Monasco v CA

Facts:

Alejandro, Asuncion and Leonica Monasco filed a petition for review on certiorari against the
attempted expropriation of their inherited parcel of land so declared by the NHI as a national historical
landmark.

The 492-square meter parcel of land was ascertained by the National Historical Institute under
PD No. 260 as a national historical landmark, having been the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, founder of
Iglesia Ni Cristo.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor-General both filed complaint for the
expropriation and an urgent motion for the issuance of permit for immediate possession of the property,
which was opposed by the petitioners.

A court order, on August 3, 1989, fixing the provisional market to Php 54,120 and Php 16,236 for
the values of the property and for the permission of taking over on the property once said amount has
been deposited to the Municipal Treasurer.

The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the order on the ground that expropriation was not for
public use and would cause the public fund for Iglesia Ni Cristo, which is unconstitutional, and for the
suspension of implementation for the said order abovementioned. The RTC both denied the said motion
to dismiss.

Petitioners then lodged a petition for certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals that later
on dismissed and affirmed with the decision of the RTC. Hence, resulting for a petition to the Supreme
Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the said attempted expropriation is within the inherent power of eminent domain and is
constitutional.

HELD:

YES. 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, the only direct constitutional qualification is that "private property shall not
be taken for public use without just compensation.” And that though “public use” has not been defined
by the Constitution, it must be considered as the general concept of public need and public exigency.
With regards to the claim that said appropriation was for the members of Iglesia Ni Cristo, was actually 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, and that the effect to the members
of the said religious denomination is secondary in nature. The Court affirmed with the decisions of the
RTC and the Court of Appeals.