Paguirigan, Tony
street purposes; and that the expropriation was not necessary as a
THE CITY OF MANILA v. CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA ET AL.,
G.R. No. 14355. October 31, 1919
Ponente: JOHNSON, J.
Doctrine: Power of eminent domain
 When a municipal corporation attempts to expropriate private property
and and objection is made by the owner, the courts have ample
authority to make inquiry and to hear proof upon an issue properly
presented, concerning the question whether or not the purpose of the
appropriation is for some public use. The right of expropriation is not
inherent power in a municipal corporation and before it can exercise the
right some law must exist conferring the power upon it.
 A municipal corporation in this jurisdiction cannot expropriate public
property. The land to be expropriated must be private, and the purpose
of the expropriation must be public. If the court upon trial, finds that
neither of said condition exists, or that either one of them fails, the right
to expropriate does not exist.
 The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a
genuine necessity, andthat necessity must be of a public character
Facts:
 On the Dec. 11, 1916, the city of Manila presented a petition in the CFI
praying that certain lands, therein particularly described, be
expropriated for the purpose of constructing a public improvement,
namely, the extension of the Rizal Avenue, Manila, it is necessary for the
plaintiff to acquire ownership in fee simple of certain parcels of land
situated in the district of Binondo of said city.
 The defendants contends: said expropriation was not a public
improvement; it was either necessary or expedient that said parcels be
expropriated for street purposes; that if the construction of the street or
road should be considered a public necessity, other routes were
available,which would fully satisfy the plaintiff’s purposes, at much less
expense and without disturbing the resting places were a great number
of Chinese were buried in said cemetery; the plaintiff was without right
or authority to expropriate said cemetery or any part or portion for
public improvement.
 Honorable Judge Simplicio de lRosario decided that there was no
necessity for the expropriation of the particular land in question
 The theory of the plaintiff is, that once it has established the fact, under
the law, that it has authority to expropriate land, it may expropriate any
land it may desire; the only function of the court is to ascertain the value
of the land in question; neither the court nor owners of the land can
inquire into the purpose of the expropriation or ask any questions
concerning the necessities; 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.
 That the authority of city of Manila to expropriate private lands for
public purposes, cannot be denied, pursuant to Sec. 2429 of Act No.
2711 (Charter of the city of Manila) provides that "the city…may
condemn private property for public use."
ISSUE:
W/N expropriation is exclusively a legislative function, and that the courts cannot
intervene except for the purpose of determining the value of the land in question
-NO
W/N in expropriation proceedings by the city of Manila, may the courts inquire
into, and hear proof upon, the necessity of the expropriation -YES
Held:
 If the Legislature should grant general authority to a municipal
corporation to expropriate private land for public purposes, the courts
have ample authority to make inquiry and to hear proof, upon an issue
properly presented, concerning whether or not the lands were private
and whether the purpose was public.
 The city of Manila is given authority to expropriate private lands for
public purposes. However, the right of expropriation is not an inherent
power in a municipal corporation, and before it can exercise the right,
some law must exist conferring the power upon it.
 In the present case there are two conditions imposed upon the authority  The city of Manila can only expropriate private property. It is a well
conceded to the City of Manila: First, the land must be private; and, known fact that cemeteries may be public or private. The former is a
second, the purpose must be public. If the court, upon trial, finds that cemetery used by the general community, or neighborhood, or church,
neither of these conditions exists or that either one of them fails, while the latter is used only by a family, or a small portion of the
certainly it cannot be contended that the right is being exercised in community or neighborhood. Where a cemetery is open to the public, it
accordance with law. is a public use and no part of the ground can be taken for other public
 Whether it was wise, advisable, or necessary to confer upon a uses under a general authority. And this immunity extends to the
municipality the power to exercise the right of eminent domain, is a unimproved and unoccupied parts which are held in good faith for
question with which the courts are not concerned. BUT when that right future use.
or authority is exercised for the purpose of depriving citizens of their  The record contains no proof of the necessity of expropriating the
property, the courts are authorized to make inquiry and to hear proof property. Adjoining and adjacent lands have been offered to the city free
upon the necessity in the particular case. of charge, which will answer every purpose of the plaintiff.
 The right to take private property for public use originates in the The SC affirmed the judgment of the lower court.
necessity, and the taking must be limited by such necessity. The Charter
of the city of Manila authorizes the taking of private property for public
use. If there is no public use, then there is no necessity, and if there is no
necessity, it is difficult to understand how a public use can necessarily
exist.
 If the courts can inquire into the question whether a public use exists or
not, then it seems that that they can examine into the question of the
necessity. The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is
a genuine necessity, and that necessity must be of a public character.
 The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain must not be
confused with the right to exercise it in a particular case.
o The power of the legislature to confer, upon municipal corps
and other entities within the State, the general authority to
exercise the right of eminent domain cannot be questioned by
the courts, BUT the moment the municipal corp or entity
attempts to exercise that authority, it must comply with the
conditions accompanying the authority. The necessity for
conferring the authority upon a municipal corp to exercise the
right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of the
legislature. BUT w/n the municipal corpo 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.