Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROPERTY PRE-MID TRANSCRIPT Final Version
PROPERTY PRE-MID TRANSCRIPT Final Version
PROPERTY PRE-MID TRANSCRIPT Final Version
EH 401 Property
Article 415
-
Foreclosure
Page 1
Youll notice that the law does not define what immovable
property is. If you go by the literal meaning of immovable
property, it is something that is not supposed to move from one
place to another. But if you go further down the line, you find
there something that does not fit the description. So problems
in actual cases arise. Some questions like am I liable to real
property tax? And then before that question can be answered,
we must necessarily know what is the object of tax
assessment? Is it an immovable property? Where can you find
the law for that matter? The relevant law? Tan-awa ang 415?
Here you find that in paragraph 5 for example, machines
man. Pero and land, bisag asa na nga balaud, ang land,
immovable jud na sya. Kaning machinery ang problema kay
before a machinery can considered immovable, there are
requirements.
So Article 415 enumerates what are to be considered as
immovable. Never mind the pigeon houses, animal houses.
Fish pond, breeding places of similar nature. Nya fishes pajud
including animals! This is my problem with property! (par 6)
Even the fertilizer, actually used in a piece of land. So
iglabay mo didto, immovable. Igkuha nimo balik, movable na!
Actually used in a piece of land man! So your hands has the
power. (par 7)
Trees also, it must be attached to the ground.
The problem is with quarries, they are very relevant
nowadays, while the matter thereof they form part of the bed.
(par 8)
Docks and structures (came out in the bar exam) which
thou floating are intended by law of nature to remain in the fix
place of river, lake --- *wa jud niya humana ang sentence* (par
9)
And contracts for public works and services these are
actually intangible rights. They are immovable because the
object of the right is immovable. (par 10)
CASES:
Lets talk about lands and buildings. Lets talk about
building as subject of a mortgage. By way of intro, there are 2
kinds of mortgages;
-
2.
EH 401 Property
Page 2
EH 401 Property
Page 3
this is not a decisive factor. Not because youre not the owner
of the land, the building is not an immovable.
ALWAYS
QUESTION: Why did the Supreme Court rule that the steel
towers are not subject to Real Property Tax?
ANSWER: The Supreme Court said that the steel towers are
not immovable that are attached in a fixed manner. Why? In
answering that question, i-describe natong steel towers. Giattached ra siya, gi-bolt ra siya ba, so dili siya attached in a
fixed manner, based on Art. 415
EH 401 Property
Page 4
EH 401 Property
Page 5
Caltex here is merely the one who loaned. When you say loan,
and pasabot ana pagamit. Caltex allow the use of these
equipment to these lesse or tenants,
However, since Caltex is the owner of these equipment, he is
the one who sought or taxed by the city assessor. Caltex
objected. What is the basis of the contention of Caltex why he
is not liable for tax? Did Caltex cite a law?
Atty:
Caltex cited the Article 415. Dili ni siya real property,
dili ni siya immovable. It becomes immobilized only when they
are placed there by the owner. The one who placed them in
there are mere tenants, therefore if we go by the standard
under Article 415, it cannot qualify as an immovable property,
hence cannot be liable for real property tax.
415 did not mention about the assessment law. Remember the
case of Meralco, about the steel powers? Remember that? The
Sc said not libale for real property tax because it is not
immovable, and in saying immovable, it converted on
immovable is described. It must be permanently placed. Kay
ingon ang SC, kung tan.awon ang steel powers, wla siya ging
permanently placed, so they apply Article 415.
*CLASS: DEPENDE RA GYUD TALI NAS PAG ARGUE*
==== Final answer : we cannot simply make a rule that make a
categorical proposition that in matter of real property taxation
that we now forget 415. We cannot also dis remembered the
Mindanao Bus and other cases, that matter of real property
taxation. Of course the latest is the case of Caltex.
Further, when dealing with real property tax liability, we have
Section 199 of the LCG of 1991, there is a definition of
machinery, equipment, mechanical..., instruments which may
or may not be attached permanently or temporarily. Real
property tax ni ha, to their real property. Loads, physical
facilities for production etc... Those not permanently attached
to the real property but is actually, directly and exclusively used
to meet the needs of the particular industry, business or
activity. So in could appear that this provision that ownership of
the person is no longer a relevant consideration for as long as
the machine are intended to meet the needs of the industry.
Of course some of you will be employed in the City Legal
office, youre a lawyer, so you will be defending the interest of
the government, of course you can simply rely in the LCG.
And if not, lawyering for the tax payer, so might find a need of
these cases. Board of Assessment Appeal... Depending on
which side are you defending. But you would see that Sc would
make categorical ruling
In the Mindanao bus is already abandon, that is not a very safe
argument. Remember in our Constitution set up, the doctrine of
SC can only be repealed by other doctrine provided that it is
expressly stated or by the Supreme Court enbanc.
Where the matter of real property taxation, it should be LGC
that will primarily apply which is a special law and not the
general law. Well, that is an argument. I/m not saying that is
the rule that should be settle. The only thing that we can gather
from this is that matters a real property taxation, this is not the
exclusive domain of Article 415.
In fact, Article 415 is somehow elevated in the ruling of Caltex,
but what I am sure though that is that the equipment not used
in the industry, I am very sure that it is not liable for real
property tax.
Pastor de Ago, this is an example of industry using sawmill
business, then there was a seized by the sheriff, sold at public
auction. If you recall, when you auction a property, there is a
procduere cited bh the rules of court, and you will strictly follow
the foreclosure proceeding otherwise it will be invalidated.
EH 401 Property
Page 6
EH 401 Property
Page 7
EH 401 Property
Page 8
But the point there is, it will not qualify those referred to in
Article 415.
EH 401 Property
Page 9
EH 401 Property
Page 10
S: That the PLDT should allege the R.A. 8482 should have
been the case that they should have filed and estafa (in the
2006 case) but it is not alleged in the . . .
Keeping with you constitutional right with you form and nature
of the accusation against you, mao nang ni ingon ang SC nga
usba sa na ang inyo information usa natu i-arraign si Laurel.
Just because sayup ang information, it doesnt follow nga
acquitted naka.
EH 401 Property
Page 11
Atty. G.: It is in the LGC that the Mayor may enter into a
contract, provided that he has prior authority from the Local
Legislative Council. BUT that does NOT mean that just
because you have the power, property of public dominion can
be the subject of a contract. PUBLIC DOMINION CANNOT BE
THE SUBJECT OF A CONTRACT.
Q: I remember that in this case. The SC lengthily discussed
that it was an ultra vires act on the part of the Municipality.
What do you mean by ultra vires?
A: Beyond ones legal power. You have the power but you act
beyond the power given to you. Lahi nas tao nga way power,
kay wala gihatagan ug power. Kili-kili power ra na.
Q: Why cant it be a subject of a contract?
A: Because these properties are for the public and if it is sold
or leased then the public will lose access to these.
Atty G.: This practically applies to all properties of public
dominion. Such as sidewalks. Nya nganung naa may
mamaligyas kilid? Kanang mga namaligyag prutas? That is
what is practiced but it is not in accordance with law. No one
can appropriate the sidewalk. No one can appropriate a portion
of a public road. Im sure vendors there are paying something
to City Hall. Kung mangutana kas mga vendors, pakit-un kag
risibu. The question is, does that validate your stay there? Of
course not, thats illegal. Illegal through and through. That cant
be legalized, thats in the Civil Code. Any act performed
contrary to mandatory law, cannot be legalized. Again, No
property of public dominion can be the subject of a contract.
MANECLANG vs. IAC
EH 401 Property
Page 12
Atty G.: Kay way kwarta ang gobyerno! This is why I talked to
you last meeting about the BOT Scheme. The BOT Scheme
gives private entities the power to directly undertake
reclamation projects. BUT this is business. It cant be nga
walay payment. So ang ibayad daw sa AMARI kay a portion of
the reclaimed land.
Q: BTW, who is Chavez? A little background to honor the
memory of the guy. He just died 3 years ago.
A: He is the former OSG. But at that time he filed this, he was
no longer the OSG. He was just taking public interest cases.
Q: When it is classified already as A&D, can it now be the
subject matter of a contract?
A: It could be BUT it is only limited to private entities and NOT
to corporations.
Q: Why? You said that it could be. But the only qualified
transferee will only be individuals and not AMARI because it is
a corporation. Why? Is there a prohibition? Where?
A: Yes, in the Constitution. The Constitution itself prohibits
transfers of lands of the public domain, even if it is A&D, to
corporations. The subject property in this case cannot be the
subject matter in the JVA because there is a Constitutional
prohibition.
EH 401 Property
Page 13
(Student): No attorney.
Atty. G: No, it cannot. So, Ignacio here was in error. What
about that article? When will that apply?
EH 401 Property
Page 14
(Student):
Atty. G:
Atty. G:
Atty. G:
EH 401 Property
Page 15
EH 401 Property
Page 16
July 2, 2016
Easement
In river bank, even if you are the owner of the land bordered by
the river bank, there is an easement for public use around 30
meters if you are in the rural areas. So when you say
easement, pasabot ana no constructions shall be made within
those demarcated area. Of course you know that is often
violated, thats why everytime when theres a new
administration or everytime theres problem like this will come
up some official will be in an effort to somehow mitigate their
liability for lack of political will, moingon dayon sila we will you
know ask the settlers to vacate because thats property subject
to easement for public use. When you say easement you still
own the property, only that your property is subject to a legal
easement you should not construct, you cannot make any
constructions there. Off course those settlers they do not own
that property. This happens also in foreshore (kanang mga
accretion sa mga foreshore) gi-occupayan ug illegal settlers,
when we talk about foreshore or accretion to a foreshore area
when are talking about sea water, remember the case of
EH 401 Property
Page 17
2.
EH 401 Property
Page 18
4.
Yujico
Exception to that rule that no prescription shall run
against the State.
5.
Democrito Mendoza
Papakits ni. Kini naay certificate of title si Democrito
Mendoza. How on earth was he able to secure the
certificate of title over a land which is covered with
water? Suko ang mga fisherfolks didto. Unsa may
ingon ni Mendoza? His title was upheld by SC in
2007, pero ngano man nakapatitulo man siya nga
baybayon man? Have you heard about the Balili case
in Cebu? Naa man sad toy title. Peculiar ning
Mendoza ha, dile nimo ma apply. Theres something
to do with Marcos.
July 4, 2016
Atty G: Landbank is the general rule, exception is the estate of
yujuico.
What is the general rule?
-The government is not estoped by the action of its
agents.
Atty G: Estoppel presupposes that there is a mistake.
Because if there is no mistake, estoppel is not a relevant
matter.
For example: Republic vs. Democrito Mendoza
The land which is covered with water, (papakids sa liloan). The
validitiy of the title was questioned, the title given to Democrito
Mendoza. Because he had a certificate of title, the question
lagi, asa ka kita ug yuta gi tabanun tubig nya na issuehan ug
titolo? Its not alienable and disposable, but supreme court said
the title given to democrito Mendoza is Valid. Why valid? It
was explain in the decision. That is basically the case that
upheld the power of the president to reclassify lands of the
B: Yes Sir
Atty: and the basis of application for title was that allegedly he
poses the property openly, uninterruptedly, notoriously etc etc.
since june 12, 1945. And
EH 401 Property
Page 19
Atty: the supreme court did not agree with that, in other words
they did not give due course to the application for registration
of the title. Can you explain why?
B: they were not able to prove it sufficiently that, using their tax
declarations, that they were not able to prove that their
predecessors in interest have possession since june 12, 1945,
because the earliest that they can prove is 1948.
Atty: by the way, was the land already declared as alienable
and disposable?
B: No, sir. I think sir, they filed for the registration, one your
after it was declared patrimonial(?)
Atty: one year after it was declared alienable and disposable.
Its not the same ha, alienable and disposable is not the same
as patrimonial ha.
Atty: Relax ha
Atty: so, at the time that they filed the application, the land was
already declared alienable and disposable, however their
application was not given due course, because they were not
able to prove that they possess and actually occupy the land
since june 12, 1945. BTW, how are you supposed to prove
B: Tax Declarations,
Atty: Tax Declarations! Wa mo ka kita unsa ning insektoha
ning tax declarations, you google it. Bla blabla, mao na
ang proof of possession. Soo, unsa man problema sa tax
declaration na iyang gi present?
B: 1948
Atty: so wa siya ka comply sa possession since june 12,
1945, so mu fail. Pero how many years siya naga occupy ani?
By himself or predecessors in interest? Ni abot na ba 30?
EH 401 Property
Page 20
July 5, 2016
PROPERTY OF PROVINCIES, MUNICIPALITIES AND
CITIES
(Recites Part)
Student: (Inaudible)
Student: (Discusses the facts of the case and the ruling of the
Supreme Court.)
Atty: In other words, the land was acquired for a public
purpose. Ofcourse there is no quibbling or controversy that the
landowner here should be compensated. Was he forced to file
a case?
Student: (Inaudible, di maklaro kay hinay.)
Atty: In that case, was there a favorable judgment?
Student: (Inaudible)
Atty: So when you say attached, this would presuppose that
there is a judgment in their favor. Now then, the problem is,
there was a writ of attachment issued. The things that were to
be attached pursuant to the writ were? What were these
properties?
EH 401 Property
Page 21
EH 401 Property
Page 22
Student: (inaudible)
Atty: Okay so without prejudice. Naay exception. Dili na nah
absolute rule nga ug dili property for public use, patrimonial.
Because Article 424 (2) is very clear, without prejudice to the
provisions of special laws. So what is the special law here?
The Supeme Court said that this controversy should be
decided not in the light of the Civil Code, but is more under the
domain of law on Municipal Corporations. Because if we will
resolve this under the light of the Civil Code, what will be the
consequence?
Student: (Inaudible)
Atty: So the Province of Zamboangas contention would be
correct, strictly speaking. The Law on Municipal Corporations
ofcourse does not allow it. The principle governing Municipal
Corporations would seem to imply that again, just like in the
Vda. De Tan Toco case, basta gigamit to benefit the public,
regardless of whether indiscriminate or only authorized
personnel are allowed to use it, then they are exempt from
attachment. And in the case of the Province of Zamboanga,
no proprietary or private interest may be asserted by the LGU.
Okay the case of Espiritu vs Municipal Council of
Pozorubbio. This is substantially similar to the case of
Municipality of Cavite vs Rojas, which involves the public
plaza. But there are still more issues discussed in the
Province of Zamboanga Del Norte vs City of Zamboanga,
especially the power of the State over properties coming from it
and which it transfers to the LGU. Unsa may extent sa
authority of the State over these properties nga ila nang gitransfer to the LGU when the LGU is created? But first of all,
we have to know how is a LGU created?
Salas vs Jarencio:
I think this is the case involving the City of Manila changing its
mind. Naay land nga gi-occupy by informal settlers, so the City
of Manila would want to legalize it. Actually the land there,
came from the State. So wa naman gigamit, so they were
thinking of selling this properties to those occupants. But first,
the City of Manila asked permission from the National
Government, by way of asking the National Government to
cause the enactment of a law that would convert thisproperties
into patrimonial. Dili man nimu ma-transfer kung dili patrimonial
diba? And pursuant to that request, a law was passed and then
the law did not attached it to the City of Manila as the one who
would administer the transfer. Rather, it was attached to the
Land Tenure Administration, which is another national
agency. So when the land, is sought to be transferred to the
Land Tenure Administration, the City of Manila now contends
that it should been transferred to it. The City of Manila is now
questioning the law, gi-question nila ang constitutionality.
EH 401 Property
Page 23
July 7, 2016
The question how a province or a city is created and
we already know that it was created chapter or a law and the
law that creates it defines or [inaudible] certain portions of
lands and republic domain, which will now become the basis to
transfer ownership in favor of the province or the city.
Example of control is in the case of Zamboanga
wherein the state enacted a law and just decreed that the
property is from the province of Zamboanga and shall be
transferred free of charge to the city of Zamboanga.
In the case of Manila Lands 761, there was a law that the
decreed of the lands there, which was already in the name of
the city in Manila said to be transferred to the land in the
administration, kaning pagtransfer from one agency from
another is an example of control.
Government funds topic is very important and very
relevant, especially in the light of, and cases wherein
government, local government unit and [theres a contract] with
a private entity and along the way, some breech is committed
like failure to pay on time, like what happened on the case of
professional video v. TESDA , cases like government takes
private property for public use or a payment of
just
compensation thus compelling the private entity to file the case
against the government. The general rule of course is that the
government state that a [sue] without its consent is the basis
rule in the law that there are exemptions to these rule.
The exemptions are when the state waves its immunity, when
the state enters into a contract, when in cases of eminent
domain, ug when you say na dili nimo ma sue nimo ang state
ang imong property or public use without just compensation,
EH 401 Property
Page 24
OWNERSHIP
We will include the part of ownership maybe until the
limitations and the right of ownership.
(talking about schedule Saturday, 10 am)
If you are the state, you can file directly with a claim to
the COA, file a claim. Pero that is only for claims against the
state. State ba or kanang mga government insturmentalities.
Like for example in my case, I have a client (pero wala ko
bayare ani pero sige nalang), sige nalang kay silingan man
blah blah blah (story about the client) Naa siyay yuta being
rented by the national irrigation administration, adto ipang
parking ang mga heavy equipment didto Wala siya bayare
kay mao lagi nang goberno lagi dugay ba ang nahitabo
was, napugos siya ug file a case for unlawful detainer, for
moral damages, that is already a ruling, that is already a
judgment in her favor. And then wa gihapon. O di akong gi
comply. So she was forced to file a claim sa COA. And that is
an example. File a claim in COA. The problem with COA is
dugay man pud gihapon kayo. Mao na karon we hope na with
this new administration, na muingon na to go away with too
much bureaucratic red tape, kanang mga ing ana nga cases
ba. Mapul an gyud nang tawo ana, you know, seeking judicial
recourse and then, you know kanang dugay kayo, delay, is
also denial justice denial. Like the Mandamus casedugay
sad kayo nang mandamus na corte man nang mandamus
ang pinaka speedy is to make network with the law makers.
Ikaw, you have a claim in the city of cebu, ug kaila nimo ang
konsehal, duolon nimo ang konsehal. Dili na illegal ha.. dili na
illegal. Wa ko gaingon na dili illegal and illegal pasabot nako
dili lang ni siya usual sanctions by the books. Doula didto
muhangyo kas konsehal nga naa kay claim aning yutaa ni.
Naa ban is imong jurisdiction ikaw by ga sponsor aning
EH 401 Property
Page 25
July 9, 2016
OWNERSHIP!
Atty: What comes to your mind when you talk about
ownership?
Atty: It is a right, when you talk of ownership you cannot avoid
talking about rights. Rights about what? Rights over a thing, or
a right over a right. In other words your power to exercise of
your right.
Art. 428- The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a
thing, without other limitations than those established by
law. The owner has also a right of action against the
holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.
Atty: what are some specific rights under the right to enjoy?
Atty: The right to possess, right to use and right to the fruits.
Atty: you only enjoy the thing if you can use the thing, because
if you cannot use then you cannot enjoy it. You have a parcel
of land but you cannot enjoy it, it remains idle, then you are not
enjoying your right as an owner.
Atty: What else? Right to the fruits. But here being law student,
do not think like a layman, when you say fruits you are
referring only ownership to a tree which bears fruit, well, Im
not saying that is not correct. but in Property, there are several
RIGHT TO RECOVER!
CAUSES OF ACTION!
Atty: If its personal property, it is Writ of Replevin. If its real
property, Forcible entry, Unlawful detainer.
Atty: Accion publiciana actually di gud ni siya sa owner, this is
to the possessor. Accion Reinvindicatoria is for ownership.
Atty: forcible entry and unlawful detainer may be filed either by,
the owner himself or the right possessor who may not be the
owner. Medyo technical ni gamay ha. We will discuss the
cases later.
RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP (ara ra daw sa ta sa right of
ownership)
Atty: aside from the things we mentioned there are also several
the jus of ownership.
Jus Possidendi Right to possess
Jus Utendi- Right to use
Jus Fruendi Right to fruits
Jus Abutendi Right to consume
Jus Disponendi Right to dispose
Jus Vindicandi right to recover
EH 401 Property
Page 26
Self-help
The right to repel aggression on your property.
It is an exception to the Doctrine that you have no
right to take the law into your own hands.
For example, kanang gi-snatchan kag necklace. Di
daun nimu gukdon kay youre not allowed to inflict
physical injury, kay youre not allowed to take the law
into your own hands. Now thats not the case.
Because of this doctrine of self-help, youre allowed to
repel aggression on your property.
Well I know in your Criminal law, you have the right to Selfdefense. (Requisite: Unlawful Aggression, Reasonable
Necessity, Lack of Sufficient Provocation). Kani siya(Doctrine
of Self-help), this is the counterpart in Civil Law. If you notice
nga, di raba nah nimu ma-invoke ang self-defense kung for
example:
Naay ni-saka sa imung balay, unya wala man nay
threat sa imung person. Alangan magpakulata
sah ka. Kung walay unlawful aggression, di
pwede ang self-defense. So unsa man imung
right ana? Ni-a ning Doctrine of Self-help in
EH 401 Property
Page 27
rightful possession. So, if thats the case, even if you are only
a lessee, you can file a case against the owner for forcible
entry. And the owner cannot put up the defense, assuming that
you have established that you have a rightful possession, the
owner cannot put up the defense that he is the owner.
But if its accion reinvindicatoria, that is where the ownership is
an issue, okay?
Question: What do you understand by forcible entry, as a
remedy?
Answer: When there is entry by another person into a real
property; by force, intimidation, strategy, threat and stealth, and
the rightful possessor, who may not necessarily be the owner,
but usually the owner is deprived of possession. Okay?
Can you think of a very common example which may be
remedied of a forcible entry? Kanang pinaka common nga you
see everywhere if you bother observing whats happening
around you.
Ans: Those living in squatters areas Sir.
Atty G: You have a property, for example, SRP, naai ging bitag
didto d ba, so nanulod didto, nya iatul ug gabii sulod kai klaro
man kaayo kung hayag ang adlaw diba, so gabii gyud manulod
didto, put up ug mga tent didto; so the City of Cebu may file for
an action of forcible entry. Whats the ground there? Kung
senekretong sulod, Kananga gabii gyud mosulod para di
makitan.
Ans: Stealth Sir.
Atty G: Stealth! Alright! Stealth okay? Another case is that its
not only stealth, naa gyuy pinugsanay gyud nga pagsulod,
dalag bulldozer, d ba? Bulldozeron ba aron maka sulod, unsa
mana? Thanks entry by ___ FORCE!!!___., or dala ug guns..
hawa mo diri, Im giving you 72 hours to vacate on this
premises. Or if di gani mo. Kita nalang ta sa minteryo ani.
Alright, that is intimidation!! So all of these things, if you are
deprived of the possession, to any of these means mention,
forcible entry is the appropriate remedy, okay? How about
unlawful detainer?
Ans: Its when at first there was a valid and lawful possession
of the property, either by a contract or a mere tolerance, and
after the expiration of such (the contract), and the owner or
merely the possessor wants to use na the properties, then you
request the person na to vacate, and the person whose
occupying refuses so thats the start of the unlawful
possession.
Atty G.: Okay, so in that case, you understand that explanation
guys? That a very simple explanation but thats a correct
explanation. Alright?
Class: ahhhhh haba ng hair.
Atty G.: Kamu ba, cge mog padugag pusta dha dah. In a case,
naai ni renta, then expire na ang contract of lease, d ghapon
mo vacate, alright? Legal man ang possession from the very
Class: Yes.
EH 401 Property
Page 28
Ans: No. the SC did not agree. Although there was a sale, the
sale did not transfer ownership to Atty. Amante. The sale only
transferred a right, and thus made, Atty. Amante as a co-owner.
As a co-owner, he has the right to participate in the judicial
partition however Atty Amante failed to.
EH 401 Property
Page 29
2.
3.
B. Accion Publiciana
EH 401 Property
Page 30
EH 401 Property
Page 31
Trial court and CA later ruled in favor of Private
Respondents. CA stated that as to the issue of prescription,
the appellate court held that the prescriptive period should be
reckoned from 1996, when petitioner claimed ownership and
barred respondents from fencing the property.
Issue:
Ruling:
A: 2001.
EH 401 Property
Page 32
EH 401 Property
Page 33
2.
3.
4.
5.
Atty: Its in the LGC. Why did you say its the
LGC? Do you know a specific provision?
EH 401 Property
Page 34
S: Yes
Atty: Is it a case of easement/right of way?
S: Yes as far as I can remember.
Atty: Do you remember on that case that the
SC court said that there is no valid donation
there. Precisely because the Local
Government Unit have not yet accepted the
donation. And for a donation to be valid,
there must be an acceptance by the donee.
So, what that person who is asking an access
can momentarily enjoy is only that of an
easement of right of way. Easement of right
of way there, presupposes there that is no
transfer of ownership yet.
Page 35
Page 36
EH 401 Property
Page 37
Basic Requirements
Lunod v. Meneses
1. Public Taking
2. Payment of just compensation
Cases I assigned involves peculiar situation
where what happens when the public
purpose has been abandoned. Can you
recover the property that you own. This is
the IT Park. That was an airport before. There
are several properties that were affected.
Some of the property owners, maka ingon ta
nga naa silay foresight. They did not oppose
the taking. What some of them did, is that
they voluntarily agreed with a condition that
in case the airport is transferred, we will be
allowed to buy back the property. Eminent
Domain should be a lesson to us, Lisod ni
basta magpa ugat ka ani. Ang imo ra gyung
dag-anan is ang payment of just
compensation. The Taking, wala jud tay
mabuhat ana. When the airport was
transferred to Mactan, some of the owners
wanted to recover their properties. SC ruled
that the right to recover when the
public purpose would be abandoned
EH 401 Property
Page 38
EH 401 Property
Page 39