Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent City may legally expropriate the subject properties of the petitioners?
RULING:
*SCRA:
Constitutional Law; State Powers; Eminent Domain; Private lands rank last in the order of priority for
purposes of socialized housing.Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized
housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only after the other modes of
acquisition have been exhausted. Compliance with these conditions is mandatory because these are
the only safeguards of oftentimes helpless owners of private property against violation of due process
when their property is forcibly taken from them for public use.
Same; Same; Same; The State has a paramount interest in exercising its power of eminent domain for
the general good.The State has a paramount interest in exercising its power of eminent domain for
the general good considering that the right of the State to expropriate private property as long as it is for
public use always takes precedence over the interest of private property owners. However we must not
lose sight of the fact that the individual rights affected by the exercise of such right are also entitled to
protection, bearing in mind that the exercise of this superior right cannot override the guarantee of due
process extended by the law to owners of the property to be expropriated. In this regard, vigilance over
compliance with the due process requirements is in order.
EMINENET DOMAIN WHO EXERCISES THE POWER?
ISSUE(S): Whether or not the City of Manila has the right to exercise the right of expropriation? And whether or
not a private property devoted for public use be expropriated?
RULING:
*SCRA:
17.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.Land already devoted to a public use cannot be taken by the public for another
use which is inconsistent with the first without special authority from the Legislature or authority granted by
necessary and reasonable implication.
24.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.Held: That since the city of Manila is only permitted to condemn
private property for public use and since the Chinese Cemetery in the city of Manila is a public cemetery already
devoted to a public use, the city of Manila cannot condemn a portion of the cemetery for a public street.
EMINENT DOMAIN OBJECT OF APPROPRIATION
ISSUE: Whether or not the State can compel PLDT, a private corporation, to provide telecommunication services
for the government telephone system.
RULING:
PERSONS AND ENTITES MAY NOT BE COMPELLED TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE
GOVERNMENT, BUT THE LATTER MAY EXERCISE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO IMPOSE
BURDEN ON A PROPERTY WITHOUT ACTUAL TAKING.
*SCRA:
Constitutional law; Sovereign power of eminent domain; Republic of the Philippines may require
telephone company to permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT; Right
of way; State may require a public utility to render services in the general interest; Case at bar. The Republic
may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, require the telephone company to permit
111terconnection of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government
service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined by the court. Normally, of
course, the power of eminent domain results. in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the
expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why the said power may not be availed of to impose only a
burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that real
property may, through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right of way. The use of the PLDT's lines
and services to allow interservice connection between both telephone systems is not much different. In -either
case private property is subjected to a burden for public use and benefit. If, under section 6, Article XIII, of the
Constitution, the State may; in the interest of national welfare, transfer utilities to public ownership upon payment
of just compensation, there is no reason why the State may not require a public utility to render services in the
general interest, provided just compensation is paid therefor. Ultimately, the beneficiary of the interconnecting
service would be the users of both telephone systems, so that the condemnation would be for public use.
Same; Bureau of Telecommunications; Purpose of its creation; Its functions and powers; Power to resort
to condemnation proceedings.The Bureau of Telecommunications, under section 78 (b) of Executive Order
No. 94, may operate and maintain wire telephone or radio telephone communications throughout the Philippines
by utilizing existing facilities in cities, towns, and provinces under such terms and conditions or arrangement with
present owners or operators as may be agreed upon to the satisfaction of all concerned; but there is nothing in
this section that would exclude resort to condemnation proceedings where unreasonable or unjust terms and
conditions are exacted, to the extent of crippling or seriously hampering the operations of said Bureau.
The Bureau of Telecommunications was created in pursuance of a state policy reorganizing the
government offices "to meet the exigencies attendant upon the establishment of the free and independent
Government of the Republic of the Philippines, and for the purpose of promoting simplicity, -economy and
efficiency in its operation" (Section 1, Republic Act No. 51) and the determination of statepolicy is not vested in
the Commission (Utilities Com. v. Bartonville Bus Line, 290 111 574; 124 N. E. 373).