PART II. THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE C.
Eminent Domain
STATE
A. Similarities, Distinctions and Limitations
CASES:
Manila Memorial Park, Inc. v. Secretary
distinction between police power and power of
eminent domain (Read also the dissent of J. Carpio
and the concurring and dissenting opinion of J.
Leonen)
LLDA v. CA, G.R. Nos. 120865-71, December 7,
1995 police power superior to taxation or revenue-
generation provision
B. Police Power
1. Definition, characteristics & function, scope
2. Limitations: Due process & equal protection
CASES:
Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995, May
31, 1957
Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc. v.
Board of Transportation, G.R. No. L-59234,
September 30, 1982
City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No. 118127,
April 12, 2005
White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, G.R.
No. 122846, January 20, 2009
DECS v. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572,
December 21, 1989
Del Rosario v. Bengzon, G.R. No. 88265,
December 21, 1989
Ynot v. IAC, G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987
3. Police power prevails over non-impairment
clause
CASES:
Ortigas & Co. v. CA, G.R. No.
126102, December 4, 2000
Sangalang v. IAC, G.R. No. 71169, December
22, 1988
4. Police power vs. eminent domain
CASES:
Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. L-119694 May 22, 1995
TELEBAP v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 132922,
April 21, 1998
5. Presumption of constitutionality
CASE: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel
Operators Association v. City Mayor, G.R.
No. L-24693, July 31, 1967
6. Police power may regulate constitutional rights
CASE: PRC v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681,
June 21, 2004
7. Taxation as medium of police power
CASES:
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, G.R. No. L-29646,
November 10, 1978
Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board, G.R. No.
L-75697 June 18, 1987
8. Who may exercise police power
CASE: MMDA v. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April
15, 2005
9. Tests of valid exercise of police power: lawful
subject and lawful means tests
CASES:
Ynot v. IAC, G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987
Beltran v. Secretary of Health, G.R. No.
133640, November 25, 2005
Social Justice Society v. Atienza, G.R. No.
156052, February 13, 2008
1. Read Rule 67 (re Expropriation) of the Rules of
Court
2. Definition, Scope and Limitation
CASE: Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes,
G.R. Nos. L-60549, October 26, 1983
3. Distinguished from taking because of necessity
CASE: American Print Works v. Lawrence,
23 N.J.L. 590
4. Distinguished from taking under police power
CASES:
Quezon City v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-34915, June
24, 1983
Philippine Press Institute v. Comelec, supra
TELEBAP v. COMELEC, supra
5. Two stages of expropriation: (a) determination
of plaintiffs authority to exercise the power of
eminent domain and the propriety of its
exercise; and (b) determination of the just
compensation
6. Limitations of the power of expropriation: public
use & just compensation; due process;
compliance with applicable laws (for
expropriations by LGUs)
CASES:
Lagcao v. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746,
October 13, 2004
J. M. Tuason v. Land Tenure Administration,
G.R. No. L-21064 June 30, 1970
7. Who may exercise eminent domain
(a) Congress
(b) As delegated by Congress: The President;
administrative bodies; LGUs; quasi-public
corporations
CASES:
Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2,
2002
Philippine Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals v. COA, G.R. No.
169752, September 25, 2007
8. Requisites for the exercise of the power
eminent domain: necessity; private property;
taking in constitutional sense; public use; just
compensation
(a) Necessity of the taking
CASES:
Masikip v. City of Pasig, G.R. No.
136349, January 23, 2006
City of Manila v. Chinese Community,
G.R. No. L-14355, October 31, 1919
Republic v. La Orden de PP.
Benedictinos de Filipinas, G.R. No. L-
12792, February 28, 1961
(b) Subject: private property
CASES:
City of Manila v. Chinese Community,
supra
Republic v. PLDT, G.R. No. L-18841,
January 27, 1969
TELEBAP v. COMELEC, supra
(c) Taking in the constitutional sense
CASES:
City of Manila v. Laguio, G.R. No.
118127, April 12, 2005
Manila Memorial Park, Inc. v. Secretary
of the DSWD, G.R. No. 175356,
December 3, 2013
Republic v. PLDT, supra
NPC v. Paderanga, G.R. No. 155065, July
28, 2005
 US v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445, February 23, charges subject to such limitations as
1903 Congress may provide [Sec. 5, Art. X]
US v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, May 27, (c) President: as may be delegated by
1946 Congress [Sec. 28(2), Art. VI]
People v. Fajardo, G.R. No. L-12172,
August 29, 1958 3. Limitations
Republic v. Castellvi, G.R. No. L-20620 (a) Due Process
August 15, 1974 (b) Equal Protection
(d) Public use
CASES: 4. Double Taxation
Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, G.R.
Nos. L-60549, October 26, 1983 5. Public Purpose
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA, G.R.
No. 103125, May 17, 1993 6. Revenue (tax) bills: originate exclusively in the
(e) Just compensation Lower House (Sec. 24, Art. VI)
CASES: CASE: Tolentino v. Secretary, G.R. No.
EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. L-59603, April 115455, August 25, 1994
29, 1987
Association of Small Landowners v. 7. Tax Exemptions
Secretary, G.R. No. 78742, July 4, 1989 (a) Constitutional grant: for religious,
Land Bank of the Philippines v. CA, G.R. charitable and educational institutions
No. 118712, October 6, 1995 [Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI]
NPC v. Henson, G.R. No. 129998, CASES:
December 29, 1998 Lladoc vs. Commissioner of Internal
NPC v. Sps. Chiong, G.R. No. 152436, Revenue, G.R. No. L-19201, June 16,
June 20, 2003 1965
Eslaban v. De Onorio, G.R. No. 146062, Lung Center vs. Quezon City, GR No.
June 28, 2001 144104, June 29, 2004
Republic v. Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June (b) Legislative grant: needs concurrence of
29, 2005 (absolute) majority of Congress [Sec. 28
Urtula v. Republic, G.R. No. L-22061, (4), Art. VI]
January 31, 1968
MIAA v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 161836, 8. Money collected on special tax: treated as a
February 28, 2006 special fund; paid out for such purpose only
Secretary of the DPWH v. Sps. Tecson, [Sec. 29(3), Art. VI]
G.R. No. 179334, July 1, 2013
9. Rules of taxation: uniformity and equitability;
9. Meaning of owner progressivity
CASE: De Knecht v. CA, G.R. No. 108015, CASES:
May 20, 1998 Tolentino v. Secretary, supra
Abakada Guro v. Ermita, supra
10. Time when title and possession to the
expropriated property passes to the
expropriator
CASE: Association of Small Landowners v.
Secretary, supra

11. Recovery of expropriated property

CASES:
Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan, G.R. No.
17540, July 23, 1921
MCIAA v. Lozada, G.R. No. 176625, February
25, 2010
Vda. de Ouano v. Republic, G.R. No. 168770,
February 9, 2011 reiterates MCIAA v. Lozada
Eusebio v. Luis, G.R. No. 162474, October 13,
2009
Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 162474, October 13,
2009
Republic v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 185091,
August 8, 2010
Secretary of the DPWH v. Sps. Tecson, G.R.
No. 179334, July 1, 2013

12. Statute of limitations/period of prescription

CASE: Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 162474,
October 13, 2009

D. Power of Taxation

1. Definition, Nature and Scope

2. Who exercises
(a) Congress vested with power of taxation
CASE: Abakada Guro v. Ermita, G.R. No.
168056, September 1, 2005
(b) LGUs power to create sources of
revenues and to levy taxes, fees and