Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

City Of Manila vs. Chinese Community Of Manila, 40 Phil.

349 (1919)

CASE DIGEST

FACTS: The City of Manila, plaintiff herein, prayed for the expropriation of a portion private cemetery for
the conversion into an extension of Rizal Avenue. Plaintiff claims that it is necessary that such public
improvement be made in the said portion of the private cemetery and that the said lands are within
their jurisdiction.

Defendants herein answered that the said expropriation was not necessary because other routes were
available. They further claimed that the expropriation of the cemetery would create irreparable loss and
injury to them and to all those persons owing and interested in the graves and monuments that would
have to be destroyed.

The lower court ruled that the said public improvement was not necessary on the particular-strip of land
in question. Plaintiff herein assailed that they have the right to exercise the power of eminent domain
and that the courts have no right to inquire and determine the necessity of the expropriation. Thus, the
same filed an appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the courts may inquire into, and hear proof of the necessity of the expropriation.

HELD:The courts have the power of restricting the exercise of eminent domain to the actual reasonable
necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by the law. The moment the municipal
corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must comply with the conditions
accompanying the authority. The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal corporation to
exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of the legislature. But whether or
not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions
imposed by the general authority, is a question that the courts have the right to inquire to.

You might also like