Keithel L.

Siao [MSBA 1]

FACTS:

Regional Trial Court(RTC) authorized the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA)to

take immediate possession of the 282 Ha of land in Barangay Malubog and Babag in
Cebu City for the development of a sports complex

• Complimentary and support facilities

• Electric power grid

• Deep wells

• Complex sewerage & drainage system

Philippine Tourism Authority deposited an amount equivalent to 10% of the

value of the property

Regional Trial Court(RTC) Decision

• This is in line with the policy of the government to promote tourism and development of
tourism projects (PD 564) through *condemnation proceedings

• *Condemnation proceedings: proceedings that relate to the right of the condemnor

to take the property, and proceedings to set the amount of compensation to be paid
for the property taken

• The petitioners who are occupants of the lands, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court

Contention 1 of the heirs of Juancho Ardona:

1. The taking was not for public use

• There is no specific constitutional provision authorizing the taking of
private property for tourism purposes

• The promotion of tourism is not for public use because private

concessionaires would be allowed to maintain restaurants, hotels, stores
etc.

SUPREME COURT DECISION: NO MERIT

-”As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of
eminent domain comes into play. It is accurate to state that whatever may
be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement
of public use”

-Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando

2. Contention 2 of the heirs of Juancho Ardona:

2 .The land was covered by the land reform program

Petitioners claim that Certificates of Land Transfer and emancipation patents have
already been issued to them thereby making the lands expropriated within the coverage of
the Land Reform Area

Page 1 of 2
 Keithel L. Siao [MSBA 1]

Property already taken for public use may not be taken for another public use

SUPREME COURT DECISION: NO MERIT

• Any claims of rights under the social justice and land reform provisions
of the Constitution deserves the most serious consideration

• However, the petitioners have failed to show that the area being
developed is indeed a land reform area and that the affected persons
have emancipation patents and certificates of land transfer.

Contention 3 of the heirs of Juancho Ardona:

3. Impairment of the obligation of contracts

• They claim that since the necessity for the taking has not been previously
established, the issuance of the orders authorizing the PTA to take immediate
possession of the premises was premature

SUPREME COURT DECISION: NO MERIT

• The government, its agency or instrumentality, is authorized to take

immediate possesion, control and disposition of the property and the
improvements, with power of demolition, nothwithstanding the
pendency of the issues before the court, upon deposit with the PNB of
an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the property expropriated

-PD 42, amended by PD 1533

OVERALL VERDICT: CASE DISMISSED DUE TO LACK OF MERIT

INSIGHTS:

• The power of eminent domain is NEGATIVE for small businesses; POSITIVE on big
businesses.

• Some governments appear inclined to exercise eminent domain for the benefit of developers
or commercial interests, on the basis that anything that increases the value of a given tract
of land is a sufficient public use.

• These concerns began to arise as the economic landscape shifted from agrarian to urban.
Prior to the mid-1900s, eminent domain was invoked primarily to acquire farm lands in
connection with the development of the nation's railroads, highways, and public utilities.
Typically, such actions did not disrupt small businesses.

• Now, however, eminent domain proceedings are associated more commonly with urban
redevelopment programs and public works projects. Each year such activities result in the
relocation of thousands of businesses.

Page 2 of 2
Keithel L. Siao [MSBA 1]

Page 3 of 2