitutional gear to exist; instead
provisions in our Constitution are
meant to regulate.
E.D is:
the highest and most exact
idea of ppty remaining to the
govt .
a right to take or reassert
dominion over ppty within the
stae for public use or to meet a
public exigency.
Public
use,
in
restricting
exercise to take private ppty,
means a USE concerning the
whole
community
as
distinguished from particular
individuals. There must be a
great
public
want
(not
necessary that each and every
individual is personally and
directly affected by it)
Public use is NOT always =
to use by the public (not a
street or park concept)
Whatever
is
beneficially
employed is public use. (Sena
v. Manila Road Co.)
Note:
Constitution
a
dynamic
instrument and one that is not
narrowly or pedantically to be
construed so as to enable it to meet
adequately whatever problems the
future has in store
WHAT
IS
THE
PURPOSE
OF
EXPROP NOW? To recognize the
distinctive contribution of the late Felix
Manalo to the culture of the Phils.
pay
respondents predecessors-ininterest the just compensation for Lots
932 and 939.
The Court of Appeals is
correct in saying that Republics
delay is contrary to the rules of fair
play. In jurisdictions similar to ours,
where an entry to the expropriated
property precedes the payment of
compensation, it has been held
that if the compensation is not
paid in a reasonable time, the
party may be treated as a
trespasser ab initio.
As early as May 19, 1966, in
Valdehueza, this Court mandated the
Republic
to
pay
respondents
predecessors-in-interest the sum of
P16,248.40 as "reasonable market
value of the two lots in question."
Unfortunately, it did not comply and
allowed several decades to pass
without obeying this Courts mandate.
It is tantamount to confiscation of
private property. While it is true that
all private properties are subject to the
need
of
government,
and
the
government may take them whenever
the necessity or the exigency of the
occasion demands, however from the
taking of private property by the
government under the power of
eminent domain, there arises an
implied promise to compensate the
owner for his loss.
There is a recognized rule
that
title
to
the
property
expropriated shall pass from the
owner to the expropriator only
upon full payment of the just
compensation. So, how could the
Republic acquire ownership over
Lot 932 when it has not paid its
owner the just compensation,