PALOMERA, JOSHUA CARL L.

LEGRES #9

9. Madlangbayan is the owner of a 500 square meter lot which was the birthplace of the
founder of a religious sect who admittedly played an important role in Philippine history and
culture. The National Historical Commission (NHC) passed a resolution declaring it a
national landmark and on its recommendation, the lot was subjected to expropriation
proceedings. This was opposed by Madlangbayan on the ground that those to be benefitted
by the expropriation would only be the members of the religious sect of its founder.

Requisites of a valid exercise of the power of expropriation:

(1) the property taken must be private property; (2) there must be genuine necessity to take
the private property; (3) the taking must be for public use; (4) there must be payment of just
compensation; and (5) the taking must comply with due process of law.

ISSUE: W/O the expropriation is valid on the ground that those to be benefitted by
the expropriation would only be the members of the religious sect of its founder.

AFFIRMATORY: The expropriation is valid on the ground that those to be benefitted

by the expropriation would only be the members of the religious sect of its founder.

A. There is no genuine necessity to take private property of Madlangbayan.

The NHC is mandated to preserve and regulate movable and immovable properties, such
as in this case. Madlangbayan’s property deemed to be a national landmark, hence it falls
under the mandate of the NHC. However, the expropriation of the property is not
indispensable to the public purpose it is being expropriated for; which in this case, is clearly
to preserve and regulate the said landmark.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10066, AN ACT
PROVIDING FOR THE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF THE NATIONAL
CULTURAL HERITAGE, STRENGTHENING THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR
CULTURE AND THE ARTS (NCCA) AND ITS AFFILIATED CULTURAL AGENCIES, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES clearly states in Section 21, that the government agency and the
private owner may agree through a contract that the two parties will work together in
conserving the said landmark. The private parties are subjected to the following limitations,
limited to the most relevant in the case:
(a) Allow public access;
(b) Restriction of rights of private owners to perform certain acts on or with said
property;
(c) Maintenance of said property; and
 (d) Provision of financial assistance for the purpose of preserving said property.

Hence, it is clear that an expropriation proceeding is not necessary for NHC to fulfill its
objective of preserving and regulating the said landmark.

B. Cannot appropriate funds for the benefit of a single religious sect.

It is violative of Section 29, Paragraph 2, Article 6 of our Constitution, wherein it prohibits

the state to appropriate funds for the direct or​ ​indirect benefit of the state. In this case, it is
clear that in view of practical reality, only the minority composed of members of this
aforementioned religious sect would be benefitted indirectly.

NEGATORY: The expropriation is invalid on the ground that those to be benefitted by

the expropriation would only be the members of the religious sect of its founder.

A. The taking is for “public use.”

As understood in the traditional sense, public purpose or public use means any purpose or
use directly available to the general public as a matter of right. However, the concept of
public use is not limited to traditional purposes. Here as elsewhere, the idea that "public
use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has been discarded. In fact, this
Court has already categorically stated that the term "public purpose" is not defined, since it
is an elastic concept that can be hammered to fit modern standards. (Yap v Commision of
Audit).

B. The principal factor should be considered primarily over the consequences

that might follow from such exercise.

The attempt to give some religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration, for
what should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual consequences that
might follow from the exercise of the power. The landmark commemorates the founder’s
role in Philippine history, rather than its founding and leadership of said sect. Although the
practical reality that it would definitely benefit the members of that religious sect than by
most other could be true, but that advantage is merely incidental and secondary in nature.
Hence, even though that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of property
does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of public use. (Manosco v
Republic)