M2 - Eminent Domain

Question 1

Discuss the Case of Republic vs. Castellvi (1974)

Answer 1

The case answers the ff.

1. there is taking when Republic filed an expropriation complaint
2. Just compensation is determined based on the property value at the time of the filing of the expropriation complaint

note
- AFP’s presence in 1959 is not considered taking as there is a lease agreement as Castelvi was not deprived of beneficial enjoyment due to rent received

Question 2

Constitutional Bases of Eminent Domain

Answer 2

Section 9, Article III, 1987 Constitution
- Private Prop shall not be taken for public use without just compensation

Section 18, Article XII[12], 1987 Constitution
- The State may … establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.

Sections 4 and 9, Article XIII[13], 1987 Constitution
- [4] The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program [for farmers] … to own directly or collectively the lands they till … … the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, … and subject to the payment of just compensation …

• [9] The State shall, by law, … will make … housing … to underprivileged … In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small property owners.

S18 A12
- The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.

S4 A13
- The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.

S9 A13 - Urban Land Reform & Housing
The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in cooperation with the public sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlements areas. It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall respect the rights of small property owners.

Question 3

How to determine necessity when eminent domain is primarily lodged in the Legislative

Answer 3

[City of Manila (1991)] - courts do NOT have the power to review legislative determination (political question)

[Republic v. Order of the Benedictines (1998)] - courts can now inquire into the legality of the exercise of eminent domain and won there is genuine necessity.

[Bardillon v. Barangay Masili (2003)] - courts can review the necessity during expropriation proceedings the focus is ensuring conformity to the delegated authority (e.g. Local Government)

Question 4

Remedies for non-payment of just compensation

Answer 4

GEN - no right to recover, only demand just compensation

EXC-1
recovery of possession possible after five (5) years from finality of the judgement in the expro proceedings if no payment is made [Republic v. CA]

EXC-2
Condition attached to title - owners have the right to repurchase the exprop prop after the cessation of public use provided there was a condition attached to the title [MCIA v. CA]

[Reyes v. NHA] - exprop judgment did not impose a condition

note on Public Use Requirement and Reversion
Property must be condemned for public use.
Private owner’s repurchase right depends on the acquired title:
- Condition attached to title: Reversion possible when the condition ceases.
- Fee simple title (no condition): No repurchase right.

Question 5

distinction of police power and eminent domain

Answer 5

Use of the property by the owner was limited (or destroyed), but no aspect of the property is used by or for the public.

If, however, in the regulation (pertaining to PP) of the use of the property, somebody else acquires the use or interest thereof, such restriction constitutes compensable taking.

Question 6

OTHER WAY OF TAKING PROPERTY OTHER THAN APPROPRIATION OF TITLE OR POSSESSION OF PROPERTY

Answer 6

While the power of eminent domain often results in the appropriation of title to or possession of property, it need not always be the case.

Taking may include:
- trespass without actual eviction of the owner,
- material impairment of the value of the property or
- prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was intended such as the establishment of an easement (Republic v Castellvi)
- Compensable Burden/Easement (Diamond v. MMDA

EoE - legal right to use another person’s land for a spcfc purpose w/o possessing the land itself

Question 7

“Expropriation includes mere imposition of burden on a property”

the government or a authorized entity may not only physically acquire or take possession of property but also impose certain burdens or restrictions on it without necessarily acquiring ownership or possession.

In essence, expropriation extends beyond the direct acquisition of property and may involve actions that limit or encumber the rights of the property owner, such as imposing easements, zoning restrictions, or other regulatory measures. These actions may affect the use, development, or enjoyment of the property without the government assuming full ownership or control.

For example, a government entity might impose an easement on a property for the construction of public utilities or infrastructure, restricting certain uses or activities on the land without acquiring the entire property. Similarly, zoning regulations may restrict the type of development allowed on a property without transferring ownership to the government.

Indemnity here refers to compensation for the imposition of burdens or restrictions on the property owner’s rights. (Ayala de Roxas v. City of Manila)

Answer 7

Establishment of New Easements
- The court states that administrative law only allows for the preservation of old easements, not the imposition of new ones. ((Ayala de Roxas v. City of Manila))

• Therefore, any order for the establishment of new easements on private property is not given in the exercise of lawful authority.

Question 8

when is eminent domain (legislative act) proceedings justiciable? (judicial act)

Answer 8

Where there is a judicial controversy
- JC is a dispute on legal relations of parties which may be resolved by court’s application of law

note
As held in Pimentel, Jr. v. Hon. Aguirre: By the mere enactment of the questioned law or the approval of the challenged act, the dispute is said to have ripened into a judicial controversy even without any other overt act

Question 9

Which body has the ability to determine Just Compensation?

Answer 9

• It is the function of the Judiciary (EPZA v. Dulay)
• a PD providing for just compensation based on the lower valued declared by owner or by the assessor is unconstitutional and void as it encroaches on the judicial prerogative of the courts

note
Even as the executive department or the legislature may make the initial determinations, the same cannot prevail over the court’s findings.

Question 10

Insofar as the need to appoint commissioners are concerned,

Can the court determine just compensation without the assistance of a Board of Commissioners?

Answer 10

In the case of [Manila Electric Co. v. Pineda] (judge)

• a trial before the BoC is indispensable in an exprop case where determination of JC is the principal concern
• appointment of at least 3 competent persons is a mandatory requirement
• court may disregard the findings of the comms & make its own estimate of value, but only for valid reasons

Question 11

ABC Municipality initiated an eminent domain proceeding against XYZ Corporation for the acquisition of a parcel of land owned by the Defendant. The purpose of the acquisition is for the construction of a public park in an area designated for urban development.

The Plaintiff properly filed the eminent domain complaint in accordance with state laws and deposited the required amount for just compensation with the court.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the issuance of a writ of possession, seeking authority to take possession of the subject property pending the determination of just compensation.

In response, XYZ Corporation filed an opposition to the motion, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to meet the legal requirements for the issuance of a writ of possession. XYZ Corporation contends that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated a clear right to possession and that the proposed taking is not for a public use as required by law.

The lower court judge ruled in favor of the private party not granting the petitioner’s right to possess the property through eminent domain

On appeal, how should you rule on the Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a writ of possession in the eminent domain proceeding?

Answer 11

In the case of Republic v. Tagle (1998),

The issuance of the writ of possession is the ministerial duty of courts to issue a writ of possession within five days from the time the government deposits (10%) of the just compensation payable.

government’s power of eminent domain should prevail over an ejectment case.

note
EO 1035 sec 7 provided authority to gov’t agencies concerned to exercise eminent domain

===================
Ass. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform (1989) - older than Tagle (1998) - 9 year difference

DEPOSIT NOT NECESSARY WHERE THE EXPROPRIATOR IS THE ESTATE. Where the State itself is the expropriator, it is not necessary for it to make a deposit upon its taking possession of the condemned property, as “the compensation is a public charge, the good faith of the public is pledged for its payment, and all the resources of taxation may be employed in raising the amount.”

Question 12

What is the relevance of easement of a right-of-way with eminent domain?

LB.

Answer 12

In EROW, property owners retains ownership but grants the gov’t agency the legal right [a portion] for a specific purpose

In exchange of the easement, property owners are entitled to receive Just Compensation for the loss and enjoyment of that portion of their property

Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative v. CA

Question 13

In a scenario where Pasig has already one sports development and recreational center, the City of Pasig filed a complaint for expropriation to Masikip so they can use her land to build another one.

How will you rule?

Answer 13

In the case of Masikip v. City of Pasig, The SC ruled that it failed to clearly establish genuine necessity of a public character as there is already sports & recreation center

Question 14

Insofar as just compensation for the fair and full value of the land, what must be considered?

Answer 14

Republic v. [APIS] Asia Pacific Integrated Steel Corp outlines a relevant considerations

1. current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity
2. zonal valuation
3. tax declarations

Question 15

An appeal case is before you asking that just compensation be given, the lower court determined such by considering the selling price of similar lands by the court-appointed commissioners.

Decide

Answer 15

In the case of Republic v. APIS Corp., just compensation cannot be arbitrarily arrived at with only one consideration. There other relevant consideration in addition selling price of similar lands such as
- tax declaration
- zonal valuation

Therefore, I would remand the case to the lower court for the proper determination of just compensation

Question 16

What are some forms of compensation?

Answer 16

1. combination of cash, shares of stock, tax credits, and LBP bonds as payment (Ass. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform) [considering it was a revolutionary kind of expropriation, they needed more than 50 billion to initially appropriate thus the just compensation of other forms

Question 17

In the case of small landowners ass v. sec. of agrarian reform

why is the valid exercise of police power (CARP) called pp when there is just compensation in the forms of cash, tax credit, shares of stock, and LBP bonds?

Answer 17

To the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative.

Question 18

When is there compensable taking

Answer 18

(1) the expropriator must enter a private property;

(2) the entry must be for more than a momentary period;

(3) the entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority;

(4) the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected; and

(5) 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.

Ass. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform

Question 19

Insofar as genuine necessity is concerned, is that the case of eminent domain. what are the intsnaces when

how will the court determine won there is genuine necessity

Answer 19

if congress says necessary - it’s a political question (equal branch of governement and outside of the scope except grave abused og discretion

if it is delegated power - LGU (when is there genuine necessity?

Question 20

what if the AI bot taken for private property, how can jurisdiction over the AI be attached? what’s the bases for the JD to attach on the AI? what if it was owned by Chinese citizens, or outside of the Philippines, can it be exrpopriated

Question 21

compensable burden v. acquisition

Question 22

reverse expropriation] if the public use is no longer present,

Answer 22

Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan (1921)

court answer whether a prpiviate owner can reacquire the property if the public use for that property was baadoned or did not materailize.

when state acquires property, the acquisition can be 2 kinds (conditional, unconditional (in fee simple))

condition - attached in the acquisition of the property, anything else is
in fee simple -

when the acquisition has a particular expressed condition attached, then that ocndition has to materialize otherwise the acquistion can be nulled or revered to the owner

ex.
your prop was exprop to be converted into road. but after 4-5 years, it was of a different public use (which is a different from the condition), when the road is not pursued, condition is broken, the owner then can reacruie (fery v city )

however, if there is NO expressed condition, it is in fee simple, reagrldess done (no road, change of public use) it cannot give rise to any reacquisition

Question 23

in fee simple (the court has no say and has to respect the contract
again this was in the 1921 [not 1987]

in 2010, the cebu case of MCIAA (IT park) v. Lozada

there ewas an extension to that irport that was acquired as well. .reason for acquiesiton is extension but the airport was abadoned and moved to lapu2, so the question is there a right on the part of the owner to get the property back

MCIAA’ s arugement- when we aquired thru eminent domain, the judgmment was SILENT as to the purpose. (in fee simple)

court said is there an expropriation that is ‘in fee simple’? will there be an acquisition. court said no, under the 1987 constitution, it provides that there has to always be PUBLIC USE is required,

when there is no public use, there is no proper exercise of eminent domain, that is not valid if no public use, court ruled that IT IS ALWAYS CONDITIONAL ON PUBLIC USE when exercising eminent domain.

if public use is no longer there, can the owner reacquire? yes, they have the right to acquire. it is not an absolute right

2 conditions in order for prop to be reqauired through lawful eminent domain

[THIS IS THE NEW RULE]

Answer 23

1. original owner willing to acquire (inversly, they cant force a sale)
2. return the just compensation (fair market value will not change in spite of the lap of the years with legal interest per annum at a compounded basis)

THERE IS NO FIX PERIOD

congress is

Question 24

site of expropriation

Answer 24

when state created, it has territory, anything will attach as long as it’s in its territory

BUT even if property is owned by a foreign natinoal, as long as it’s within the country, it can be expropriated

Question 25

reverse expropriation

Answer 25

what is the nature of the taking of the property

if it amounts

absence of a court case, never negates the existnece of an eminnet domain (there is taking without court cases

reverse expropritation - when gov’t did not give just compensation and the party files a demand. how much is the just compensation since it was never gievn in the first place

Question 26

compensable burden v. acquisition

Answer 26

republic v castellvi, the cour thad to diff acquisition and compensable burden

when is there taking between these two?
- was there actual taking or
- filing of the case

whichever comes first (insofar as legal interest is considered, it’ll start between those two whichever came frist

Question 27

why is ther requiremnt of deposit?

the court is compelled to comepl to issue a WIRT OF PRELIMINARY POSSESSINO (even if the just compe isn’t finalized, by virtue of the WPP, the owner will already be depirved of the property)

Question 28

compensable burden - because the burden is not for a momentary period and assumign there is color of authority, the burden deprives the owner of the beneficial use (keyword) of the property,

if there is no beneificual use, then it CANNOT AMOUNT OT COMPENSABLE BURDEN

diamond hotel v. MMDA, the court said that 10m easement from the creek, it is a compensable burden because within that 10m, they cna’t build or use even if it’s for flood service management/services, that partakes of the nature of TAKING