TAKING

It is the appropriation of title to and possession of the expropriated property; but may be availed of to
impose only a burden upon the owner of the condemned property without loss of title and possession.
(Republic v. PLDT)

 Taking of private property for public use, to be compensable, need not be an actual physical
taking or appropriation.

INSTANCES OF TAKING (D-O-J)

1. Owner is actually Deprived or dispossessed of his property

2. The owner is deprived of the Ordinary use of his property (Republic v. Sarabia)
3. The owner is deprived of Jurisdiction, supervision, and control of his property (Municipality of La
Carlota v. NAWASA)

INSTANCES OF CONSTRUCTIVE TAKING SUBJECT TO COMPENSATION

Compensable Taking includes destruction, restriction, diminution, or interruption of the rights of

ownership or of the common and necessary use and enjoyment of the property in a lawful manner—
lessening or destroying its value.

It is neither necessary that the owner BE WHOLLY DEPRIVED OF THE USE of his property, nor is it
material whether removed from possession or changes hands. (NPC v. Heirs Sangkay)

REQUISITES OF TAKING (EMA-POD)

1. Expropriator must Enter a private property

2. Entry must be for a Momentary period
3. Entry must be under a warrant or color of legal Authority
4. Property must be devoted to Public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected.
5. The utilization of property for public use must be in such a way as to Oust the owner and
Deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of property. (Republic v. Castellvi)

INVERSE CONDEMNATION

An action commenced by the property owner to recover the value of the property taken in fact by the
government defendant, even though no formal exercise of power of eminent domain has been
attempted by the taking agency. (NPC v. Macabangkit Sangkay; NPC v. Spouses Saludares) And exception
to the general rule:

GR: Just compensation must be reckoned from the time of taking or filing of the complaint, whichever
came first.

XPN: From the time the power owners initiated inverse condemnation proceedings notwithstanding that
the taking of properties occurred earlier.
  Owner may immediately file a complaint with the proper court for payment of his property as
the arbitrary action of the government shall be deemed a waiver of its immunity from suit.
(Amigable v. Cuenca)

PUBLIC USE

Traditional Concept – Refers to any use directly available to the genera public as a matter of right and not
merely of forbearance or accommodation.

Expanded Concept – Use that is of “usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general
benefit of the public” (Vda. De Ouano v. Republic) Public advantage or public benefit accrues sufficient to
constitute public use.

EFFECT OF ABANDONMENT OF INTENDED USE and RIGHT TO REPURCHASE

Condemnor should commit to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for
expropriation. In case of abandonment of intended use, the expropriator should file another petition for
the new purpose.

If not, it becomes incumbent upon the expropriator to return the said property to its private owner, the
latter so desires. (MCIAA v. Lozada)

JUST COMPENSATION (JC)

It is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private owner to the expropriator; the fair
market value of the property. (NPC v. Chiong). The measure is not the taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss.
(Republic v. Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corp.)

 Just – (used to qualify the meaning of the word “compensation”) the amount to be tendered for
the property be real, substantial, full and ample.
 Compensation – a full indemnity or remuneration for the loss or damage sustained by the owner
of the property taken or injured for public use.

NOTE: Former owner must be returned to the monetary equivalent of the position that the owner had
when the taking occurred. Compensation, to be just must be of such value as to fully rehabilitate the
affected owner; it must be sufficient to make the affected owner whole. In essence, it is truly just, not
just for the owner whose property is taken, but also to the public who bears the cost of expropriation.

RATIONALE: The purpose is not to reward the owner for the property taken, but to compensate him for
the loss thereof. (Secretary of DPWH v. Sps. Tecson) This pertains not only loss of the property but also
its income-generating potential. Hence, the full compensation of its value must be immediately paid to
achieve a fair exchange for the property and the potential income lost.

THE PRINCIPLE OF ANTICIPATION IS INCONSISTENT IN THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION

Constitutional limit of JC: the sum equivalent of the market-value of the property or the price fixed by
the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition, or the fair
value of the property as between one who receives and one who desires to sell it, fixed at the time of
the actual taking by the government. (Land Bank of the Phils. v. Hababag)
FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV)

GR: The price may be agreed upon by parties who are willing but are not compelled to enter into a
contract of sale

XPN: Where only A PART of a certain property IS EXPRORPRIATED; owner is therefore also entitled to
recover consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property. (Republic v. BPI)

CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (CD)

Consists of injuries directly caused on the residue of the private property taken by reason of
expropriation. It is awarded when the remaining property of the owner suffers from an impairment or
decrease in value.

WHEN JUST COMPENSATION DETERMINED

Fair Market Value at, whichever is earlier:

o the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation or

o the time of the taking of the property.

DETERMINATION OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES

Assessed on the property not taken and deduct from such consequential damages the CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS (CB) to be derived by the owner from the public use or purpose of the property taken, the
operation of its franchise by the corporation or the carrying on of the business of the corporation or
person taking the property.

But in no case shall the consequential benefits assessed exceed the consequential damages assessed, or
the owner be deprived of the actual value of his property so taken. (ROC, Rule 67, Sec. 6)

RULES IN DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION IF THERE IS PARTIAL EXPROPRIATION

Trial Court must first ascertain the market value of the property, to which should be added the
consequential damages after deducting therefrom the consequential benefits.

 If CB > CD, these items are disregarded altogether as the basic value of the property should be
paid in every case.

FORMULA: JC = FMV + (CD – CB)

DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION

The determination of JC is a JUDICIAL FUNCTION. Any determination by any administrative body is at

best preliminary and should not be conclusive on the landowner or any interested party

GR: By virtue of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, RTC sitting as Special Agrarian Courts have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions of JC.

XPN: However, it is not granted unlimited jurisdiction; RTC-SAC is still required to consider the factors
enumerated in Sec. 17 of RA 6657, as amended, i.e., the cost of acquisition of land, the current value of
like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations
and the assessment made by the government assessors.

 There is no need to exhaust administrative remedies nor can administrative prescriptive periods
bar the filing of petitions.
 Any legislative enactments and executive issuances fixing or providing for the method of
computing JC are not binding on courts and are, at best, treated as mere guidelines for
ascertaining the amount of JC.
 Hence, it is always subject to the final determination of the proper court (SAC may adjust the
valuation of Dept. of Agrarian Reform as they deem fit.

JUST COMPENSATION IN RIGHT-OF-WAY

Compensation price = sum of the current market value of the land, the replacement cost of structures
and improvements therein, and the current market value of crops and trees therein. (RA No. 10752 or
Right-of-Way Act, Sec. 5, par. (a))

EFFECT OF DELAY IN PAYMENT

 Fair Market Value: Value of landholdings should be equivalent to the principal sum of the just
compensation due, and if full compensation is not immediately paid, interest becomes due.
 Need for prompt payment and necessity of payment of interest is to
compensate the landowner with profit they did not gain due to delay.
o Where the FMV of the property is difficult to ascertain, the court may use other just and
equitable market methods of valuation in order to estimate the same.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Sec. 1 Art. III, Bill of Rights

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person
be denied the equal protection of the laws.

 The act of deprivation should be preceded by compliance with procedural due process, part and
parcel of which includes the filing of an expropriation case.
 RATIONALE: By filing the action for expropriation, the government, in effect, SERVES NOTICE that
it is taking title and possession of property. Hence, without an expropriation suit, the private
property is being taken without due notice to the landowner.

EXPROPRIATION AS EXERCISED BY LGUs is merely a power of inferior domain which means that local
government units can only exercise such power which is delegated to it.

Requisites of Exercise of Inferior Domain by LGUs (OP-JO)

1. Ordinance by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive to exercise the
power of eminent domain;
2. For Public use, purpose or welfare or for the benefit of the poor and poor and of the landless;
3. Payment of Just Compensation; and
 4. Valid and definite Offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be
expropriated but such offer was refused. (Municipality of Paranaque v. VM Realty Corp.)

NOTE: Expropriation of privately-owned lands exercised by LGUs for urban land reform purposes
must be resorted to only after all other lands have been exhausted (RA 7279 or Urban and
Development and Housing Act of 1992, Sec. 10)

EMINENT DOMAIN AND STATE IMMUNITY

 No compensation in valid exercise of police power: Damages that are sustained by property
owners are regarded as merely incidental—the losses are in the nature of “damnum absque
injuria.” The only recompense available is the altruistic feeling (their sacrifice has contributed to
the well-being of the people in general)