Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The 1987 Constitution of The Philippines Article Iii Bill of Rights "Section 9"
The 1987 Constitution of The Philippines Article Iii Bill of Rights "Section 9"
THE PHILIPPINES
ARTICLE III BILL OF RIGHTS
“SECTION 9”
REPORTER: Uyat, Jeremie A.
SECTION 9
Kinds of Property:
REAL PROPERTY
● Land and anything that has value classified to it.
● Can be classified as residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial or special
purpose.
LAND
● Defined as the earths surface extending
downward to the center of the earth and upward
to infinity.
REAL ESTATE
● Everything that is permanently attached to it
including artificial, or permanent improvements
for the land.
In legal definition, Real estate usually refers to a private property that is owned by an
individual or a group of individuals.
In contrast, Public Property refers to a real property that is owned by the state.
Kinds of Property:
PERSONAL PROPERTY
● Property that is movable—sometimes reffered to as
chattel or personalty.
SINGLE INDIVIDUALS
● Property can be owned by a single human. However, many jurisdiction have
some stipulations thet limit property owning capacity. The two main limiting
factors include citizenship and competency of maintaining property.
CORPORATE OWNERS
● A corporation has legal power to use the and possess property just us a fictitious
legal human would. However, a corporation isn't a single human, it is a collective
will of a people who provide a service or build good.
Property Ownership
CONCURRENT OWNERS
● Property that can be owned by many different people and parties, property can be
shared by infinitely divisible number of people.
● THREE TYPES:
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
City Of Manila vs. Chinese Community Of Manila, 40 Phil. 349 (1919)
CASE DIGEST
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.
SECTION 9