Extraordinary Expropriation

Ordinary Extraordinary
Purpose/use public use private use; benefit of
certain individuals
Governing Constitutional Art III, Sec 9 Art XIII, Sec 4
Provisions

Ordinary distinguished from extraordinary

Purpose of Expropriation

- Social justice equity enhanced public welfare

The discretionary power of the President under Sec. 1 or Sec. 10 of CA No. 539

Lands covered by EE

Effect of grouping together the shares of small landowners

Ability of Tenants to Cultivate

Order of preference/priority:

1. Bona fide tenants

2. Occupants good faith is a requirement
3. Private individuals

Effect of Sale of Landed Estate before Government has expropriated it

Interest of Education Superior to interest of a few tenants

Sale and Expropriation distinguished

Power of Eminent Domain superior to the Non-Infringement of Contracts

Clause

Contract between private entities = YES

Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685

If the government is itself a party to the contract of sale= NO

Noble v. City of Manila, 38 O.G. 2770

Propriety of Expropriation when ownership is disputed

Mun. of Caloocan v. Chian Huat & Co., L-6301, Oct. 30, 1954
Natividad Herrera, et al. v. Luy Kim Guan, et al., L-17043, Jan. 31, 1961

Soriano v. Ong Hoo, L-10931, May 28, 1958

Estanislao Alfonso v. Pasay City L-12754, Jan. 30, 1960

No Res Judicata with respect to Damages

Stages in Expropriation

As ruled by SC in Mun. of Binan v. Hon. Jose Mar Garcia, et al (180 SCRA 576[1989])

1st Stage:

1. determination of the AUTHORITY of the plaintiff to exercise the power of ED

2. the PROPRIETY of its exercise of power of ED

2nd Stage: determination by the Court of the just compensation by the property
sought to be taken

Reyes v. National Housing Authority

395 SCRA 494

(2003)

In this instant controversy, the Supreme Court asseverated the following, thus:

1. it is now settled doctrine that the concept of public use is no longer limited to
traditional purposes the idea that public use is strictly limited to clear cases of
use by the public has been abandoned and the term has not been held to be
synonymous with public interest, public benefit, public welfare, and public
convenience;

2. expropriation of private lands for slum clearance and urban development is for a
public purpose even if the developed area is later sold to private homeowners,
commercial firms, entertainment and service companies, and other private
concerns;

3. the expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized housing for the
marginalized sector is in furtherance of the social justice provision under Sec. 1, Art.
XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution;

4. 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
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; and
5. it is a recognized rule that although the right to enter upon and appropriate the
land to public use is compelled prices to payment, title to the property expropriated
shall pass from the owner to the expropriation only upon full payment of the just
compensation.

Urban Land Reform

Pablo Nidoy v. CA and Charles Ang, GR 105017, Sep. 30, 1992

Right of Pre-emption - applies only to tenants who have resided for ten (10) years or
more on the leased land declared as within the Urban Land Reform Zone, and who
have built their homes on that land.

Rationale for the Rule on non-eviction

Instance When Any Transaction Entered Into By the Municipality Involving

the Land Is Governed By the Applicable Civil Law

De Guzman v. Court of Appeals 504 SCRA 238 (2006)

Lucero, Jr. v. City Government of Pasig 508 SCRA 23 (2006)