Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

SECTION 9 The four essential requisites for a local government can exercise the power of eminent domain are

as follows: 1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property. (was not complied) 2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless. 3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws. 4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted. IRON AND STEEL vs CA The Republic of the Philippines can substitute in an expropriation QF: proceeding when the statutory term of a non-incorporated agency expires. PHIL PRESS INSTITUTE vs COMELEC The taking of private property for public use is authorized by the QF: COMELEC issued a Resolution for free usage of print space. Constitution but not without payment of just compensation. TELEBAP vs COMELEC The usage of television/radio is not a property but a privelege which QF: COMELEC issued a Resolution for free airtime. could be burdened by reasons of public purpose. GREATER BALANGA vs BALANGA Lands, even though adjacent to the property, cannot be directly owned QF: A land was donated to the Municipality but some undonated or improved by the government if owned by a private individual. Such property was usurped (adjacent to the property). The owner filed a shall be subject to expropriation proceedings first. liscence for the lands. SECTION 9 ELEMENTS OF TAKING REPUBLIC vs VDA DE CASTELV I The important factor in expropriation proceeding is that the owner is QF: Petitioner questions the price of the land (10 pesos) and requests awarded the just compensation for his property. for a higher price (15 pesos) (10 pesos was awarded as it was the happy medium; the fair value of the land was 5 pesos) GARCIA vs CA Where there is not taking of property for purposes of eminent domain nor QF: Garcia wanted to be compensated of 200 per/sqm. condemnation proceedings instituted, the basis for this determination of just compensation is the time when the trial court made its order of expropriation; Factors to be considered in estimating market value of property for purposes of compensation. (15 pesos per/sqm and legal interest) CITY GOVERNMENT vs JUDGE ERICTA Police power and power of eminent domain are two distinct powers. QF: An ordinance was passed for the allocation of 6% of the total In this case, compensation is needed because it is not an exercise of memorial grounds as a free cemetery. police power. US vs CAUSBY Land property, includes the aerial domain, any damage in the QF: A chicken farm was burdened by the noise created by a nearby atmosphere (noises) shall be compensated. airport rented by the US Government. PEOPLE vs FAJARDO The taking of the property shall not be unreasonable and oppressive. QF: An ordinance stating that any building causing disctration to the view of the plaza shall be destroyed was passed. NPC vs JOCSON To increase the provisional value of land there must be a hearing which QF: Judge held in abeyance the writ of possession order due to includes both parties. petitioner while increasing outright provisional value of land without hearing. PENN CENTRAL vs NY CITY It is not taking when there is nothing taken away. QF: The New York City Landmarks Preservation Law of 1965 The legislation promotes the general welfare and the City has a empowered the city to designate certain structures and neighborhoods comprehensive plan. as "landmark sites." This lead to the refusal of the creation of buildings in Grand Terminal. RUCKELHAUS vs MONSATO SECTION 9 PUBLIC USE SUMULONG vs GUERERO The "public use" requirement is an evolving concept influences by QF: PD 1224 authorizes the expropriation of private lands for socialized changing conditions. Urban renewal or redevelopment and the housing by the NHA. Among those lands sought to be expropriated are construction of low-cost housing is recognized as a public purpose, not HEIRS OF ALBERTO SUNGITAN vs CITY OF MANDALUYONG QF: A Resolution was passed by the City of Mandaluyong for the expropriation of a property for the construction of a hospital.

the petitioners'' lands. PHIL. COLUMBIAN ASSOC. vs HON. PANIS QF: A property owned by Petitioner is subject for expropriation on grounds that it will be made into a subdivision. MANOSCA vs CA QF: A land was to be made a national landmark as it was the birthplace of the Inglesia ni Kristo founder. PROVINCE OF CAMSUR vs CA QF: Expropriations of a mayor is questioned for validity as he is to expropriate farm lands without prior permision from the DAR.

only because of the expanded concept of public use but also because of specific provisions in the Constitution Public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including in particular, urban land reform and housing. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.

Under the new concept, "public use" means public advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community, like a resort complex for tourists or housing project . (valid, not needed to have DAR review, the do not have the right to identify public use) LANGCAO vs JUDGE LABRA Ordinance 1843 contravenes the constitution because condemnation of QF: Ordinance No. 1843 was enacted authorizing the mayor of Cebu private lands in an irrational or piecemeal fashion or the random City to initiate expropriation proceedings on petitioners property. expropriation of small lots to accommodate no more than a few tenants or squatters is certainly not the condemnation for public use contemplated by the Constitution. SECTION 9 JUST COMPENSATION CITY OF MANILA vs ESTRADA MANILA RAILROAD vs PAREDES SANTOS vs LANDBANK Just compensation is still valid even if it is made not in cash but through QF: Land property was taken from the Petitioner and was paid in securities, in this case Land Bank bonds. securities. MUNICIPALITY OF DAET vs CA The expropriated property must be valued at the time of taking QF: The price of the property was decided by the CA to be 200 per/sqm possession or at the institution of expropriation proceedings, whichever as suggested by the Respondent. comes earlier. EPZA vs DULAY Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the QF: Epza filed a petition for certiorari arguing that under PD 1533 the taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. compensation should be fair and current market value declared by the owner or the market value determined by the assessor, whichever is lower MADDUMBA vs GSIS The GSIS, a government-owned and controlled corporation, may be QF: GSIS conducted a public bidding of foreclosed properties which compelled to accept at face value Land Bank notes earlier received in includes the properties of Maddumba. Petitioner participated in said payment of land expropriated under land reform. Since in land reform the bidding and submitted sealed bid of P98,000 in Philippine currency. owner seldom gets what he wants for his property, for the government to Upon awarding, petitioner offered to pay the additional 25% in Land compel him further to discount those notes would be another sacrifice, Bank bonds at their face value, but was rejected by GSIS. and thus, unfair. BERKENTKOTTER vs CA Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the QF: Berkentkotter claims 85/sqm shall be paid as just compensation. taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. MERALCO vs PINEDA NPC vs CA It is an established doctrine that just compensation for expropriated QF: Lots were priced at 3.75 (price at the date of the possession of property should be valued at the date of possession of the property. property). Changed to 7.00 by the CA. LAND BANK vs CA PANES vs VISCA QF: Respondent school was allowed to initiate expropriation proceedings. The bases for compensation were PDs that were recently declared unconstitutional. REPUBLIC vs CA QF: A question for just compensation was denied by the RTC on grounds that pursuant to RA 6657, DARAB should be the first to decide on the matter. If the bases for compensation is declared unconstitutional, the expropriation proceedings shall be reinstated.

The DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform". However, the Special Agrarian Courts (RTCs) shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. (this case is for eminent domain and not land reform, hence DAR has no jurisdiction) SECTION 9 JUDICIAL REVIEW DE KNETCH vs BAUTISTA With due recognition of the power of Congress to designate the QF: EDSA was to be extended. The original plan was to take it until particular property to be taken and how much thereof may be Cuneta Avenue but the Ministry of Public Works proposed Fernando condemned in the exercise of the power of expropriation, it is still a

Rein and Del Pan as extension.

MANOTOK vs NHA QF: PD 1669 and PD 1670 were passed giving power to the NHA to automatically expropriate properties of the Tambunting Estate without hearing. REPUBLIC vs DE KNETCH Expropriation proceedings may not only be in voluntary negotiations with QF: Repeat De Knetch vs Bautista the land owners but also by taking appropriate court actions or through New law was passed for extension. legislation. SECTION 10 HOME BUILDING vs BLAISDELL The state was justified under the circumstance of the Depression to QF: T he Minnesota legislature passed the Minnesota Mortgage extend foreclosure timing to protect the economic interests of the state Moratorium Law. This law allowed homeowners to seek relief from and its citizens. foreclosure proceedings. Sales could be postponed and periods of redemption extended except for those loans that were made after the passage of the law. RUTTER vs ESTEBAN The moratorium is postponement of fulfillment of obligations decreed by QF: RA 342(moratorium law): Payment of obligation cannot be enforced the state throught he medium of the courts or the legislature. Its essence until after the lapse of eight years after the war. is the application of police power. The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts. DEL ROSARIO vs DE LOS SANTOS QF: ABELLA vs NLRC PHIL VET vs PHIL VET BANK EMPLOYEES Unless adequate and determined efforts are taken by the government QF: PVB was put under receivership. An employee was rehired for against distressed and mismanaged banks, public faith in the banking liquidation purposes. She alleges increase in salary because of wage system is certain to deteriorate to the prejudice of the national economy orders. itself, not to mention the losses suffered by the bank depositors, creditors and stockholders, who all deserve the protection of the government. PRESLEY vs BEL-AIR Ordinances may impair contracts if they are for the valid exercise of QF: Land in Bel-Air should be for housing (stipulation). Presley was a police power. leasee for a land and constructed a bakery. Ordinance states that land can be used for business. TOLENTINO vs SEC. OF FINANCE A license tax, which, unlike an ordinary tax, is mainly for regulation. VAT QF: VAT law was passed. is not a license tax. SISKA vs OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT The purpose of the non-impairment clause is to safeguard the integrity of QF: A case for rescission was decided by the Office of the President contracts against unwarranted interference by the State. As a rule, against Petitioner. Maceda law should be applied (which requires contracts should not be tampered with by subsequent laws that would sending of a notice of cancellation to the buyer and actual cancellation change or modify the rights and obligations of the parties. occurs 30 days from receipt of notice). MINERS ASSOCIATION vs FACTORAN By enacting regulations reasonably necessary to secure the health, QF: AO 57 would declare that all existing mining leases or agreements safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community, even the which were granted after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitutionshall contracts may thereby be affected; for such matter can not be placed by be converted into production-sharing agreements within one (1) year contract beyond the power of the State shall regulates and control them. from the effectivity of these guidelines. JUAREZ vs CA The impairment clause is now no longer inviolate, as long as the contract QF: BP 877 was enacted on 1985 and used as basis for an ejectment affects the public welfare one way or another so as to require the suit of a lease entered into during the 1960s. interference of the State, then must the police power be asserted, and prevail, over the impairment clause FPIB vs CA The Central Bank law gives vast and far-reaching powers to the QF: Then petitioner Bank was under a conservator placed by the Central conservator of a bank suffering liquidity, it must be pointed out that such Bank of the Philippines during the time that the negotiation and powers must be related to the "preservation of the assets of the bank, perfection of the contract of sale took place. Petitioners energetically the reorganization of the management thereof and the restoration of its contended that the conservator has the power to revoke or overrule viability." actions of the management or the board of directors of a bank, under Such powers, enormous and extensive as they are, cannot extend to Section 28-A of Republic Act No. 265 (otherwise known as the Central the post-facto repudiation of perfected transactions, otherwise they Bank Act). Thus, the bank did not honor the contract. would infringe against the non-impairment clause of the Constitution. If the legislature itself cannot revoke an existing valid contract, much more can it delegate such non-existent powers to the conservator under Section 28-A of said law.

judicial question whether in the exercise of such competence, the party adversely affected is the victim of partiality and prejudice. (Cuneta Avenue was chosen) There shall be no laws passed that automatically grants power to expropriate without having to pass through courts.

CMMA vs POEA QF: A Resolution gives benefits to the children of seamen who dies during the period of the contract.

PNB vs OP QF: PD 957 obliges petitioner Bank to accept the payment of the remaining unpaid amortizations tendered by private respondents. (PD 957 came after the agreement)

The constitutional prohibition against impairing contractual obligations is not absolute and is not to be read with literal exactness. It is restricted to contracts with respect to property or some object of value and which confer rights that may be asserted in a court of justice; it has no application to statutes relating to public subjects within the domain of the general legislative powers of the State and involving the public rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. While P.D. 957 did not expressly provide for retroactivity in its entirety, yet the same can be plainly inferred from the unmistakable intent of the law to protect innocent lot buyers from scheming subdivision developers. As between these small lot buyers and the gigantic financial institutions which the developers deal with, it is obvious that the law - as an instrument of social justice - must favor the weak. Truly, this Court cannot allow the injustice that will be wrought by a strictly prospective application of the law. Same as above

EUGENIO vs DRILON QF: PD 957 obliges petitioner Bank to accept the payment of the remaining unpaid amortizations tendered by private respondents. (PD 957 came after the agreement) MERALCO vs PROVINCE OF LAGUNA

EPZA v. Dulay 149 SCRA 305 Facts: Proc. No. 1811 was issued, reserving a certain parcel of land of the public domain for the establishment of an export processing zone by Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). Petitioner filed a complaint for expropriation against the respondent, to expropriate said parcel of lands. The resp. judge issued an order that the only issue to be resolved is the just compensation for properties. Thus, an order, appointed certain persons as commissioner, whereby it recommend that San Antonio Devt Corp be paid P15.00/sqm. Epza filed a petition for certiorari arguing that under PD 1533 the compensation should be fair and current market value declared by the owner or the market value determined by the assessor, whichever is lower Issue: Whether or not the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just compensation in P.D. No. 1533 valid and constitutional Held: The method of ascertaining just compensation under PD 1533 constitutes impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. Although the court technically would still have the power to determine the just compensation for the property, following the decree, its task would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the property as declared either by the owner or the assessor. Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities should be considered. In this case, the tax declarations used as basis for the just compensation were made long before the declaration of martial law when the land was much cheaper. To peg the value of the lots on the basis of those documents which are outdated would be arbitrary and confiscatory. Maddumba v. GSIS 182 SCRA 281 Facts: GSIS conducted a public bidding of foreclosed properties which includes the properties of Maddumba. Petitioner participated in said bidding and submitted sealed bid of P98,000 in Philippine currency. Upon awarding, petitioner offered to pay the additional 25% in Land Bank bonds at their face value, but was rejected by GSIS. Hence it was withdrawn by petitioner. Then, petitioner offered to pay the remaining down payment and future installments in cash. A deed of conditional sale was executed. When 2nd installment became due petitioner requested that he be allowed to pay the with his Land Bank bonds until exhaustion of the said bonds, invoking Sec. 85 of RA 3844 as amended by PD 251. GSIS Board of Trustees denied petitioners offer. Then resolved to reiterate the policy that Land Bank bonds shall be accepted as payment only at a discounted rate to yield the System 18% at maturity. Issue: whether or not under the provisions of Section 85 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 251 effective July 21, 1973, the GSIS may be compelled to accept Land Bank bonds at their face value in payment for a residential house and lot purchased by the bondholder from the GSIS Ruling: The GSIS, a government-owned and controlled corporation, may be compelled to accept at face value Land Bank notes earlier received in payment of land expropriated under land reform. Since in land reform the owner seldom gets what he wants for his property, for the government to compel him further to discount those notes would be another sacrifice, and thus, unfair. Respondent's arguments disregard the fact that the provisions of Section 85 are primarily designed to cushion the impact of dispossession. Not only would there be inconvenience resulting from dispossession itself, but also from the modes of payment in financing the acquisition of farm lots. Acceptance of Land Bank bonds, instead of money, undoubtedly involves a certain degree of sacrifice for the landowner. This, of course, is in addition to the fact that, in case of expropriation of land covered by land reform, the landowner will seldom get the compensation he desires. Thus, discounting the Land Banks bonds, and thereby reducing their effective value, entails and imposes an additional burden on his part. It is, in fact, in consideration of this sacrifice that we extended the rule on liberality in the interpretation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 3844, then known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, in favor not only of the actual tillers but the landowners as well. Ita semper fiat relatio ut valeat dispositio. The interpretation must always be such that the disposition may prevail. Berkenkotter v. CA 216 SCRA 584 Facts: An expropriation proceeding were commenced against the petitioner by the Republic on behalf of ARASOD upon failure to come up with an agreement of the valuation of the parcel of land. The trial court affirmed the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the subject land upon payment to the owner if just compensation at the rate of P85.00/sqm. The decision was elevated and reversed by the Court of Appeals. The respondent court noted that the contracts concluded in 1985 were practically disregarded by trial court noted that the 3 contracts of sale concluded in 1985 were practically disregarded by the trial court.The CA observed that the lands covered by these deeds, which were adjacent to the subject property, were voluntarily sold by Berkenkotter for the price of only P19.18 per square meter.

Issue: Whether or not Mr. Berkenkotter is entitled to the compensation of P85.00 as claimed by him to be the true value of his expropriated property. Held: What mystifies the Court is why, if the property was really worth P85.00 per square meter in 1985, the petitioner agreed to sell its other lands, of the same topography as the land in dispute and separated therefrom by only a road, at only P19.18 per square meter. There is no showing that the petitioner had any special reason for granting each of the individual vendees the extraordinary discount amounting to as much as 75% of its claimed real value of the land. The price demanded by the petitioner from the Republic of the Philippines is more than 4 times the price it willingly accepted from the private vendees. It is also noteworthy that the individual buyers bought the land for their own private purposes only and not for the public purpose invoked by the Republic and admitted by the petitioner itself. The Court is disappointed that the petitioner should demand a higher price for the Republic, which needs the lands for a public purpose, when it was willing to accept less from the three individual buyers who had only their private interests to serve. We agree with the respondent court that by selling its lands in the three deed of sale indicated as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, at the uniform rate of P19.18 per square meter, the petitioner thereby impliedly admitted that the lands subject of the expropriation proceeding, being of the same topography and virtually in the same location is the said other lands, should also be valued at the same rate. This rule of inconsistency is best expressed in the familiar saying, surely not unknown to the petitioner, that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and it is hereby affirmed that the just compensation for the subject land should be computed at the rated of P19.18 per square meter. Meralco v. Pineda 206 SCRA 196