G.R. No.

106440

January 29, 1996

ALEJANDRO MANOSCA, ASUNCION MANOSCA and LEONICA MANOSCA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BENJAMIN V. PELAYO, Presiding Judge, RTC-Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 168, HON. GRADUACION A. REYES CLARAVAL, Presiding Judge, RTC-Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 71, and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. facts Petitioners land was ascertained by the NHI to have been the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo. Thus, NHI declared it, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 260, as a national historical landmark. national landmarks are places or objects that are associated with an event, achievement, characteristic, or modification that makes a turning point or stage in Philippine history. Thus, the birthsite of the founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo, the late Felix Y. Manalo, who, admittedly, had made contributions to Philippine history and culture has been declared as a national landmark. It has been held that places invested with unusual historical interest is a public use for which the power of eminent domain may be authorized . . . . The RTC decided in favor of the NHI. Thereafter, respondent Republic filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an order to permit it to take immediate possession of the property. Petitioners contend that the intended expropriation was not for a public purpose. Petitioners assert that the expropriation has failed to meet the guidelines set by the Court to wit: (a) the size of the land expropriated; (b) the large number of people benefited; and, (c) the extent of social and economic reform.13 Petitioners suggest that we confine the concept of expropriation only to the following public uses, 14 i.e., the . . . taking of property for military posts, roads, streets, sidewalks, bridges, ferries, levees, wharves, piers, public buildings including schoolhouses, parks, playgrounds, plazas, market places, artesian wells, water supply and sewerage systems, cemeteries, crematories, and railroads. Issue: whether or not the "public use" requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted expropriation by the Republic of a 492-square-meter parcel of land so declared by the National Historical Institute ("NHI") as a national historical landmark. Held: Yes. 1) the power of eminent domain should not now be understood as being confined only to the expropriation of vast tracts of land and landed estates. The term "public use," not having been otherwise defined by the constitution, must be considered in its general concept of meeting a public need or a public exigency. 16 Black summarizes the characterization given by various courts to the term; thus: Public Use. Eminent domain. The constitutional and statutory basis for taking property by eminent domain. For condemnation purposes, "public use" is one which confers

same benefit or advantage to the public; it is not confined to actual use by public. It is measured in terms of right of public to use proposed facilities for which condemnation is sought and, as long as public has right of use, whether exercised by one or many members of public, a "public advantage" or "public benefit" accrues sufficient to constitute a public use. Montana Power Co. vs. Bokma, Mont. 457 P. 2d 769, 772, 773. Public use, in constitutional provisions restricting the exercise of the right to take private property in virtue of eminent domain, means a use concerning the whole community as distinguished from particular individuals. But each and every member of society need not be equally interested in such use, or be personally and directly affected by it; if the object is to satisfy a great public want or exigency, that is sufficient. Rindge Co. vs. Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct. 689, 692, 67 L.Ed. 1186. The term may be said to mean public usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit. It may be limited to the inhabitants of a small or restricted locality, but must be in common, and not for a particular individual. The use must be a needful one for the public, which cannot be surrendered without obvious general loss and inconvenience. A "public use" for which land may be taken defies absolute definition for it changes with varying conditions of society, new appliances in the sciences, changing conceptions of scope and functions of government, and other differing circumstances brought about by an increase in population and new modes of communication and transportation. Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn., 521, 245 A.2d 579,586. 17 2) The idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has long been discarded. As society advances, its demands upon the individual increase and each demand is a new use to which the resources of the individual may be devoted. . . . for "whatever is beneficially employed for the community is a public use. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. 20 a concept of public use is as just as broad as "public welfare."
22

3) Petitioners ask: But "(w)hat is the so-called unusual interest that the expropriation of (Felix Manalo's) birthplace become so vital as to be a public use appropriate for the exercise of the power of eminent domain" when only members of the Iglesia ni Cristo would benefit? This attempt to give some religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration, for what should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual consequences that might follow from, the exercise of the power. The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature. Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of public use. 23 Eminent domain, also often referred to as expropriation and, with less frequency, as condemnation, is, like police power and taxation, an inherent power of sovereignty. It need not be clothed with any constitutional gear to exist; instead, provisions in our Constitution on the subject are meant more to regulate, rather than to grant, the exercise of the power. Eminent domain is generally so described as "the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government" that may be acquired for

some public purpose through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State.9 It is a right to take or reassert dominion over property within the state for public use or to meet a public exigency. It is said to be an essential part of governance even in its most primitive form and thus inseparable from sovereignty. 10 The only direct constitutional qualification is that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." 11 This proscription is intended to provide a safeguard against possible abuse and so to protect as well the individual against whose property the power is sought to be enforced.

G.R. No. L-51078 October 30, 1980 CRISTINA DE KNECHT, petitioner, vs. HON. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA, as Judge presiding over Branch III of the Court of First Instance (Pasay aCity) and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

The Department of Public Highways proposed an extension of EDSA through Cuneta Avenue but later on changed to go through Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets which would affect residential houses including the petitioners. President Marcos referred the matter to the Human Settlements Commission for investigation and recommendation. The Settlements Commission submitted a report recommending the reversion of the extension of EDSA to the original plan passing through Cuneta Avenue; and that notwithstanding the said report and recommendation, the Ministry of Public Highways insisted on implementing the plan to make the extension of EDSA go through Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets. 2 RTC issued a writ of possession dated June 14, 1979 authorizing the Republic of the Philippines to take and enter upon the possession of the properties sought be condemned. 3 The petitioner contends that "Respondent court lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction or gravely abused its discretion in issuing the order to take over and enter upon the possession of the properties sought to be expropriated-petitioner. The petitioner assails the choice of the Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets route on the following grounds: The choice of property to be expropriated cannot be without rhyme or reason. The condemnor may not choose any property it wants. Where the legislature has delegated a power of eminent do-main, the question of the necessity for taking a particular fine for the intended improvement rests in the discretion of the grantee power subject however to review by the courts in case of fraud, bad faith or gross abuse of discretion. The choice of property must be examined for bad faith, arbitrariness or capriciousness and due process determination as to whether or not the proposed location was proper in terms of the public interests. Even the claim of respondent's Secretary Baltazar Aquino that there would be a saving of P2 million under his new plan must be reviewed for it bears no relation to the site of the proposed EDSA extension As envisioned by the government, the EDSA extension would be linked to the Cavite Expressway.

Logically then, the proposed extension must point to the south and not detour to the north. Also, the equal protection of the law must be accorded, not on to the motel owners along Cuneta (Fisher) Avenue, but also to the owners of solid and substantial homes and quality residential lands occupied for generations. 5 The respondents maintain that the respondent court did not act without jurisdiction or exceed its jurisdiction or gravel abuse its discretion in issuing the order dated June 14, 1979 authorizing the Republic of the Philippines to take over and enter the possession of the properties sought to be appropriated because the Republic has complied with all the statutory requirements which entitled it to have immediate possession of the properties involved. 6 Defending the change of the EDSA extension to pass through Fernando Rein Del Pan Streets, the respondents aver: In selecting the Del Pan Fernando Rein Streets line the Government did do so because it wanted to minimize the social impact factor or problem involved. 7 Issue: Whether or not respondent court acted without jurisdiction or exceeds its jurisdiction or gravel abuse its discretion in issuing the order dated June 14, 1979 authorizing the Republic of the Philippines to take over and enter the possession of the properties sought to be appropriated Held: Yes. The government may not capriciously or arbitrarily' choose what private property should be taken. In the instant case, it is a fact that the Department of Public Highways originally establish the extension of EDSA along Cuneta Avenue. It is doubtful whether the extension of EDSA along Cuneta Avenue can be objected to on the ground of social impact. The improvements and buildings along Cuneta Avenue to be affected by the extension are mostly motels. Even granting, arguendo, that more people be affected, the Human Setlements Commission has suggested coordinative efforts of said Commission with the National Housing Authority and other government agencies in the relocation and resettlement of those adversely affected. 9 Finally, the Hearing Board recommends that the Department of Public Highways conduct public hearings before undertaking on future expropriations of private properties for public use. Thus, it is clear that the choice of Fernando Rein Del Pan Streets as the line through which the Epifanio de los Santos Avenue should be extended to Roxas Boulevard is arbitrary and should not receive judicial approval. The respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in allowing the Republic of the Philippines to take immediate possession of the properties sought to be expropriated

Case Digest on Republic v. De Knecht, 182 SCRA 142 (1990) Republic v. De Knecht, 182 SCRA 142 (1990)

F: De Knecht was one of the owners of several properties along the Fernando Rein-Del Pan streets which the Government sought to expropriate to give way to the extension of EDSA and the construction of drainage facilities. De Knecht filed a case to restrain the Government from proceeding with the expropriation. Her prayer was denied by the lower court but upon certiorari, the SC reversed the lower court decision and granted the relief asked for by De Knecht ruling that the expropriation was arbitrary. The case was remanded to the lower court. No further action was taken despite the SC decision until two years later, in 1983, when the Government moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the Legislature has since enacted BP 340 expropriating the same properties for the same purpose. The lower court denied tthe motion. Appeal. RULING: While it is true that said final judgment of this Curt on the subject becomes the law of the case between the parties, it is equally true that the right of petitioner to take private properties for public use upon payment of just compensation is so provided in the Constitution and the laws.

Such expropriation proceeding may be undertaken by the petitioner not only by voluntary negotiation with the land owners but also by taking appropriate court action or by legislation. When BP 340 was passed, it appears that it was based on supervening events that occured after the 1980 decision of the SC on the De Knecht case was rendered. The social impact factor which persuaded the Court to consider this extension to be arbitrary had disappeared. Moreover, the said decision is no obstacle to the legislative arm of the Government in thereafter making its own independent assessment of the circumstances then pravailing as to the propriety of undertaking the expropriation of properties in question and thereafter by enacting the corresponding legislation as it did in this case. The Court agrees in the wisdom and necessity of enacting BP 340. Thus the anterior decision of the Court must yield to the subsequent legislative fiat

G.R. No. L-59603 April 29, 1987 EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. HON. CEFERINO E. DULAY, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XVI, Lapu-Lapu City, and SAN ANTONIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. Elena M. Cuevas for respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: On January 15, 1979, the President of the Philippines, issued Proclamation No. 1811, reserving a certain parcel of land of the public domain including four private parcels of land for the establishment of an export processing zone by petitioner Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). The petitioner, therefore, offered to purchase the 4 parcels of land from the respondent in accordance with the valuation set forth in Section 92, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 464, as amended. The parties failed to reach an agreement regarding the sale of the property. The petitioner filed a complaint for expropriation with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of possession against the private respondent. Respondent judge issued a writ of possession authorizing the petitioner to take immediate possession of the premises. The respondent judge also issued a second order, subject of this petition, appointing certain persons as commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the just compensation for the properties sought to be expropriated.

On June 19, 1981, the three commissioners submitted their consolidated report recommending the amount of P15.00 per square meter as the fair and reasonable value of just compensation for the properties. On July 29, 1981, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order of February 19, 1981 and Objection to Commissioner's Report on the grounds that P.D. No. 1533 has superseded Sections 5 to 8 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court on the ascertainment of just compensation through commissioners; and that the compensation must not exceed the maximum amount set by P.D. No. 1533. On November 14, 1981, the trial court denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Issue: whether or not Presidential Decrees Numbered 76, 464, 794 and 1533 have repealed and superseded Sections 5 to 8 of Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court, such that in determining the just compensation of property in an expropriation case, the only basis should be its market value as declared by the owner or as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower. Stated in another way, is the exclusive and mandatory mode of determining just compensation in P.D. No. 1533 valid and constitutional? Held: No. The court held that P.D. No. 1533, which eliminates the court's discretion to appoint commissioners pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, is unconstitutional and void. To hold otherwise would be to undermine the very purpose why this Court exists in the first place. The decrees categorically and peremptorily limited the definition of just compensation thus: P.D. No. 76: xxx xxx xxx For purposes of just compensation in cases of private property acquired by the government for public use, the basis shall be the current and fair market value declared by the owner or adminiqtrator, or such market value as determined by the Assessor, whichever is lower. P.D. No. 464: Section 92. Basis for payment of just compensation in expropriation proceedings. In determining just compensation which private property is acquired by the government for public use, the basis shall be the market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower. P.D. No. 794: Section 92. Basis for payment of just compensation in expropriation proceedings. In determining just compensation when private property is acquired by the government for public use, the same shall not exceed the market value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property, or such market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower.

P.D. No. 1533: Section 1. Indeterminingjustcompensationforprivateproperty acquired through eminent domain proceedings, the compensation to be paid shall not exceed the value declared by the owner or administrator or anyone having legal interest in the property or determined by the assessor, pursuant to the Real Property Tax Code, whichever value is lower, prior to the recommendation or decision of the appropriate Government office to acquire the property. The method of ascertaining just compensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this Court inutile in a matter which under the Constitution is reserved to it for final determination. Thus, 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 valu46 of the property as declared either by the owner or the assessor. As a necessary consequence, it would be useless for the court to appoint commissioners under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, the need to satisfy the due process-clause in the taking of private property is seemingly fulfilled since it cannot be said that a judicial proceeding was not had before the actual taking. However, the strict application of the decrees during the proceedings would be nothing short of a mere formality or charade as the court has only to choose between the valuation of the owner and that of the assessor, and its choice is always limited to the lower of the two. The court cannot exercise its discretion or independence in determining what is just or fair. Even a grade school pupil could substitute for the judge insofar as the determination of constitutional just compensation is concerned. In the present petition, we are once again confronted with the same question of whether the courts under P.D. 1533, which contains the same provision on just compensation as its predecessor decrees, still have the power and authority to determine just compensation, independent of what is stated by the decree and to this effect, to appoint commissioners for such purpose. This time, we answer in the affirmative. The basic unfairness of the decrees is readily apparent. Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and capabilities, should be considered. The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property may not be taken for pubhc use without just compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shag prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation. G.R. No. L-119694 May 22, 1995 PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE, INC., for and in behalf of 139 members, represented by its President, Amado P. Macasaet and its Executive Director Ermin F. Garcia, Jr., petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. Facts:

On 2 March 1995, Comelec promulgated Resolution No. 2772, which reads in part: xxx xxx xxx Sec. 2. Comelec Space. The Commission shall procure free print space of not less than one half (1/2) page in at least one newspaper of general circulation in every province or city for use as "Comelec Space" Sec. 3. Uses of Comelec Space. "Comelec Space" shall be allocated by the Commission, free of charge, among all candidates to enable the candidates to make known their qualifications, their stand on public issues and their platforms and programs of government. PPI contend that Comelec Resolution No. 2772 is unconstitutional and void on the ground that it violates the prohibition imposed by the Constitution upon the government, and any of its agencies, against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Issue: whether or not Resolution No. 2772 is unconstitutional Held: Yes. To compel print media companies to donate "Comelec-space" of the dimensions specified in Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 (not less than one-half page), amounts to "taking" of private personal property for public use or purposes. Section 2 failed to specify the intended frequency of such compulsory "donation:" only once during the period from 6 March 1995 (or 21 March 1995) until 12 May 1995? or everyday or once a week? or as often as Comelec may direct during the same period? The extent of the taking or deprivation is not insubstantial; this is not a case of a de minimis temporary limitation or restraint upon the use of private property. The monetary value of the compulsory "donation," measured by the advertising rates ordinarily charged by newspaper publishers whether in cities or in non-urban areas, may be very substantial indeed. The taking of print space here sought to be effected may first be appraised under the rubric of expropriation of private personal property for public use. The threshold requisites for a lawful taking of private property for public use need to be examined here: one is the necessity for the taking; another is the legal authority to effect the taking . The element of necessity for the taking has not been shown by respondent Comelec. It has not been suggested that the members of PPI are unwilling to sell print space at their normal rates to Comelec for election purposes. Indeed, the unwillingness or reluctance of Comelec to buy print space lies at the heart of the problem. 3 Similarly, it has not been suggested, let alone demonstrated, that Comelec has been granted the power of eminent domain either by the Constitution or by the legislative authority. A reasonable relationship between that power and the enforcement and administration of election laws by Comelec must be shown; it is not casually to be assumed. The taking of private property for public use is, of course, authorized by the Constitution, but not without payment of "just compensation" (Article III, Section 9). And apparently the necessity of paying compensation for "Comelec space" is precisely what is sought to be avoided by respondent Commission, whether Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is read as petitioner PPI reads it, as an assertion of authority to require newspaper publishers to "donate" free print space for Comelec purposes, or as an exhortation, or perhaps an appeal, to publishers to donate free print space, as Section 1 of Resolution No. 2772-A attempts to suggest. There is nothing at all to prevent newspaper and magazine publishers from voluntarily giving free print space to Comelec for the purposes contemplated in Resolution No. 2772. Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 does not, however, provide a constitutional basis for compelling publishers, against their will, in the kind of factual context here present, to provide

free print space for Comelec purposes. Section 2 does not constitute a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain.