1E GROUP 5 CANLAS LIM NUESTRO POON ROXAS SAN JUAN EMINENT DOMAIN Case What was taken Who

o (Agency) Source of Agencys Power Source of determination of Just Compensation Followed Rule 67, 3 commissioners Expropriation Procedure Decision

Forfom Development Corp v. PNR (2008); Chico- Nazario, J.

100,000 sqm of sugarcane and mango plantation in San Pedro, for the Carmona Commuter line Project.

Philippine National Railways

PD 751 (1972) Presidential Commuter service Project

Did not initiate expropriation complaint.

Expropriation upheld. Although expropriation complaint was never filed, Forfom was barred from recovering possession of property by reason of laches and public policy. Not barred from receiving just compensation. PNR directed to institute appropriate expropriation action to determine amount of JC. Expropriation Granted. 5 Requisites for valid exercise of the power of eminent domain are present. Since expropriation came directly from Legislature (Marcos acting in legislative capacity), necessity to take private property becomes a political question. No expropriation. The Court denied OSGs appeal and upheld the legality of imposing parking fees by malls. (regulating parking fees constitutes a taking that requires just compensation)

Manapat v. CA (2007); Nachura, J.

Grace Park Property where numerous low income families were living.

President Marcos in his Legislative Capacity (Congress)

PD1072Appropriating 1.2m out of Presidents Special Operations funds to cover expropriation cost of Grace Park Senate Committee Report 225: parking fees are against the National Building Code and the Consumer Act of the Phils. RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)

N/A

N/A

OSG v. Ayala (2009); Chico-Nazario, J.

The State believes that parking fees imposed by malls are illegal.

Senate through the OSG

N/A

N/A

Hacienda Luisita Inc v Luisita Industrial Park Corp (July 2011). Velasco, Jr., J.

33% shares of stocks of HLI

DENR

RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)

N/A

HLIs Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) under compulsory coverage on mandated land acquisition scheme of the CARP is affirmed. Although direct ownership of land may pose definite benefits, a cooperative or corporation stands with a better position in securing funding and competently maintaining agri-business. Option granted to the original farmworker-beneficiaries of HL to remain with HLI.

Hacienda Luisita Inc v Luisita Industrial Park Corp (November 2011). Velasco, Jr., J.

33% shares of stocks of HLI

DENR

RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)

RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)

N/A

Option granted to the original farmworkerbeneficiaries of HL to remain with HLI recalled and set aside.

MWCD v. J. King and Sons (2009); Tinga, J.

5-square meter portion of a property

Metropolitan Cebu Water District (GOCC)

PD 198, R.A. No. 8974

Yusay v. CA (2011); Bersamin, J.

1,044-square meter residential lot

Sangguniang Panglungsod ng Madaluyong City

Resolution No. 552

Sec. 4 RA 8974 which provides that when the government makes the required provisional payment, the trial court has a ministerial duty to issue a writ of possession. N/A

Expropriation upheld. Petitioner has the legal capacity to institute the expropriation proceeding; Payment of provisional payment, as required by RA 8974, is sufficient to entitle the Government to the writ of possession.

N/A

Dipidio Earth Savers v. Elisea Gozun (2006)

37,000 hectares covering the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino, including Barangay Dipidio

Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation (CAMC) via FTAA with the Republic of the Philippines

RA 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995) DENR Admin Order (DAO) 96-40 Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) Memorandum Circular No 4.-0888 which requires cable providers to carry the TV signals of the authorized TV broadcast stations

Sec. 105-107 of DAO 96-40

N/A

No expropriation; complaint is premature. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition as a remedy not available to Petitioners because there was no proper expropriation ordinance yet. What the Sangguniang Panglungsod released was only a Resolution. Expropriation upheld. Petition for prohibition and mandamus is DISMISSED. Assailed laws

ABS-CBN v PMSI (2009); YnaresSantiago, J.

ABS CBN argues that PMSI is violating their IPO rights by broadcasting Channel 2 and 23.

NTC

N/A

N/A

The Court held that this is not a proper eminent domain case. Right to broadcast is a privilege given by the government which it may regulate.

De Knecht v. Bautista (1998); Puno, J.

8,102.68-square meter Residential Lot

Batasang Pambansa designated Ministry of Public Works and Highways as the administrator Republic of the Philippines (through the AFP)

Batas Pambansa Blg. 340

Rule 67

Rule 67 since BP 340 did not lay down the procedure for expropriation

San Roque Realty v. Republic (2007); Nachura, J.

Parcels of land located at Lahug, Cebu City

None was mentioned

None was mentioned

None was mentioned

Nepomuceno v. Surigao (2008); Corona, J. Land Bank of the Phil. v. Honeycomb Farms (2012); Brion, J.

652 sq.m. Portion of 50,000 sq.m. Lot used as a city road by Surigao. Two parcels of agricultural land voluntarily offered by Honeycomb Farms

Local Government, City of Surigao

Not mentioned

Rule 67

Rule 67

Expropriation upheld. But petitioners were not entitled to just compensation. The issue of ownership was put to rest in the civil case of reconveyance, they had no legal interest in the property by the time the expropriation proceedings were instituted. Expropriation denied. Petition was granted for the failure of the Republic to show convincing proof that it already paid just compensation; Republic was also barred by laches for failure to assert its right to the land for 56 years Expropriation upheld. Legality of expropriation not questioned. Determine just compensation from time property was taken. Case was remanded to the trial court for failure of the latter to adhere to the established DAR formula in the determination of just compensation. The court also held that LBPs payment through trust account was invalid as Sec. 16 (e) of RA 6657 explicitly provides that the deposit must be made only in cash or in LBP bonds. Nowhere does it appear that the deposit can be made in any other form.

Department of Agrarian Reform.

RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)

Sec. 57 of RA 6657 which provides that Special Agrarian Courts (in the case, the RTC acting as SAC) have exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation of owners; However, such courts are also bound by the assessment made by government assessors (Sec. 17 of RA 6657)