NOTES ON EMINENT DOMAIN CASES CONSTI LAW II

ROXAS AND CO. VS CA A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary under R.A. 6657 the Co!prehensive A"rarian Refor! Law of #$%%. &efore this !ay be awarded to a far!er beneficiary the land !ust first be ac'uired by the (tate fro! the landowner and ownership transferred to the for!er. )he transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the "overn!ent are conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the correspondin" pay!ent or deposit by the *AR of the co!pensation with an accessible ban+. ,ntil then title re!ains with the landowner. )here was no receipt by petitioner of any co!pensation for any of the lands ac'uired by the "overn!ent. )his -otice of Covera"e does not !erely notify the landowner that his property shall be placed under CAR. and that he is entitled to e/ercise his retention ri"ht0 it also notifies hi! pursuant to *AR A.O. -o. $ (eries of #$$1 that a public hearin" shall be conducted where he and representatives of the concerned sectors of society !ay attend to discuss the results of the field investi"ation the land valuation and other pertinent !atters. )he failure of respondent *AR to co!ply with the re'uisites of due process in the ac'uisition proceedin"s does not "ive this Court the power to nullify the CLOA2s already issued to the far!er beneficiaries. )o assu!e the power is to short3 circuit the ad!inistrative process which has yet to run its re"ular course. Respondent *AR !ust be "iven the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the ac'uisition proceedin"s. 4n 5acienda .alico alone CLOA2s were issued to #77 far!er beneficiaries in #$$6. 92 (ince then until the present these far!ers have been cultivatin" their lands. 93 4t "oes a"ainst the basic precepts of 7ustice fairness and e'uity to deprive these people throu"h no fault of their own of the land they till. Anyhow the far!er beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the ri"htful owner of the land.

BELEN VS. CA )he Court found that both the decrees bein" 8violative of the petitioners2 (owners2) ri"ht to due process of law 8 failed 8the test of constitutionality 8 and that additionally they were tainted by another infir!ity as re"ards 8the deter!ination of 7ust co!pensation.8)he 9overn!ent should have filed an e/propriation case under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court but it did not do so. Obviously it did not dee! it necessary because the enact!ent of the 'uestioned decrees which rendered by their very passa"e any 'uestions with re"ard to the e/propriation of the properties !oot and acade!ic. 4n effect the properties under the decrees were 8auto!atically e/propriated.8 .* #671 bein" void ab initio all acts done in reliance thereon and in accordance therewith !ust also be dee!ed void ab initio includin" particularly the ta+in" of possession of the property by the -ational 5ousin" Authority and its atte!pts to convert the sa!e into a housin" pro7ect and the selection of the beneficiaries thereof.

EPZA vs. DULAY 4s the e/clusive and !andatory !ode of deter!inin" 7ust co!pensation in .* -o. #566 valid and constitutional: The basis shall be the market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower. ;e are constrained to declare the provisions of the *ecrees on 7ust co!pensation unconstitutional and void. )he !ethod of ascertainin" 7ust co!pensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes i!per!issible encroach!ent on 7udicial prero"atives. 4t tends to render this Court inutile in a !atter which under the Constitution is reserved to it for final deter!ination.

)he deter!ination of 87ust co!pensation8 in e!inent do!ain cases is a 7udicial function. ..*. -o. #566 which eli!inates the court2s discretion to appoint co!!issioners pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court is unconstitutional and void. )o hold otherwise would be to under!ine the very purpose why this Court e/ists in the first place.

MANOSCA vs. CA Whether or not the "public use" requirement of Eminent Domain is e tant in the attempted e propriation by the !epublic of a "#$%square%meter parcel of land so declared by the &ational 'istorical (nstitute )"&'("* as a national historical landmark. <or conde!nation purposes 2public use2 is one which confers so!e benefit or advanta"e to the public0 it is not confined to actual use by public. 4t is !easured in ter!s of ri"ht of public to use proposed facilities for which conde!nation is sou"ht and as lon" as public has ri"ht of use whether e/ercised by one or !any !e!bers of public a 2public advanta"e2 or 2public benefit2 accrues sufficient to constitute a public use. &ut each and every !e!ber of society need not be e'ually interested in such use or be personally and directly affected by it0 if the ob7ect is to satisfy a "reat public want or e/i"ency that is sufficient. )he purpose in settin" up the !ar+er is essentially to reco"ni=e the distinctive contribution of the late <eli/ >analo to the culture of the .hilippines rather than to co!!e!orate his foundin" and leadership of the 4"lesia ni Cristo. . 4ndeed that only a few would actually benefit fro! the e/propriation of property does not necessarily di!inish the essence and character of public use.

HEIRS OF ARDONA vs. REYES +ssailing the validity of ,D &o. -." or the !evised /harter of ,hilippine Tourism +uthority0 W1& 2T13!(456 is deemed included in the term public use7 As lon" as the purpose of the ta+in" is public then the power of e!inent do!ain co!es into play. the concept of public use is not li!ited to traditional purposes. ;e cannot say that public ownership is the sole !ethod of pro!otin" the public purposes of co!!unity redevelop!ent pro7ects. )he public respondents have stressed that the develop!ent of the %1% hectares includes plans that would "ive the petitioners and other displaced persons productive e!ploy!ent hi"her inco!es decent housin" water and electric facilities and better livin" standards. Our dis!issin" this petition is in part predicated on those assurances. )he ri"ht of the .)A to proceed with the e/propriation of the ?%? hectares already 4dentified as fit for the establish!ent of a resort co!ple/ to pro!ote touris! is therefore sustained.

RP vs. PLDT )he Republic !ay not co!pel the .L*) to celebrate a contract with it the Republic !ay in the e/ercise of the soverei"n power of e!inent do!ain re'uire the telephone co!pany to per!it interconnection of the "overn!ent telephone syste! and that of the .L*) as the needs of the "overn!ent service !ay re'uire sub7ect to the pay!ent of 7ust co!pensation to be deter!ined by the court. .L*)2s ri"ht to 7ust co!pensation for the services rendered to the 9overn!ent telephone syste! and its users is herein reco"ni=ed and preserved the ob7ections of defendant3appellant are without !erit. )o uphold the .L*)2s contention is to subordinate the needs of the "eneral public to the ri"ht of the .L*) to derive profit fro! the future e/pansion of its services under its non3e/clusive franchise.

SMI vs. RP )he necessity for ta+in" petitioner2s property for public use upon pay!ent of 7ust co!pensation was alle"ed in the said Co!plaint. )he alle"ation stressin" that the property would be used to i!prove the delivery of health services satisfied the re'uire!ents of necessity and public use. ,nder the fore"oin" (ection the Republic is entitled to a writ of possession

once the provisional co!pensation !entioned therein is deposited. 4n the present case an a!ount e'uivalent to the assessed value of the land has already been deposited. )his fact is not contested and is readily shown by a certification letter issued by the .hilippine -ational &an+ statin" that the *epart!ent of 5ealth3-ational Children2s 5ospital has already deposited .6 #?6 611 representin" the assessed value of the property !entioned in Civil Case -o. @3$63?%%$A.

PHILPRESSI vs. COMELEC +ssailing the validity of !esolution &o. $88$% giving /15E9E/ a free print space of not less than : page in newspaper. )o co!pel print !edia co!panies to donate 8Co!elec space8 of the di!ensions specified in (ection ? of resolution -o. ?77? (not less than one3half .a"e) a!ounts to 8ta+in"8 of private personal property for public use or purposes. )he ele!ent of necessity for the ta+in" has not been shown by respondent Co!elec. . A reasonable relationship between that power and the enforce!ent and ad!inistration of election laws by Co!elec !ust be shown0 it is not casually to be assu!ed.

TELEBAP vs. COMELEC ;5+ suffered losses in providing free /15E9E/ time during the previous election. 4ec. #$ of <, <lg. ==> violates due process clause and the eminent domain provision. ;hat better !easure can be conceived for the co!!on "ood than one for free air ti!e for the benefit not only of candidates but even !ore of the public particularly the voters so that they will be fully infor!ed of the issues in an election: 8B4Ct is the ri"ht of the viewers and listeners not the ri"ht of the broadcasters which is para!ount.8 As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves no private property is ta+en by the re'uire!ent that they provide air ti!e to the CO>DLDC. &... &l". %%# (ec. $? is not an invalid a!end!ent of petitioner2s franchise but the enforce!ent of a duty voluntarily assu!ed by petitioner in acceptin" a public "rant of privile"e. )he broadcast !edia have also established a uni'uely pervasive presence in the lives of all <ilipinos. )o affir! the validity of (ec.$? of &... &l". %%# is to hold public broadcasters to their obli"ation to see to it that the variety and vi"or of public debate on issues in an election is !aintained.

LBP vs. CA
(s the opening of trusts accounts and withholding immediate payment ?ust compensation7 (ection #6(e) of Republic Act 6657 was very specific in li!itin" the type of deposit to be !ade as co!pensation for the re7ectin" landowners that is in 8cash8 or in 8L&. bonds8. )hus recourse to any rule which allows the openin" of trust accounts as a !ode of deposit under (ection #6(e) of RA 6657 "oes beyond the scope of the said provision and is therefore i!per!issible. ;ithout pro!pt pay!ent co!pensation cannot be considered 87ust8 for the property owner is !ade to suffer the conse'uence of bein" i!!ediately deprived of his land while bein" !ade to wait for a decade or !ore before actually receivin" the a!ount necessary to cope with his loss.

RP vs. CA /an private respondents get their property back on the grounds of non%payment and change of utili@ation7 )he e/propriated property has been shown to be for the continued utili=ation by the .4A a si"nificant portion thereof bein" ceded for the e/pansion of the facilities of the &ulacan (tate ,niversity and for the propa"ation of the .hilippine carabao the!selves in line with the re'uire!ents of public purpose. )he property has assu!ed a public character upon its e/propriation. (urely petitioner as the conde!nor and as the owner of the property is well within its ri"hts to alter and

decide the use of that property the only li!itation bein" that it be for public use which decidedly it is. 4n ar"uin" for the return of their property on the basis of non3pay!ent respondents i"nore the fact that the ri"ht of the e/propriatory authority is far fro! that of an unpaid seller in ordinary sales to which the re!edy of rescission !i"ht perhaps apply. Conde!nation proceedin"s provide a 7udicial process for securin" better title a"ainst all the world than !ay be obtained by voluntary conveyance.

Est of S. IMENEZ vs. PEZA /an the petitioner get their property back on the ground that the compromise agreement was rescinded7 )he incorporation of the e/propriation order in the co!pro!ise a"ree!ent did not sub7ect said order to rescission but instead constituted an ad!ission by petitioner of respondent2s authority to e/propriate the sub7ect parcel of land and the public purpose for which it was e/propriated. 4t is crystal clear fro! the contents of the a"ree!ent that the parties li!ited the co!pro!ise a"ree!ent to the !atter of 7ust co!pensation to petitioner. .etitioner cannot i!pose or dictate on the respondent what facilities to establish for as lon" as the sa!e are for public purpose.

RP vs. SALEM Who, between the De la !amas and ;uerrero, isAare entitled to receive payment of ?ust compensation for the taking of #$B square meters of the land in question7 ;e hold that 9uerrero is entitled to receive pay!ent of 7ust co!pensation for the ta+in" of the land. 4t is only upon pay!ent of 7ust co!pensation that title over the property passes to the "overn!ent. )herefore until the action for e/propriation has been co!pleted and ter!inated ownership over the property bein" e/propriated re!ains with the re"istered owner. Conse'uently the latter can e/ercise all ri"hts pertainin" to an owner includin" the ri"ht to dispose of his property sub7ect to the power of the (tate ulti!ately to ac'uire it throu"h e/propriation. )he title to the e/propriated property of the *e la Ra!as re!ained with the! and did not at that point pass to the "overn!ent. )he *e la Ra!as have withdrawn and appropriated for the!selves the a!ount paid by 9uerrero. )his a!ount represented the purchase price of the entire A 175 s'uare !eters of land includin" the e/propriated portion which was the sub7ect of their a"ree!ent. )he pay!ent therefore to the! of the value of the e/propriated portion would un7ustly enrich the!.

NPC vs. AN!AS W1& the computation of legal rates of interest on ?ust compensation for e propriated lands is .C or >$C per annum7 4t is clear fro! the fore"oin" provision that the Central &an+ circular applies only to loan or forbearance of !oney "oods or credits. 4n the case at bar the transaction involved is clearly not a loan or forbearance of !oney "oods or credits but e/propriation of certain parcels of land for a public purpose the pay!ent of which is without stipulation re"ardin" interest and the interest ad7ud"ed by the trial court is in the nature of inde!nity for da!a"es. )he le"al interest re'uired to be paid on the a!ount of 7ust co!pensation for the properties e/propriated is !anifestly in the for! of inde!nity for da!a"es for the delay in the pay!ent thereof. )herefore since the +ind of interest involved in the 7oint 7ud"!ent of the lower court sou"ht to be enforced in this case is interest by way of da!a"es and not by way of earnin"s fro! loans etc. Art. ??1$ of the Civil Code shall apply.