Article 3Section9

Question 1

Recite Article 3 section9

Answer 1

Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Question 2

What is eminent domain?

Answer 2

Eminent domain is the power of the government to take over private property for public use after payment of just compensation.

Question 3

How is it conferred?

Answer 3

Inherent to legislature

Question 4

Who may exercise?

Answer 4

” 1) National legislature

Exception: It may be delegated to the following: 1. The President of the Philippines
2. The various local legislative bodies
3. Certain Public corporation
4. Quasi-public corporations, e.g. public utilities

Question 5

How must the exercise of the power be construed?

Answer 5

Strictly in favor of private ownership against state the

Question 6

What is the basis for a municipal.corporations power of eminent domain?

Answer 6

Local government code sec. 19

Question 7

Stages of an expropriation proceeding?

Answer 7

1)determination of validity of the power 2) determination of just compensation

Question 8

May personal property be expropriated?

Answer 8

The constitution does not distinguish

Question 9

What are the requisites of taking?

Answer 9

NTC vs OROVILLE

Question 10

Must there bean , actualphysical taking or appropriation? Um

Question 11

Ibrahim is the owner of parcels of land located in Lanao del Sur. In 1992, he discovered that way back in 1978, NAPOCOR stealthily constructed underground tunnels on the property. These tunnels were apparently used in siphoning water of Lake Lanao and the operation of its hydroelectric projects in the area.
ISSUE: Considering that the constructions were sub-terrain, are the owners entitled to compensation?

Answer 11

RULING: YES
From Full Text: Under Art. 437 of the Civil Code, the ownership of land extends to the surface as well as to the subsoil under it. Presumably, the landowners’ right extends to such height or depth where it is possible for them to obtain some benefit or enjoyment, and it is extinguished beyond such limit as there would be no more interest protected by law. If the government takes property without expropriation and devotes the property to public use, after many years, the property owner may demand payment of just compensation in the event restoration of possession is neither convenient nor feasible. This is in accordance with the principle that persons shall not be deprived of their property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of just compensation.

Question 12

Republic vs. Andaya (2007)􏰑 Dikes were constructed by DPWH for flood control purposes and as a result of which, some properties within the area have been flooded.

Answer 12

Held: Since the property were already flooded, there is an impairment of use of the property. Hence, just compensation must be had.

Question 13

Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land (2009)􏰑 Ayala collects parking fee within the area of its malls. The Solicitor General filed a case prohibiting Ayala from collecting parking fees.

Answer 13

Held: The case must fail, as prohibiting Ayala from collecting parking fees amounts to taking of property without just compensation. There is impairment of use of property.

Question 14

How much should expropriator pay?

Answer 14

NPC v. Purefoods (2008) 􏰑
It has to be ascertained by the courts. While Sec.3(a) of RA No. 6395 states that only 10% of the market value of the property is due to the owner of the property subject to an easement of right-of-way, said rule is not binding on the court. Well settled is the rule that the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial
Function.

Question 15

In expropriation for a right of way by the NPC, just compensation is equivalent to

Answer 15

the full market value of the portion affected by the right of way

Question 16

Elements of Taking:

Answer 16

1. Expropriator must enter the private property (e.g. improvement of roads, etc.)
2. Entrance must be for more than a limited period (must be a permanent period)
3. Entrance should be under a warrant or color of authority (government must not be a squatter;entry must be with permission)
4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected (burdened or impaired of its use)
5. The entrance must be to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment.

Question 17

Republic vs. Castellvi . In 1947, The PAF leased the property of Castellvi renewable year to year. The lease was renewed yearly. Until 1956, Castellvi refused to renew the contract with PAF. In 1959, the government instituted an action to expropriate the property previously leased. Also, in the same year, the property was placed under the possession of the government by virtue of a court order. What is being disputed in this case are two issues: (1) Castellvi and the government cannot agree on the price; and (2) on the date which will be the basis for the determination of the value of the land.

Answer 17

Held: The SC held that the value should be determined at the time of the taking. The taking here would mean 1959, where all the elements of taking were present. It cannot be 1947 since it did not satisfy the 2nd and 5th elements.

Question 18

In 1980, NPC entered the property of X thinking that it belong to the City of Iligan. It built its power plants and paid royalties to the City. In 1990, it acknowledged that the lot was owned by X and accordingly instituted expropriation proceedings against X. The court ordered the City of Iligan to pay just compensation based on the value in 1990. The court is correct since there was no taking in 1980 because NPC did not

Answer 18

enter under warrant or color of legal authority - it entered without permission of the owner

Question 19

Since 1960, DECS rented the property of X on a yearly basis, and constructed a school thereon. In 1990, since they could not agree on the rent, X cancelled the lease, but DECS instituted expropriation proceedings. The court ordered compensation based on the value in 1990. The court is correct because in 1960:

Answer 19

The entrance did not oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment.􏰑 rents are paid here

Question 20

Sumulongvs. Buenaventura􏰑 The NHA wanted to use sumulongs property for socialized housing for the lower and middle class. The owner contended that socialized housing is not public use because not everyone can benefit from this, only the handful of people who to be given the houses.

Answer 20

The court held that the socialized housing is within the context of public use. Public use has acquired a more comprehensive meaning, that is, whatever would result to indirect public benefit or welfare is also public use. It also ruled that it will benefit everyone in the sense that it will affect the safety, health and environment.

Question 21

Manotoc vs. DFA 􏰑 President Marcos issued a decree expropriating the Tambunting Estate for the purpose of building a housing project. Since the area was also a valuable commercial property, the decree provided that the portions thereof will be used for commercial purposes to defray the cost of the housing project. The government would use the proceeds from the lease of this commercial property to finance the housing project. Is it still for public use?

Answer 21

No. This is no longer public use because it would be for commercial purpose already.

Question 22

If the expropriator does not use the property for the purpose for which it was expropriated, or abandons it, or uses it for another public purpose, can the owner recover it??

Answer 22

Vda.de Ouano v. Republic (2011) 􏰑 The MCIAA had not actually used the lots subject of the final decree of expropriation for the purpose they were originally taken by the government. In fact, the Lahug Airport had been closed and abandoned. In the event the particular public use for which a parcel of land is expropriated is abandoned, the owner shall not be entitled to recover or repurchase it as a matter of right, unless such recovery or repurchase is expressed in the condemnation judgment. The decision enjoined MCIAA, as a condition of approving expropriation, to allow recovery or repurchase upon abandonment of the Lahug airport project. In effect, the government merely held the lands condemned in trust until the proposed public use or purpose for which the lots were condemned was actually consummated. Since it failed to perform the obligation that is the basis of the transfer of the property, then the lot owners can demand the reconveyance of their old properties after the payment of the condemnation price.

Question 23

Once the public purpose of the expropriation is abandoned, it is correct to say that:

Answer 23

the expropriated property is restored to the previous owner

Question 24

Rights/obligations of parties: Once the purpose of public use is abandoned, the property may now be recovered by the owner.

Answer 24

1. Expropriator:
   a. Return property
   b. May give owner option to buy improvements, but if he
   declines, remove them
   c. Keep income and fruits of the property
2. Owner:
   a. Return just compensation, without interest
   b. Pay expropriator necessary expenses for maintenance
   of property to the extent he got benefited
   c. Pay interest only if there is delay in returning just
   compensation after expropriator has reconvenyed

Question 25

What is just compensation?

Answer 25

Just compensation is the fair and equivalent of the loss sustained, not what the buyer might actually gain from the expropriated property.

Question 26

Manner of payment of just compensation

Answer 26

General Rule: Must be in cash
Exception: Santos vs. Land Bank 􏰑 The lands of petitioner were taken by DAR. Petitioner claimed that the payment in Land Bank Bonds was not acceptable to him and that the said amount should be paid in cash or certified check.
Held: This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose.

Question 27

What is the rate of interest if expropriator fails to pay on time?

Answer 27

Republic v. CA andReyes v. NHA 􏰑 12%

Question 28

Can the owner recover the property if expropriator fails to pay just compensation after an unreasonable lapse of time?

Answer 28

Republic v. Lim 􏰑 No! But you are entitled to legal interest.

Question 29

In 1978, the NHA took possession of parcels of land pursuant of PD No. 1669 and PD No. 1670, and set up a socialized housing project for squatters. On May 27, 1987, the Supreme Court declared the decrees unconstitutional and the expropriation of the parcels of land null and void for being violative of the owners right to due process instituted expropriation of the same parcels of land. From what date should just compensation be based?

Answer 29

1987, because the entrance in 1978 was not under
color of title

Question 30

Non-payment of just compensation for a long period of time, as a rule

Answer 30

entitles him to the payment of the market value at the
time of taking, plus interest.

Question 31

When can expropriator enter the property?

Answer 31

1. After filing of complaint,
2. With notice to owner
3. Deposit with authorized government depository
4. Amount equivalent to assess value for taxation purposes
   (LGC 􏰑 15%)

Question 32

2011, 19. The government sought to expropriate a parcel of land belonging to Y. The law provides that, to get immediate possession of the land, the government must deposit the equivalent of the land’s zonal value. The government insisted, however, that what apply are the rules of court which require an initial deposit only of the assessed value of the property.
Which should prevail in this matter?

Answer 32

The law should prevail since the right to just compensation is a substantive right that Congress has the power to define.􏰑 Substantive law prevails over procedural law. The government must deposit the equivalent of the land’s zonal value.

Question 33

Rules on expropriation by LGUs:

Answer 33

It must be based on an ordinance, not a resolution;

Question 34

The Province of Camarines Sur passed a Resolution authorizing the Provincial Governor to expropriate agricultural property. The CA ruled that the Province of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the DAR of the plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing project.

Answer 34

To sustain the CA would mean that the LGUs can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc, without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the DAR, because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the DAR to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use. Thus, itwould amount to intrusion of the power of the court to determine whether it is for public use or not.

Question 35

Priorities in the acquisition of Land

Answer 35

(a) Those owned by the Government or any of its sub-
divisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including government-owned or 􏰑controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
(b) Alienable lands of the public domain;
(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands;
(d) Those within the declared Areas of Priority Development,
Zonal Improvement sites, and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired;
(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and
(f) Privately-owned lands.

Question 36

Distinction between Police Power and Eminent Domain:

Answer 36

1. If the property is taken in the exercise of eminent domain, the owner is entitled to compensation, but in police power, he is not.
2. In eminent domain, property is taken for public use, but in police power, it is destroyed in the interest of public health, safety, morals or public welfare.

Question 37

2011 Bar Exam, 86. When the State requires private cemeteries to reserve 10% of their lots for burial of the poor, it exercises its:

Answer 37

eminent domain power.􏰑 because you do not destroy the property, but it must be with just compensation

Question 38

1990, 2: The City of Cebu passed an ordinance proclaiming the expropriation of a 10 hectare property of C Company which is already a developed commercial center. The city proposed to operate the commercial center in order to finance a housing project for city employees in the vacant portion of the said property. The ordinance fixed the price of the land and the value of the improvements to be paid C Company on the basis of the prevailing land value and cost of construction. As counsel for Ccompany, give 2 constitutional objections to the validity of the ordinance.

Answer 38

1. Determination of just compensation belongs to the courts. 2. The purpose is not for public use.

Question 39

2004,No. 9: The City of San Rafael passed an ordinance authorizing the city Mayor, assisted by the police, to remove all advertising signs displaced or exposed to public view in the main city street, for being offensive to sight or otherwise a nuisance. AM, whose advertising agency owns and rents out many of the billboards ordered removed by the City Mayor, claims that the City should pay for the destroyed billboards at their current market value since the City has appropriated them for the public purpose of city beautification. The Mayor refuses to pay, so AM is suing the City and the Mayor for damages arising from the taking of his property without due process nor just compensation. Will
ANs suit prosper?

Answer 39

no, because the city is exercising its police power of abating a nuisance􏰑 because it did not appropriate the property but destroyed the same for purposes of public safety or for being a nuisance. Note that in police power, the property is destroyed in the interest of public health, safety, morals or public welfare.

Question 40

1989, No. 16: A law provides that in the event of expropriation, the amount to be paid to a landowner as compensation shall be either the sworn valuation made by the owner or the official assessment thereof, whichever is lower.Can the landowner successfully challenge the law in court? Discuss briefly your answer.

Answer 40

Yes. 1. Determination as to what constitutes just compensation is vested to the courts.Since this involves taking of a property, a person cannot be deprived of the same without due process of law. The owner must be allowed to present evidence as to the value of his property.

Question 41

1996, 4: The City of Pasig initiated expropriation proceedings on a one hectare lot which is part of a 10-hectare parcel of land devoted to the growing of vegetables. The purpose of the expropriation is to sue the land as a relocation site for 200 families squatting along the Pasig river.
1. Can the owner of the property oppose the expropriation on the ground that only 200 out of the more than 10,000 squatter families in Pasig will benefit from the expropriation?

Answer 41

No! The size of the ‘ ‘ property and number of beneficiaries is not the determinative factor, so long as there is indirect advantage or benefit to the public

Question 42

Can DAR require the city to first secure and authority before converting the use of the land from agricultural to housing

Answer 42

No! Because it will amount to a determination as to whether the purpose is for public use or not, which is within the domain of the judiciary.

Question 43

1987, No. 16: Pasay City filed expropriation proceedings against several landowners for the construction of an aqueduct for flood control on a barangay. Clearly, only the residents of that barangay would be benefited by the project. Is the expropriation proper?

Answer 43

Yes! Construction of aqueduct for flood control is public use. It would have been different had it been for the benefit of the homeowners association.

Question 44

1992, No. 11: The PCO, a government agency, wishes to establish a direct computer and fax linkup with trading centers in the US. The advanced technology of a private company, PPT, is necessary for that purpose but negotiations between the parties have failed. The Republic, in behalf of the PCO, files suit to compel the telecommunications company to execute a contract with PCO for PCO􏰪s access and use of the company’s facilities. facilities. Decide. If the case will not prosper, what alternative will you propose to the Republic?

Answer 44

The suit must fail. You cannot compel another to enter into a contract with you because it will violate the principle governing contracts. There must be consent between parties. However, you can file expropriation proceedings by compelling PPT to allow access to the direct computer and fax linkup system without transfer of ownership and possession. In this case, there is impairment of use of property. r.

Question 45

2009, III.The Municipality of Bulalakaw, Leyte, passed Ordinance No. 1234, authorizing the expropriation of two parcels of land situated in the poblacion as the site of a freedom park, and appropriating the funds needed therefor. Upon review, the |Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte disapproved the ordinance because the municipality has an existing freedom park which, though smaller in size, is still suitable for the purpose, and to pursue expropriation would be. needless expenditure of the people’s money. Is the disapproval of the ordinance correct? Explain your answer.

Answer 45

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot review nor reject the expropriation ordinance of a locality on the ground of necessity. LGUs are authorized under the LGC to expropriate without limitation by the provincial board.

May only consider an ordinance invalid on the ground of ultra vires

Question 46

2009, XVII.Filipinas Computer Corporation (FCC), a local manufacturer of computers and computer parts, owns a sprawling plant in a 5,000-square meter lot in Pasig City. To remedy the city’s acute housing shortage, compounded by a burgeoning population, the Sangguniang Panglungsod authorized the City Mayor to negotiate for the purchase of the lot. The Sanggunian intends to subdivide the property into small residential lots to be distributed at cost to qualified city residents. But FCC refused to sell the lot. Hard pressed to find a suitable property to house its homeless residents, the City filed a complaint for eminent domain against FCC.If FCC hires you as lawyer, what defense or defenses would you set up in order to resist the expropriation of the property? Explain.

Answer 46

First, the complaint filed by Pasig City is not valid as there was no ordinance authorizing the city mayor to file expropriation proceeding. In the instant case, the city mayor is only authorized to negotiate for the purchase of the lot. Secondly, since the purpose is socialized housing, the city government should have followed the order of priority under UHDA. It should have first expropriated other types of properties.

Question 47

If the Court grants the City’s prayer for expropriation, but the City delays payment of the amount determined by the court as just compensation, can FCC recover the property from Pasig City? Explain.

Answer 47

Delay in payment of the amount of just compensation is not a ground for recovery of property. You are only entitled to interest from the time of taking.

Question 48

Suppose the expropriation succeeds, but the City decides to abandon its plan to subdivide the property for residential purposes having found a much bigger lot, can FCC legally demand that it be allowed to repurchase the property from the City of Pasig? Why or why not?

Answer 48

All expropriations are considered condition. The moment the government abandoned the public purpose for which it was expropriated, recovery may be had by the owner, provided he pays the value of just compensation received when it was expropriated.

Question 49

2010, XIII.True or False.A valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre-requisite to expropriation initiated by a local government unit.

Answer 49

True! A valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre- requisite to expropriation initiated by a LGU, because of necessity. If the owner would be willing, there is no need for the institution of expropriation proceedings.

Question 50

Matters that can be judicially reviewed for determination in cases of eminent domain:

Answer 50

1. The amount of just compensation - It does not matter whether it is fixed by law or by the executive branch. The court can always change it. This is judicial in nature.
2. The choice of the property
3. Issues whether the expropriation is necessary
4. Issues whether the property falls within the concept of public use according to the law.

Question 51

De Knecht vs. Bautista 􏰑 This concerns the plan of DPWH to extend EDSA to which the government had two choices: (1) to put up a road which will run over the residential houses; or (2) to another which will run over hotels. The government chose to expropriate the property which will run over the residential houses.

Answer 51

Held: The court held that the choice of which property to expropriate cannot be exercised arbitrarily even if made by Congress. The courts can review the decision on the choice of property.

Question 52

The City of Cebu passed an ordinance proclaiming the expropriation of a 10-hectare property of C Company which is already a developed commercial center. The city proposed to operate the commercial center in order to finance a housing project for city employees in the vacant portion of the said property. The ordinance fixed the price of the land and the value of the improvements to be paid C Company on the basis of the prevailing land value and cost of construction.
As counsel for c company, give 2 constitutional objections to the validity of the ordinance.

Answer 52

1. It is already a developed commercial center. Based on the Manotok case, that cannot be done. While you can put up socialized housing, it is another matter to expropriate a commercial area and you use the proceeds to finance a housing project. But I really doubt that argument now because of another case which we will study later on. Just for the moment, that will be the answer for that year.
2. The ordinance cannot fix the price of the land or the value of the improvements because that is a judicial function. Even Congress cannot do that. It has to be determined in an appropriate hearing where both sides are given the opportunity to prove the true market value of the land.

Question 53

The City of San Rafael passed an ordinance authorizing the city Mayor, assisted by the police, to remove all advertising signs displaced or exposed to public view in the main city street, for being offensive to sight or otherwise a nuisance. AM, whose advertising agency owns and rents out many of the billboards ordered removed by the City Mayor, claims that the City should pay for the destroyed billboards at their current market value since the City has appropriated them for the public purpose of city beautification. The Mayor refuses to pay, so AM is suing the City and the Mayor for damages arising from the taking of his property without due process nor just compensation. Will AM’s suit prosper?

Answer 53

The examiner is asking you a very simple question. Is this an exercise of police power or is this an exercise of eminent domain? Because if it is eminent domain, you will have to pay just compensation. If police power, no need. Take note here, they destroyed the billboards because it is a nuisance and it can be dangerous as some of it may fall during typhoon and hit people. It was removed in the interest of safety and maybe beautification. The property was not subjected to public use, no public purpose. So the suit will not prosper, it is an exercise of police power so there is no need for payment of just compensation.

Question 54

A law provides that in the event of expropriation, the amount to be paid to a landowner as compensation shall be either the sworn valuation made by the owner or the official assessment thereof, whichever is lower. Can the landowner successfully challenge the law in court? Discuss briefly your answer.

Answer 54

No. This is actually a decree issued by Marcos which had been struck down as unconstitutional. The principle is the same, the determination of just compensation has to be a judicial function. In fact, the SC said even a grade 1 pupil can resolve this one if he follows the law. Whichever is lower, but it should be a judicial function.

Question 55

Pasay City filed an expropriation proceeding against several landowners for the construction of an aqueduct for flood control on a barangay. Clearly, only the residents of that barangay would be benefited by the project. Is the expropriation proper?

Answer 55

Yes. It is still proper because the residents of the barangay will be benefited. That is still public use. Try to contrast that with the Masikip case, in that case, it was intended to benefit a homeowner’s associtation, a single subdivision. That one is no longer for public use. This one will benefit the residents of the barangay. It does not matter.

Question 56

The PCO, a government agency, wishes to establish a direct computer and fax linkup with trading centers in the US. The advanced technology of a private company, PCT, is necessary for that purpose but negotiations between the parties have failed. The Republic, in behalf of the PCO, files suit to compel the telecommunications company to execute a contract with PCO for PCOs access and use of the company’s facilities. Decide. If the case will not prosper, what alternative will you propose to the Republic?

Answer 56

This is based in an old case of PLDT penned by JBL Reyes. I think until now, Globe is still using PLDT’s facilities, it has the most advanced facilities.

Question 57

Filipinas Computer Corporation (FCC), a local manufacturer of computers and computer parts, owns a sprawling plant in a 5,000-square meter lot in Pasig City. To remedy the city’s acute housing shortage, compounded by a burgeoning population, the Sangguniang Panglungsod authorized the City Mayor to negotiate for the purchase of the lot. The Sanggunian intends to subdivide the property into small residential lots to be distributed at cost to qualified city residents. But FCC refused to sell the lot. Hard pressed to find a suitable property to house its homeless residents, the City filed a complaint for eminent domain against FCC.
a. If FCC hires you as lawyer, what defense or defenses would you set up in order to resist the expropriation of the property? Explain.

Answer 57

Here you can use the Estate v. City of Manila [422 SCRA 551 (2004)] case, that there is an order of priority of expropriation of lands [start with public lands, abandoned lands, etc. before expropriating private. property] by LGUs for the purpose of socialized housing. And that the last in the priority are private lands. I believe that is the only feasible defense that you can raise as a lawyer. I can see no defect on the ordinance.

Question 58

b. If the Court grants the City’s prayer for expropriation, but the City delays payment of the amount determined by the court as just compensation, can FCC recover the property from Pasig City? Explain.

Answer 58

Remember that non-payment of just compensation is not a ground to recover. In the end you can only ask for the payment plus interests for the delay.
No. You cannot recover even if there is delay in payment. There is one case but I will not mention it to you. L In that case, there was a delay in payment of 50 years and the Supreme Court allowed the owner to recover. But the rule now is you can claim payment plus interest only. That’s not a ground to recover the property.

Question 59

c. Suppose the expropriation succeeds, but the City decides to abandon its plan to subdivide the property for residential purposes having found a much bigger lot, can FCC legally demand that it be allowed to repurchase the property from the City of Pasig? Why or why not?

Answer 59

Yes. Abandonment of the property will entitle ‘ the owner to recover it. Expropriation is always conditioned that it will be for some specific public use. If that public use or purpose is abandoned, the owner can recover. He is only obligated to return the just compensation.

Question 60

True or False. A valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre-requisite to expropriation initiated by a local government unit.

Answer 60

All expropriators should make a definite offer to buy, because if they can agree on the price, there is no need to institute an expropriation proceeding, if the owner is willing to sell. It is only the last resort.

Question 61

The National Building Code and its implementing rules provide, inter alia, that operators of shopping centers and malls should provide parking and loading spaces, in accordance with a prescribed ratio. The Solicitor General, heeding the call of the public for the provision of free parking spaces in malls, filed a case to compel said business concerns to discontinue their practice of collecting parking fees. The mall owners and operators oppose, saying that this is an invalid taking of their property, thus a violation of due process. The Solicitor General justifies it, however, claiming that it is a valid exercise of police power. Could the mall owners and operators be validly compelled to provide free parking to their customers?

Answer 61

This is the OSG v. Ayala case. Free parking spaces in malls — you cannot demand that parking will be for free. Otherwise, that will be expropriation [or taking] without payment of just compensation.