BOR_Eminent Domain Flashcards
Codal provision
Private Property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation. (Sec. 9, Art. III, 1987
Constitution)
Who may exercise the Power of Expropriation
- Congress;
- President of the Philippines
- Local legislative and administrative bodies;
- Public and quasi-public corporations.
What are the requisites of Taking in Eminent Domain (E-M-U-D-U)
- The expropriator must Enter a private
property; - The entry must be for More than a
momentary period; - The entry must be Under a warrant or color
of legal authority; - The property must be Devoted to public use
or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected; and - The Utilization of the property for public use
must be in such a way as to oust the owner
and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of
the property. (Republic v. Castellvi, G.R. No. L20620, 15 Aug. 1974)
What is the Procedure for Eminent Domain (P-P-G-O-O)
- The land must be a Private property;
- It must be for a Public purpose;
- There must be Genuine necessity;
- There must be a previous valid and definite
Offer to buy the private property in writing; - The Offer is denied or rejected
What are the stages of expropriation proceedings
- Determination of the Validity of the
Expropriation- questions of the necessity and
wisdom, if it could be a justiciable question, of
the expropriation can only be raised before
the court. - Determination of Just Compensation - after the
first stage, the court’s power of judicial
review is limited to the determination of the
appropriate just compensation, and whether
the owner had been given his just
compensation after the taking.
What are the Limits on Eminent Domain?
The taking must:
a. be for public purpose; and
b. be accompanied by a payment of just
compensation to the owner.
Public Use Clause
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. For condemnation purposes,
“public use” is one which confers some benefit or
advantage to the public
Is it confined to actual public use?
As long as public has the right to use, whether exercised by one or many members, a “public advantage” or “public benefit” accrues sufficient to constitute a public use.
There will also be public use involved even if the expropriated property is not actually acquired by the government but is merely devoted to public services administered by privately-owned public communities. (Manosca v. CA)
Can property devoted to public use be still subject to exprop? What are the conditions?
Property already devoted to public use is still
subject to expropriation, provided this is done
directly by the national legislature or under a
specific grant of authority to the delegate.
Is the question of necessity & wisdom subject to judicial review?
As regards the question of necessity or wisdom
of the taking, it is not usually subject to judicial
review when so exercised by the Congress, it being
essentially a political question and may not be
interfered with by the court.
Exception of question of necessity & wisdom not subject to judicial review?
But where the expropriation is exercised by a
delegate only of the Congress (such as local
government units), the courts may inquire into the
appropriateness or wisdom of the expropriation
since it now becomes a justiciable question
On the basis of the BIR zonal valuation and
R.A. 8974, the Republic of the Philippines pays
Spouses A and B P2,750 per square meter as just
compensation for the expropriated property.
However, spouses A and B invoke that they
should be paid based on fair market value of
around P8,000-P10,000. Is the claim of the
spouses proper?
YES. The determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial function. As such, legislative enactments, as well as executive issuances, which fix or provide for the method of computing just compensation are tantamount to impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives.
The Courts are not strictly bound to mechanically follow each of the standards enumerated in Section 5 of RA 8974 because those factors are merely recommendatory.
In arriving at the full and fair equivalent of the property subject of expropriation, the courts are guided by certain standards for valuation such as those mentioned in R.A. 8974.
The court will sustain the lower court’s determination of just compensation even if it is higher than, or more specifically, as in this case, double the BIR zonal value as long as such determination is justified. (Republic of the Philippines represented by DPWH v. Heirs of Sps. Luis J. Dela Cruz a
PVB filed motions to intervene in the cases asserting that it is entitled to the expropriation proceeds in either the CARP and SCTEX project. Is the contention of PVB correct?
No, the contention is not correct. PVB’s contention that it is entitled to the proceeds in either the CARP and SCTEX expropriations runs contrary to the concepts of “taking” and “just compensation” in our jurisdiction. In the context of the State’s inherent power of eminent domain, there is “taking” where the owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property; where there is a practical destruction or a material impairment of the value of his property; or when he is deprived of the ordinary use thereof.
Taking may be deemed to occur, for instance, at the time EPs are issued by the government. Here, it is undisputed that prior to the SCTEX expropriation initiated in 2003, PVB was already deprived of use and possession of the properties when CLOAs were awarded and TCTs were issued in favor of the Saguns in 2001. Thus, the taking of PVB’s property was by virtue of the CARP expropriation, and not the SCTEX expropriation
What requisites must concur
before a local government unit can exercise the
power of eminent domain: (P-O-P-O)
- The power of eminent domain is exercised for
Public use, purpose, or welfare; - An Ordinance was enacted authorizing the local
chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise
the power of eminent domain or pursue
expropriation proceedings; - There is Payment of just compensation; and
- A valid and definite Offer has been previously
made to the owner of the property sought to be
expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.
(City of Manila v. Prieto, G.R. No. 221366, 08 July
2019
What should the local government unit do before they may enter into the possession of the property sought to be expropriated?
- file a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance in the proper court; and
- deposit with the said court at least 15% of the property’s fair market value based on its current tax declaration.
(Francia v. Municipality of Meycauayan, G.R. No. 170432, 24 May 2008
