Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

Eminent domain is the authority and right of the state, as sovereign, to

take private property for public use upon observance of due process of law
and payment of just compensation.
Expropriation is the procedure for enforcing the right of eminent domain
1. PLDT vs NTC
- PLDT assails by way of CERTIORARI and PROHIBITION
- 2 orders of NTC granting Express Telecommunications Co Inc (ETCI)
provisional
authority to INSTALL, OPERATE and MAINTAIN a Cellular
Mobile Telephone System in Metro Manila.
- NTC orders PLDT to interconnect by way of an interconnection
agreement
- After several attempts of giving grounds to the NTC for the
disqualification of ETCI, it was finally elevated to the SC
- PLDT vehemently opposes interconnection with ETCI
PLDT contention:
-NTC has no jurisdiction to grant them the CPCN (Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity) or interconnection with PLDT
-to compel PLDT to interconnect merely to give viability to a
prospective competitor, which cannot stand on its own feet, cannot be
justified in the name of a non-existent
public need
SC: The interconnection which has been required of PLDT is a form of
intervention with property rights dictated by the objective of
government to promote the rapid expansion of telecommunications
services in all areas of the Philippines
- The NTC, as the regulatory agency of the State, merely exercised its
delegated authority to regulate the use of telecommunications
network when it decreed interconnection.
NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF NTC.
SO eminent domain sa NTC nga mo allow sa interconnection sa PLDT and
ETCI for public consumption and for the benefit of expanding
communications of the country
Share2 lang :) kay nindot!!!

CRUZ, J., concurring and dissenting:


As one of the many dissatisfied customers of PLDT, I should have no
objection to the grant of the provisional authority to ETCI. I have
none. Its admission will improve communication facilities in the
country conformably to the constitutional objective. It will also keep
PLDT on its toes and encourage it to correct its deficient service in
view of the competition.
I fully agree with all the rulings in the ponencia except the approval
of the requirement for PLDT to interconnect with ETCI. I think it
violates due process. It reminds me of the story of the little red hen

who found some rice and asked who would help her plant it. None of
the animals in the farm was willing and neither did they help in
watering, harvesting and finally cooking it. But when she asked,
"Who will help me eat the rice?" everyone wanted to join in. The
little red hen is like PLDT.
If ETCI wants to operate its own telephone system, it should rely on
its own resources instead of riding piggy-back on PLDT. It seems to
me rather unfair for the Government to require PLDT to share with a
newcomer and potential rival what it took PLDT tremendous effort
and long years and billions of pesos to build .
The case of Republic of the Philippines v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620, is not
applicable because it was the Government itself that was there
seeking interconnection of its own telephone system, with PLDT. The
Court recognized the obvious public purpose that justified the
special exercise (by the Government of the power of eminent
domain. But in the case before us, the intended beneficiary is a
private enterprise primarily organized for profit and, indeed, to
compete with PLDT. In effect, the Government is forcing PLDT to
surrender its competitive advantage and share its resources with
ETCI, which may not only supplement but, possibly, even ultimately
supplant PLDT. I do not think government authority extends that far.
The majority disposes of the question of due process by simply
saying that PLDT will have frill opportunity to be heard in the
ascertainment of the just compensation ETCI will have to pay for the
interconnection. That is not the issue. What PLDT is objecting to is
not the amount of the just compensation but the interconnection
itself that is being forced upon it.
I feel there is no due process where private property is taken by the
Government from one private person and given to another private
person for the latter's direct benefit. The fact that compensation is
paid is immaterial; the flaw lies in the taking itself (Davidson v. New
Orleans, 90 U.S. 97). The circumstance that PLDT is a public utility is
no warrant for taking undue liberties with its property, which is
protected by the Bill of Rights. "Public need" cannot be a blanket
justification for favoring one investor against another in
contravention of the system of free enterprise. If PLDT has misused
its franchise, I should think the solution is to revoke its authority, not
to force it to share its resources with its private competitors.
The rule is that where it is the legislature itself that directly calls for
the expropriation of private property, its determination of the thing
to be condemned and the purpose of the taking is conclusive on the
courts (City of Manila v. Chinese Community, 40 Phil. 349). But
where the power of eminent domain is exercised only by a delegate
of the legislature, like ETCI, the courts may inquire into the necessity

or propriety of the expropriation and, when warranted, pronounce its


invalidity (Republic of the Philippines v. La Orden de PO Benedictinos
de Filipinas, 1 SCRA 649). I think this is what the Court should do in
the case at bar.
A final point. It is argued that requiring ETCI to start from scratch (as
PLDT did) and import its own equipment would entail a tremendous
outflow of foreign currency we can ill afford at this time. Perhaps so.
But we must remember that the Bill of Rights is not a marketable
commodity, like a piece of machinery. Due process is an
indispensable requirement that cannot be assessed in dollar and
cents.
2. NPC v Pobre
- NPC (Natl Power Corp.) is a public corp. Created to generate
geothermal,
hydroelectric, nuclear and other power and to transmit
electric power nationwide
- NPC is authorized by law to acquire property and exercise the right of
eminent domain
- Antonino Pobre is the owner of 68,969 sq.m. land in Albay which he
developed as a
resort subdivision, which he named Tiwi Hot Springs
Resort Subd.
- Commission on Volcanology certified that thermal mineral water and
steam were
present beneath the property.
- NPC then became involved with Pobres property in three instances:
A. Pobre leased to NPC for 1 yr 11 lots from the approved subd.
Plan
B. NPC filed its expropriation case against Pobre to acquire
8,311.60 sq.m of the property. NPC paid P25 per sq.m/ P207,790 (this
is where NPC dumped waste materials to Pobres property and NPC did
not act on the complaints of Pobre)
C. NPC filed another expropriation case against Pobre to acquire an
additional 5,554sq m for the construction and maintenance of
Naglabong Well Site F-20 and deposited payments to Pobre
Pobre filed a motion to dismiss the second complaint for expropriation bec.
NPC damaged his property. Pobre prayed for compensation of all the lots
affected and payments for damages.
NPC did not push thru with the expropriation bec. It already found another
property but the the trial court allowed Pobre to adduce evidence on his
claim for damages.
NPC contended the dismissal of the complaint carried with it the dismissal
of Pobres claim of damages
SC: The power of Eminent Domain is subject to limitations. The court must
see to it that the taking is for public use, there is payment of just
compensation and there is due process of law.

NPCs taking of Pobres property without filing the appropriate


expropriation proceedings and paying him just compensation is a
transgression of procedural due process.
When the defendant claims that his land has suffered damage bec. Of the
expropriation, the dismissal of the action should not foreclose the
defendants right to have his damages ascertained either in the same case
or in a separate action.
3. Lagcao vs Labra
- in 1964, the Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the city of Cebu
- One of these lots was Lot 1029 situated in Capitol Hills, Cebu City
which was purchased by the petitioners, Lagcao on installment basis.
- in late 1965, the 210 lots, including lot1029, reverted to the Province
of Cebu
- the province tried to annul the sale of the lot by the City of Cebu to
Labra
- this prompted Lagcao to sue the province. Trial Court and CA ruled in
favor of the
petitioners, Lagcao
- After acquiring title, petitioners tried to take possession of the lot
only to discover that it was already occupied by squatters. Thus,
petitioners instituted ejectment proceedings.
MTCC and CA affirmed
the demolition.
- the ejectment was suspended due to the request of Mayor Garcia
that they are still looking for the relocation of the squatters
- during the suspension, the Sangguiniang Panglungsod (SP) of Cebu
City passed a resolution which identified Lot 1029 as a socializing
housing site.
Petitioners contention:
- petitioners filed an action declaring the Ordinance as unconstitutional
as it sanctions the expropriation of their property for the purpose of selling
it to the squatters, an endeavor contrary to the concept of public use
contemplated in the constitution.
SC: ruled in favor of the petitioners
The exercise of the power of eminent domain drastically affects a
landowners right to property. The due process clause cannot be trampled
upon each time an ordinacne orders the expropriation of a private
individuals property.
Ordinance stated no reason for the choice of petitioners property as the
site of a socialized housing project.
This is depriving a citizen of his property for the convenience of a few
without perceptible benefit to the public.
4. Republic vs Castellvi
- The republic, through the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP),
entered into a lease agreement over a land in Pampanga with Castellvi
on a year-to-year basis

- When Castellvi gave notice to terminate the lease, the AFP refused
because of the
permanent installations and other facilities that were
established in the property
- She then instituted an ejectment proceeding against the AFP.
-however, the republic commenced the expropriation proceedings for
the land in
question.
ISSUE: Whether or not the compensation should be determined as of
1947(commencement of lease) or 1959(the actual taking)?
RULING: The taking should not be reckoned as of 1947, and that just
compensation should
not be determined on the basis of the value of
the property as of that year.
-The requisites for taking are:
1. The expropriator must enter a private property;
2. The entry must be for more than a momentary period;
3. It must be under warrant or color of authorities;
4. The property must be devoted for public use or otherwise
informally appropriated
or injuriously affected; and
5. The utilization of the property for public use must be such a way as
to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
Only requisites 1, 3, and 4 were present.
- just compensation is to be determined as of the date of the
filing of the complaint.
5. Emiliano de los Santos vs IAC
- Petitioners are co-owners of a parcel of land in Rizal
- Petitioners alleged (in the 1st civil case filed) that without their knowledge
or
consent, Cadiente, a private contractor and the Provincial
Engineer of Rizal,
constructed a road and an artificial creek which
occupied a portion of their land.
- Petitioners prayed, declaring illegal the construction of the road and
artificial creek
which was made "without due process and without just
compensation
-An action for damages (2nd civil case) was also filed.
- CFI dismissed on the ground that they are suits against the state
- SC referred the case to IAC.
- IAC affirmed CFIs decision stating that appellants remedy lies elsewhere
SC:

-Where private property has been taken in expropriation without just


compensation being paid, the defense of immunity from suit cannot be set up by
the State.
- As stated in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, where private property has been
taken in expropriation without just compensation being paid, the defense of
immunity from suit cannot be set up by the State against an action for payment
by the owner.
-Court found that the respondent government officials executed a shortcut in
appropriating petitioners' property for public use.
- Public respondents' belief that the property involved is public, even if
buttressed by statements of other public officials, is no reason for the unjust
taking of petitioners' property.

-Had the public respondents, including the other officials involved in the
construction, performed their functions by exercising even the ordinary diligence
expected of them as public officials, they would not have failed to note that the
property is a private one

6. Moday vs CA
- Moday is a private land owner in the Bunawan, Agusan Del Sur
- The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Bunawan passed a
resolution, Authorizing the Municipal Mayor to initiate the
expropriation of 1 hectare portion
land of Percival Moday
- The Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved the resolution and
returned it with a comment that the expropriation is unnecessary
considering that there are still available lots in Bunawan for the
establishment of the Govt center.
- Municipality files a petition for eminent domain in RTC and a motion
to take the
possession.
- RTC granted the SB. It ruled the SPl failure to declare the
resolution invalid leaves it
effective. It added that the duty of SPl
id merely to review the ordinances and resoltuions passed by the SB
- The Municipality had erect 3 bldgs on the subject property namely:
Assoc. of Brgy. Councils Hall, Mun. Motorpool and Bunawan Mun.
Gymnasium
ISSUE: WON a municipality may expropriate private property by virtue of a
municipal resolution invoking eminent domain.
SC: YES.
- It is the governments right to appropriate in nature of a compulsory sale
to the state, private property for public use or purpose. Provided, that
there must be a just compensation.
- SPl disapproval of the said resolution without declaring it invalid is
null and void.
The law says: Sec. 153, BP Blg. 337 grants the SPl the power to
declare the municipal resolution invalid on the sole ground that it
is beyond the power of SB or Mayor to issue
7. NPC vs De la Cruz
- Napocor is a govt owned and controlled corp.
- NPC decided to acquire an easement right of way over portions of
land w/in the areas of Dasmarinas and Imus, Cavite for the construction
and maintenance of the proposed Transmission line project
- NPC expropriated the land of spouses de la cruz for easement of right
of way
- Commissioners conducted an ocular inspection in SK Dynamics and
had a report that the subject property is within the residential/ commercial
zone therefore, P10,000 per sq.m
- NPC contended that the 10k compensation is exorbitant, unjust and
unreasonable
SC: Petition granted.
-The compensation to be just, must be fair not only to the owner but also
to the taker.

- to determine just compensation, the trial court should first ascertain the
market value at the time of the taking
- commisioners report was flawed they did not take acct. The Asian
financial crisis, it did not based its report during the filing of expropriation.
Clearly, the legal basis for determination of just compensation in this case
is insufficient.
8. Eslaban vs de Onorio
- de Onorio is the owner of a lot in Barangay M. Roxas, Sto. Nino, South
Cotabato
-Santiago Eslaban, Jr., Project Manager of the NIA, approved the
construction of the main irrigation canal of the NIA on the said lot
- De Onorio's husband agreed to the construction of the NIA canal
- Sometime in 1983, a Rightof-Way agreement was executed between
De Onorio and the NIA. The NIA then paid De Onorio the amount of
P4,180.00 as Right-of-Way damages
- De Onorio subsequently executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and
Fees whereby she waived any compensation for damages to crops and
improvements which she suffered as a result of the construction of a rightof-way on her property.
- De Onorio demanded payment for the taking of her property, but
Eslaban/NIA refused to pay
- but Eslaban interposed the defense that:
(1) the government had not consented to be sued;
(2) the total area used by the NIA for its irrigation canal was only 2.27
hectares, not 24,600 square meters; and
(3) that De Onorio was not entitled to compensation for the taking of
her property considering that she secured title over the property by virtue
of a homestead patent under Commonwealth Act
ISSUE: Whether the valuation of just compensation is determined at the
time the property was taken or at the time the complaint for expropriation
is filed.
Held:
Herein, the irrigation canal constructed by the NIA on the contested
property was built only on 6 October 1981, several years after the
property had been registered on 13 May 1976.
Accordingly, prior expropriation proceedings should have been filed
and just compensation paid to the owner thereof before it could be taken
for public use. With respect to the compensation which the owner of the
condemned property is entitled to receive, it is likewise settled that it is
the market value which should be paid
Nevertheless, there are instances where the expropriating agency
takes over the property prior to the expropriation suit, in which case just
compensation shall be determined as of the time of taking, not as of the
time of filing of the action of eminent domain. The value of the property,
thus, must be determined either as of the date of the taking of the
property or the filing of the complaint, "whichever came first."
9. NPC vs Henson

- The National Power Corporation initiated a complaint for eminent


domain for the taking for public use of five (5) parcels of land, owned by
respondents, for the expansion of the NPC Mexico Sub-Station.
- The petitioner tried to fix the value of the land but was met of a price
of 180 to 250 pesos due to the respondents
- respondents are still unsatisfied
- 3 commissioners were then authorized by the trial court to determine
the provisional value of the land for just compensation. The values were in
350, 375, and 170 per sqm
- - The parcels of land sought to be expropriated are undeniably idle,
undeveloped, raw agricultural land, bereft of any improvement.
- Except for the Henson family, all the other respondents were
admittedly farmer beneficiaries under operation land transfer of the
Department of Agrarian Reform.
- However, the land has been re-classified as residential.
ISSUE: What is the just compensation for the taking of respondents
property for the expansion of the NPCs Mexico Sub-station?
SC: P375.00 per sqm. CA decision modified.
- Commissioner Atienza recommended a fair market value at
P375.00 per square meter. This appears to be the closest valuation to
the market value of lots in the adjoining fully developed
subdivision. Considering that the subject parcels of land are
undeveloped raw land, the price of P375.00 per square meter would
appear to the Court as the just compensation for the taking of such raw
land.
- The court agreed with petitioner that the area of the communal
irrigation canal consisting of 4,809 square meters must be excluded from
the land to be expropriated. To begin with, it is excluded in the amended
complaint. Hence, the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in
including the same in the area to be taken.
10. City of Cebu vs Dedamo
- City of Cebu filed a complaint for eminent domain against
respondents spouses Apolonio and Blasa Dedamo.
The petitioner alleged therein that it needed the land for a public
purpose, i.e., for the construction of a public road which shall serve as
an access/relief road of Gorordo Avenue to extend to the General
Maxilum Avenue and the back of Magellan International Hotel
Roads in Cebu City.
- The lower court fixed the amount of just compensation at
P20,826,339.50.
- Petitioner alleged that the lower court erred in fixing the amount of
just compensation at P20,826,339.50.
- The just compensation should be based on the prevailing market
price of the property at the commencement of the expropriation
proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not just compensation should be determined as of the
date of the filing of the complaint.

HELD: NO. In the case at bar, the applicable law as to the point of
reckoning for the determination of just compensation is Section 19 of
R.A. No. 7160, which expressly provides that just compensation
shall be determined as of the time of actual taking.
The petitioner has misread our ruling in The National Power Corp.
vs. Court of Appeals. We did not categorically rule in that case that just
compensation should be determined as of the filing of the complaint.
We explicitly stated therein that although the general rule in
determining just compensation in eminent domain is the value of the
property as of the date of the filing of the complaint, the rule
"admits of an exception: where this Court fixed the value of the
property as of the date it was taken and not at the date of the
commencement of the expropriation proceedings."
11. Republic vs Vicente Lim
- Republic instituted a special civil action for expropriation of a land in
Lahug, Cebu City for the purpose of establishing a military reservation for
the Philippine Army.
-The said lots were registered in the name of Gervasia and Eulalia
Denzon.
- The Republic deposited P9,500 in the PNB then took possession of
the lots.
- In 1950, one of the heirs of the Denzons, filed with the National
Airports Corporation a claim for rentals for the two lots, but it "denied
knowledge of the matter."
- For failure of the Republic to pay for the lots, on September 20, 1961,
the Denzons successors-in-interest, Valdehueza and Panerio, filed with the
same CFI an action for recovery of possession with damages against the
Republic and AFP officers in possession of the property.
- They appealed the CFIs decision to the SC. The latter held that
Valdehueza and Panerio are still the registered owners of Lots 932 and
939, there having been no payment of just compensation by the Republic.
- Valdehueza and Panerio mortgaged Lot 932 to Vicente Lim, herein
respondent, as security for their loans. For their failure to pay Lim despite
demand, he had the mortgage foreclosed in 1976. The lot title was issued in his
name.
ISSUE: Whether the Republic has retained ownership of Lot 932 despite its
failure to pay respondents predecessors-in-interest the just compensation
therefor pursuant to the judgment of the CFI rendered as early as May 14,
1940.

SC: NO
- SC ruled in earlier cases that expropriation of lands consists of two
stages.
First is concerned with the determination of the authority of the
plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its
exercise.
The second is concerned with the determination by the court of "the
just compensation for the property sought to be taken."
Thus, here, the failure of the Republic to pay respondent and his
predecessors-in-interest for a period of 57 years rendered the
expropriation process incomplete.

While the prevailing doctrine is that "the non-payment of just


compensation does not entitle the private landowner to recover
possession of the expropriated lots, however, in cases where the
government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years from
the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the
owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their
property.
12. Mactan Cebu Intl Airport Authority vs CA
- Chiongbian ordered the MCIAA to restore to her possession and
ownership of the property which the Civil Aeronautics Administration,
predecessor of MCIAA, expropriated for the expansion and improvement of
the Lahug airport.
-MCIAA and its predecessors-in-interest failed to undertake its purpose,
in fact, the airport was subsequently shut down and all its activities were
transferred to Mactan International Airport.
-respondent also claimed that she previously accepted the
compensation upon the assurance by the NAC that she or her heirs would
be given the right of reconveyance for the same price once the land would
no longer be used as airport, hence, her complaint.
-MCIAA that the Republic of the Philippines contended that it
appropriated the lot through expropriation proceedings and the judgment
rendered therein was unconditional and did not contain a stipulation that
ownership thereof would revert to Chiongbian nor did it give Chiongbian
the right to repurchase the same in the event the lot was no longer used
for the purpose it was expropriated. Moreover, Chiongbians claim
that there was a repurchase agreement is not supported by
documentary evidence.
Issues:
Whether the abandonment of the public use for which the property
was expropriated entitles the private respondent the right to reacquire the
same.
SC: NO.
When land has been acquired for public use in fee simple,
unconditionally, either by the exercise of eminent domain or by purchase,
the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be
abandoned, or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any
impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any reversion to the former
owner.
As with the present case the terms of the judgment are clear and
unequivocal and grant title to the lot in fee simple to the Republic of the
Philippines. There was no condition imposed to the effect that the lot
would return to Chiongbian or that Chiongbian had a right to repurchase
the same if the purpose for which it was expropriated is ended or
abandoned or if the property was to be used other than as the Lahug
airport.
Additionally, Chiongbians testimony shows that she had no personal
knowledge of the alleged assurance made by the Republic of the
Philippines that her lot would be returned to her in the event that the
Lahug Airport was closed. She stated that she only learned of the alleged

assurance of the Republic of the Philippines through her lawyer, Attorney


Calderon, who was not presented as a witness. Being hearsay, such
testimony is inadmissible under the Statute of Frauds.
13. City of Mandaluyong vs Francisco
14. Mactan Cebu Intl Airport Lozada G Authority vs Bernardo R
15. Reyes vs NHA
16. Republic vs Salem Investment

17. Spouses Campos vs NPC