City

GR

of

Manila
14355,

v.

Chinese
31

Community
October

of

Manila

1919

Facts: On the 11th day of December, 1916, the city of Manila presented a
petition in the Court of First Instance of said city, praying that certain lands,
therein particularly described, be expropriated for the purpose of constructing a
public improvement, specifically for the purpose of extending Rizal Avenue.
The Chinese Community opposed the said expropriation, contending that there
was no necessity of taking, that it already had public character and that it would
it would disturb the resting places of the dead.
The trial court decided that there was no necessity for the expropriation of the
strip of land and absolved each and all of the defendants from all liability under
the complaint, without any finding as to costs. From the judgment, the City of
Manila appealed.
Issue: Whether the Chinese cemetery may be validly expropriated by the City
of Manila
Held: The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the
State, or by its authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights,
and the rule in that case is that the authority must be strictly construed. No
species of property is held by individuals with greater tenacity, and none is
guarded by the constitution and laws more sedulously, than the right to the
freehold of inhabitants. When the legislature interferes with that right, and, for
greater public purposes, appropriates the land of an individual without his
consent, the plain meaning of the law should not be enlarged by doubtly
interpretation.
The right of expropriation is not an inherent power in a municipal corporation,
and before it can exercise the right some law must exist conferring the power
upon it. When the courts come to determine the question, they must not only
find (a) that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent
domain, but (b) also that the right or authority is being exercised in accordance
with the law. In the present case there are two conditions imposed upon the
authority conceded to the City of Manila: First, the land must be private; and,
second, the purpose must be public. If the court, upon trial, finds that neither of
these conditions exists or that either one of them fails, certainly it cannot be
contended that the right is being exercised in accordance with law. It is a well
known fact that cemeteries may be public or private. The former is a cemetery
used by the general community, or neighborhood, or church, while only a
family, or a small portion of the community or neighborhood uses the latter.
Where a emetery is open to the public, it is a public use and no part of the

ground can be taken for other public uses under a general authority. And this
immunity extends to the unimproved and unoccupied parts, which are held in
good faith for future use. It is alleged, and not denied, that the cemetery in
question may be used by the general community of Chinese, which fact, in the
general acceptation of the definition of a public cemetery, would make the
cemetery in question public property. If that is true, then, of course, the petition
of the plaintiff must be denied, for the reason that the city of Manila has no
authority or right under the law to expropriate public property. But, whether or
not the cemetery is public or private property, its appropriation for the uses of a
public street, especially during the lifetime of those specially interested in its
maintenance as a cemetery, should be a question of great concern, and its
appropriation should not be made for such purposes until it is fully established
that the greatest necessity exists therefor. In this case there is no necessity of
taking since there are other ways by which Rizal Avenue may be expanded to
ease the traffic situation.
The Supreme Court held that there is no proof of the necessity of opening the
street through the cemetery from the record. But that adjoining and adjacent
lands have been offered to the city free of charge, which answers every purpose
of the City. The Supreme Court, thus, affirmed the judgment of the lower court,
with costs against the appellant.