Domain and Taxation

Ichong vs. Hernandez

The treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law,

and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the
State.

Lutz vs. Araneta

The tax levied by the challenged statute is for a regulatory purpose, namely, to
provide ways and means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of the sugar
industry. x x x The law is thus primarily an exercise of the police power of the state
and taxation was merely used to implement the states power.

Department of Education vs. San Diego

The State has the responsibility to harness its human resources and to see to it that
they are not dissipated or, no less worse, not used at all.

Republic of the Philippines vs. La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas

Whether or not the purpose of the taking is necessary is a question of fact

dependent only upon the facts of which the trial court very liberally took judicial
notice but also other facts that do not appear of record and must, therefore, be
established by means of evidence.

City of Manila vs. Chinese Community

Whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a

particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a question
which the courts have the right to inquire into.

Republic of the Philippines vs. PLDT

Normally, the power of eminent domain results in taking or appropriation of title to,
and possession of, the expropriated party; but no cogent reason appears why said
power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of the
condemned property, without loss of title and possession. x x x the state may, in
the interest of national welfare, transfer utilities to public ownership upon payment
of just compensation, there is no reason why a state may not require a public utility
to render services in the general interest, provided just compensation is paid
therefor.

National Housing Authority vs. Reyes

Although in an expropriation proceeding the court technically would still have the
power to determine the just compensation for the property, following the applicable
decrees, its task would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the
property as declared either by the owner or the assessor.

It is violative of due process to deny the owner the opportunity to prove that the
valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to the basic
concepts of justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of a minor bureaucrat
or clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgement of a court promulgated only after
expert commissioners have actually viewed the property, after evidence and
arguments pro and con have been presented, and after all factors and
considerations essential to a fair and just determination have been judiciously
evaluated.

Association of Small Land Owners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform

It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional medium for the payment of
just compensation is money and no other. x x x This is not an ordinary expropriation
where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the
State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. what we deal here is
a revolutionary kind of expropriation. x x x Considering the vast areas of land
subject to expropriation under the laws before us, we estimate that hundreds of
billions of pesos will be needed, far more indeed than the amount of P50 billion
initially appropriated, which is already staggering as it is by our present standards.
Such amount is in fact not even fully available in cash at this time. x x x

Republic vs. Lim

In cases where the government failed to pay the compensation within five years
from the finality of the judgement in the expropriation proceedings, the owner
concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property. This is in
connection with the principle that the government cannot keep the property and
dishonour the judgement.

Lladoc vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

The exemption in Sec. 22(3) of Article VI of the Constitution is only from the
payment of taxes assessed on such properties enumerated as property taxes as
distinguished from excise taxes. x x x Manifestly, a gift tax is not within the
exemption provisions.

Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad

It would be oppressive and arbitrary to prohibit all Chinese merchants from

maintaining a set of books in the Chinese language, and in the Chinese characters
and thus prevent them from keeping advised of the status of their business and
directing conduct.

of Manila vs Chinese Community of Manila , GR 14355 (1D), 31 October 1919

FACTS: Petitioner (City of Manila) filed a petition praying that certain lands be
expropriated for the purpose of constructing a public improvement namely, the
extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila and claiming that such expropriation was
necessary.

Herein defendants, on the other hand, alleged (a) that no necessity existed for said
expropriation and (b) that the land in question was a cemetery, which had been
used as such for many years, and was covered with sepulchres and monuments,
and that the same should not be converted into a street for public purposes.

The lower court ruled that there was no necessity for the expropriation of the
particular strip of land in question.
Petitioner therefore assails the decision of the lower court claiming that it
(petitioner) has the authority to expropriate any land it may desire; that the only
function of the court in such proceedings is to ascertain the value of the land in
question; that neither the court nor the owners of the land can inquire into the
advisable purpose of the expropriation or ask any questions concerning the
necessities therefor; that the courts are mere appraisers of the land involved in
expropriation proceedings, and, when the value of the land is fixed by the method
adopted by the law, to render a judgment in favor of the defendant for its value.

ISSUE: W/N the courts may inquire into and hear proof upon the necessity of the
expropriation?

HELD: Yes. The courts have the power to restrict the exercise of eminent domain to
the actual reasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by
the law. When the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority
conferred, it must comply with the conditions accompanying such authority. The
necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise the
right of eminent domain is, without question, within the power of the legislature. But
whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a
particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a question
that the courts have the right to inquire into.