Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


City of Manila vs Chinese The important question presented Whether or not the City of When exercised by local government unit: Eminent Domain No. It is true that Section 2429 of
Community of Manila, 40 by this appeal is: In expropriation proceedings Manila can condemn private Act No. 2711, or the Charter of
Phil 349 by the city of Manila, may the courts inquire property for public use the City of Manila states that
into, and hear proof upon, the necessity of the "the city (Manila) . . . may
expropriation? condemn private property for
The City of Manila presented a public use." But when the statute
petition in the Court of First Instance of said does not designate the property
city, praying that certain lands, therein to be taken nor how it may be
particularly described, be expropriated for the taken, the necessity of taking
purpose of constructing a public improvement. particular property is a question
The petitioner alleged that for the purpose of for the courts. When the
constructing an extension of Rizal Avenue, application to condemn or
Manila, it is necessary for the plaintiff to appropriate property is made
acquire ownership of certain parcels of land directly to the court, the question
situated in the district of Binondo. The of necessity should be raised
defendants the Chinese Community of (Wheeling, etc. R. R. Co. vs.
Manila, Ildefonso Tambunting, and Feliza Toledo, Ry, etc., Co. [72 Ohio
Concepcion de Delgado alleged in their St., 368]). The necessity for
Answer (a) that no necessity existed for said conferring the authority upon a
expropriation and (b) that the land in question municipal corporation to
was a cemetery, which had been used as exercise the right of eminent
such for many years, and was covered with domain is admittedly within the
sepulchres and monuments, and that the power of the legislature. But
same should not be converted into a street for whether or not the municipal
public purposes. One of the defendants, corporation or entity is
Ildefonso Tampbunting, offered to grant a exercising the right in a
right of way for the said extension over other particular case under the
land, without cost to the plaintiff, in order that conditions imposed by the
the sepulchers, chapels and graves of his general authority, is a question
ancestors may not be disturbed. which the courts have the right
The Honorable Simplicio del to inquire into.
Rosario, decided that there was no necessity The impossibility of
for the expropriation of the particular strip of measuring the damage and
land in question, and absolved each and all of inadequacy of a remedy at law is
the defendants from all liability under the too apparent to admit of
complaint, without any finding as to costs. On argument. To disturb the mortal
appeal, the plaintiff contended that the city of remains of those endeared to us
Manila has authority to expropriate private in life sometimes becomes the
lands for public purposes. Section 2429 of Act sad duty of the living; but, except
No. 2711 (Charter of the city of Manila) in cases of necessity, or for
provides that "the city (Manila) . . . may laudable purposes, the sanctity
condemn private property for public use." of the grave, the last resting
place of our friends, should be
maintained, and the preventative
aid of the courts should be
invoked for that object. (Railroad
Company vs. Cemetery Co., 116
Tenn., 400; Evergreen Cemetery