Eminent Domain Flashcards
Sec. 9, Art. III.
____________ shall not be taken for public use without _______________
Private property;
just compensation
What is the concept of eminent domain?
The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to forcibly acquire needed property upon just compensation, in order to devote it to the intended public use [CRUZ].
Also called the power of expropriation
What is the other term for Eminent Domain?
Also called the power of expropriation
Does eminent domain need to be granted by the fundamental law?
NO.
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that need not be granted even by the fundamental law. Sec. 9, Art. III merely imposes a limit on the government’s exercise of this power [Republic v. Tagle, G.R. No. 129079 (1998)].
Who may exercise the power of eminent domain?
The repository of eminent domain powers is legislature, i.e. exercised through the enactment of laws. But power may be delegated to LGUs and other government entities (via charter); still, the delegation must be by law [Manapat v. CA, G.R. No. 110478 (2007)].
Under existing laws, who may exercise the power of eminent domain / expropriation?
- Congress
- President
- Local legislative bodies
- Certain public corporations, like the National Housing Authority and water districts [Metropolitan Cebu Water District v. J. King and Sons Company, Inc. G.R. No. 175983 (2009)].
- Quasi-public corporations like the Philippine National Railways (PNR), PLDT, Meralco
What are the requisites for a valid exercise of eminent domain?
- Private property
- Genuine necessity - inherent/presumed in legislation, but when the power is delegated (e.g. local government units), necessity must be proven.
- For public use - Court has adopted a broad definition of “public use”
- Payment of just compensation
- Due process [Manapat v. CA, supra]
What are the requisites for the exercise of eminent domain by an LGU?
- Enactment of an ordinance, not a resolution
- Must be for a public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless
- Payment of just compensation
- Must be preceded by a valid and definite offer made to the owner, who rejects the same [Yusay v. CA, G.R. No. 156684 (2011)].
How is the State’s power of eminent domain exercised?
Our laws require that the State’s power of eminent domain shall be exercised through expropriation proceedings in court. Whenever private property is taken for public use, it becomes the ministerial duty of the concerned office or agency to initiate expropriation proceedings. By necessary implication,
the filing of a complaint for
expropriation is a waiver of State immunity [Department of Transportation and Communication v. Sps. Abecina, G.R. No. 206484, (2016)].
Is the government allowed to enter the property being reclaimed without the prior filing of an expropriation case?
NO.
Prior filing of an expropriation case is a condition sine qua non before the government is allowed to enter the property being reclaimed and without which, the government’s possession over the subject property becomes illegal [Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Tecson G.R. No. 179334 (2015)].
Is full payment of just compensation a prerequisite for the Governments effective taking or property?
NO.
Full payment of just compensation is not a prerequisite for the Government’s effective taking of the property; When the taking of the property precedes the payment of just compensation, the Government shall indemnify the property owner by way of interest [Republic v. Mupas, G.R. No. 181892 (2015)].
What are the two phases or expropriation under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court?
Under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, there are two phases of expropriation:
(a) the condemnation of the property after it is determined that its acquisition will be for a public purpose or public use; and
(b) the determination of just compensation to be paid for the taking of private property to be made by the court with the assistance of not more than three commissioners
[Republic v. Mupas, supra].
What is the difference between Eminent Domain and Regulatory Taking?
- Eminent domain is an inherent power of the state based on the Constitution. Just compensation must be paid.
- Regulatory taking is the exercise of the state of its police power. In this case, just compensation need not be paid.
What are examples of Regulatory Taking?
- The imposition of an aerial easement of right-ofway was held to be compensable taking. The exercise of the power of eminent domain does not always result in the taking or appropriation of title to the expropriated property; it may also result in the imposition of a burden upon the owner of the condemned property, without loss of title or possession [National Power Corporation v. Gutierrez G.R. No. L-60077 (1991)].
- A municipal ordinance prohibiting a building which would impair the view of the plaza from the highway was considered regulatory taking [People v. Fajardo, G.R. No. L-12172 (1958)].
- A regulatory taking occurs where a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may have occurred, depending on a complex of factors including the regulation’s economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action [Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960)].
What is the traditional definition of Public Use?
Any use directly available to the general public as a matter of right and not merely of forbearance or accommodation
Where the expropriated property is converted into a plaza, park, airfield or highway, it thereby becomes res communes and, as such, is subject to direct enjoyment by any and all members of the public indiscriminately.
There is also public use even if the expropriated property is not actually acquired by the government but is merely devoted to public services administered by privately-owned public utilities like telephone or light companies.
Public use may be free or for a fee, as long as any member of the general public can demand the right to use the converted property for his direct and personal convenience [CRUZ at 149].
