City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila
Therefore, only in dire
 [No. 14355. October 31, 1919]
I. Facts of the case
1. The legislature granted the City of Manila
the right to exercise the power to expropriate
private lands for public use (right of eminent
domain), and whether it was wise, advisable,
or necessary to confer upon the municipality
the power to exercise the right of eminent
domain is a question with which the courts
are not concerned.
2. The City of Manila – plaintiff – petition
for expropriation of a portion of Chinese
Cemetery that will be converted as an
extension of Rizal Avenue.
3. The Chinese Community of Manila –
defendant – defended that other routes were
available as an alternative and expropriating
the cemetery would create an irreparable
loss. Therefore, it was not a necessity to
expropriate the cemetery.
4. The Court of First Instance of Manila –
lower court – ruled that there was no need
for constructing the street, and dismissed the
petition. The plaintiff appealed that they
have the right to exercise the power of
eminent domain and the courts have no right
to inquire and determine the necessity of
expropriation.
5. There is a wide distinction between a
declaration of the authority that there exists
a right, and the application of the right to a
particular case. However, if the legislature
has determined the necessity and which land
to be expropriated, the court cannot
interfere. But the legislative department very
rarely designated the precise property which
should be taken for public use. In this case,
the stature did not designate a precise
property to be expropriated.
6. The courts have the right to inquire
whether or not the municipality is exercising
the right to a particular case under the
conditions imposed by the general authority.
7. The court did not deny the existence of
the power of the municipality to exercise the
right of eminent domain nor the purpose of
public use of the extension of Rizal Avenue.
8. However, the Chinese Cemetery wherein
the souls of their ancestors have rest in
peace is a sacred place and should be taken
into consideration.
necessity should it be allowed for the dead
to be disturbed.
9. Since other routes exists as an alternative,
the court ruled by that reason, the necessity
to expropriate the cemetery is avoided.
10. Furthermore, it was alleged, and not
denied, that the cemetery in question may be
used by the general community of Chinese,
which would make the property public.
II. Issue(s)
A. Main Issue
Whether or not the courts may
inquire into, or hear proof, of the
necessity of the expropriation.
B. Sub-issue
Whether or not the City of Manila
can condemn private property for
public use.
III. Ruling
In the present case, even granting that a
necessity exists for the opening of the
street in question, the record contains no
proof of the necessity of opening the same
through the cemetery. The record shows
that adjoining and adjacent lands have
been offered to the city free
of
charge, which will answer every
purpose of the plaintiff.
For all of the foregoing, we are fully
persuaded that the judgment of the lower
court should be and is hereby affirmed,
with costs against the appellant. So
ordered.
IV. Ratio Decidendi
 Act No. 190 Section 243 provides that if the
court shall find upon trial that the right to
expropriate the land in question exists, it
shall then appoint commissioners.