Eminent Domain

Manotok Realty vs CLT Realty

FACTS:
● Dimson was able to obtain an order from Judge Sayo in 1977 which was based on the
1966 of Former Justice Cecilia Munoz - Palma referring to the April 19, 1917 title as the
mother title. From this, Dimson was able to register the land.
● Dimson sold the lots to Hipolito who subsequently sold the lot to CLT Realty.
● Araneta’s original title dates back to May 3, 1917 from Rato who was their predecesor in
interest. Manotok Realty’s title also dates back to the same date.

● CLT Realty filed for the recovery of possession, and damages against Manotok Realty
alleging that CLT Realty is the owner of Lot 26 of the Maysilo Estate which they got from
a Real Estate Mortgage in a Deed of Sale executed by the real owner of the lot.
● They also claim that Manotok Realty illegally took possession of 20 parcels of land within
Lot 26 and based on the technical descriptions of Manotok Realty’s titles, their properties
overlap Lot 26 of CLT Realty.
● In their defense, Manotok Realty denied the material allegations claiming that the titles of
CLT Realty were irregularly issued and thus, void. They added that they acquired
ownership of the land from the National Housing Authority.

● In another petition, Dimson filed for the recovery of possession of another land located in
Maysilo Estate against Araneta Institute of Agriculture after the former found out that the
latter was being illegally occupied by the latter.
● In their defense, Araneta Institute of Agriculture claims they are the owner of the
disputed land alleging that Dimson’s title is void.
● The trial court ruled in favor of Dimson which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

● CLT Realty is the owner of Lot 26 or the Maysilo Estate.

● On the other hand, Sto, Nino Kapitbahayan was the owner of two TCTs located in
Caloocan City. They occupied and claimed ownership over a portion of Lot 26.
● CLT alleged that there is an overlapping based on the technical descriptions of the titles
of Sto. Nino Association.

ISSUE: Whether or not the titles of Dinson and CLT Realty over the Maysilo Estate are valid

HELD:

2005 Decision: In favor of Dinson and CLT Realty

2007 MR: Reversed the 2005 Decision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for
reception of evidence.
2009 Decision: The titles of Dimson and CLT Realty are void as it was from an inexistent mother
title. Both titles were declared inexistent in the 2007 Decision by the Supreme Court in the
Motion for Reconsideration. The Supreme Court also mentioned that duplications may occur as
the registration of properties were numbered consecutively, starting from No. 1, after the
inauguration of the Philippine Republic

Titles acquired by the State by way of expropriation are deemed to be cleansed of

whatever previous flaws that may have attended these titles. In in rem proceedings,
condemnation acts upon the property. After condemnation, the paramount title is in the public
under a new and independent title. Condemnation proceedings provide for securing better
title against all the world that may be acquired through voluntary conveyance.

Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs Reyes

FACTS:
● Petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of the Revised Charter of Philippine
Tourism Authority and Proclamation No. 2052 declaring several barangays and
municipalities in the province of Cebu as tourist zones.
● The PTA filed four complaints with the CFI of Cebu City for the expropriation of the
barangays in Cebu under the PTA’s express authority to acquire, by purchase, by
negotiation, or by condemnation proceedings any private lands with or without tourist
zones. The lower court issued separate orders authorizing the PTA to take immediate
possession of the land.
● Petitioners argue that the expropriation of the PTA does not amount to public use as
contemplated in the Constitution

ISSUE: Whether or not the expropriation is for “public use”

HELD: Yes. The terms of “public use” must not be given a strict construction. Public use
contemplated in the Constitution does not refer public use in its traditional sense. This restrictive
view does not apply to the Philippines as we are not a laissez-faire state. As long as the
purpose for the taking is for public use, then eminent domain comes into play. To
determine what is public use: (1) The expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small
lots for resale at cost to individuals or (2) The other is in the transfer, through the
exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government.The
petitioners' contention that the promotion of tourism is not "public use" because private
concessioners would be allowed to maintain various facilities such as restaurants, hotels,
stores, etc. inside the tourist complex is impressed with even less merit. Private concessioners’
maintenance of businesses in it does not diminish it being for “public use”.
Republic vs Castellvi

FACTS:
● The Republic filed complaints for eminent domain against Castellvi, the judicial
administratrix of her late husband over a parcel of land located in Casablanca,
Pampanga.
● Castellvi also claimed that the AFP have been illegally occupying her property since
1956 which prevented her from using or disposing of it.
● The AFP have been occupying Castellvi’s property since 1947 under a Contract of
Lease and that they executed a contract which shall be annually entered in a year to
year basis.
● However, when AFP tried to renew the said land on 1956, Castellvi refused. Due to the
nature of the improvements made by the AFP in the aforementioned lots, they elevated
the matter to the President for the land to be expropriated.
● The trial court also held that the “taking” of the properties under expropriation
commenced with the filing of this action.

ISSUE: Whether or not the taking of the properties under the expropriation commenced with the
filing of this action

HELD: Yes. Taking is defined as the entering upon private property for more than a momentary
period, and, under the warrant or color of legal authority, devoting it to a public use, or otherwise
informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as substantially to oust the owner
and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof. The circumstances of taking must be
present:

1.) There must be entrance upon private property - There was a lease agreement
2.) It must be for more than a momentary period - Not present. The contract is renewable
annually.
3.) It must be under the warrant or color of legal authority - They entered the property as
lessee.
4.) It must be devoted for public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected - The lessees were the AFP.
5.) The utilization must be to oust the owner or deprive him of all the beneficial enjoyment
thereof - Not present. Castellvi remained to be the owner and the lessees recognized
her as such.

We cannot accept the Republic's contention that a lease on a year to year basis can give
rise to a permanent right to occupy, since by express legal provision a lease made for a
determinate time, as was the lease of Castellvi's land in the instant case, ceases upon the day
fixed, without need of a demand. Neither can it be said that the right of eminent domain may be
exercised by simply leasing the premises to be expropriated. Nor can it be accepted that the
Republic would enter into a contract of lease where its real intention was to buy, or why the
Republic should enter into a simulated contract of lease when all the time the Republic had the
right of eminent domain, and could expropriate Castellvi's land if it wanted to without resorting to
any guise whatsoever.

Hacienda Luisita vs PARC

FACTS:
● Hacienda Luisita is a land located in Tarlac owned by TADECO. The Marcos
administration filed a case against TADECO for the distribution of the lands to the
farmers.
● 8 years after, in the administration of Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, the OSG withdrew all
of its claims while the Court of Appeals dismissed the case in the condition that the lands
would be distributed through a Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) subject to the approval of
the PARC. To facilitate stock acquisition, TADECO created the HLI.
● In 1989, the farmworkers benificiaries (FWBs), HLI, and TADECO entered into the Stock
Distribution Operation Agreement which was approved by PARC.
● However, years after, in order for HLI to obtain shares from other companies, they ceded
several hectares of Hacienda Luisita in favor of said companies.
● Several petitions were filed to the DAR by both HLI and the FWBs for the cancellation or
revocation of the SDOA they entered into.
● On 2005, the DAR placed Hacienda Luisita in CARP. A year after, the DAR invalidated
the SDP.

ISSUE: Whether or not the “taking” was on the approval of the SDP by PARC

HELD: Yes. It was during this time that the FWBs were considered to own and possess the
agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita. These lands became subject of the agrarian reform
coverage through the stock distribution scheme only upon approval of the SDP. The Court also
further stated that taking also occurs when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a
landowner and approved by PARC for CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme,
as in the instant case.

City of Manila vs Chinese Community of Manila

FACTS: