Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 1
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 2
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Basis
Salus populi est suprema lex (welfare of
the people is the supreme law)
Scope/Characteristics
• It cannot be bargained away through the
medium of treaty /contract
• Taxing power may be used to
implement police power
Page | 3
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 4
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
contracts or vested rights clauses will vested right. A permit to carry a firearm
have to yield to the superior and outside one’s residence may be revoked
legitimate exercise by the State of the at any time. Even if it were a property
police power [Ortigas& Co. v. Court of right, it cannot be considered as absolute
Appeals, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, as to be beyond the reach of the police
2000], power [Chavez v. Romulo, 431 SCRA
534].
Thus, despite the retroactive effect of PD
957 (Subdivision and Condominium g) Like timber permits, mining
Buyers Protective Decree), there is no exploration permits do not vest in the
violation of the non-impairment clause, grantee any permanent or irrevocable
because the decree is a valid exercise of right within the purview of the non-
the police power, and police power impairmentanddue process clauses, since
prevails over contracts [PNB v. Office of the State, underitsall-encompassing police
the President, 255 SCRA 5], power, may alter, modify or amend the
same in accordance with the demands of
e) It is true that the Court has upheld the the general welfare [Southeast
constitutional right of every citizen to Mindanao Goldmining Corporation v.
select a profession or course of study Balite Portal Mining, G.R. No. 135190,
subject to fair, reasonable and equitable April 3, 2002].
admission and academic requirements.
But like all rights and freedoms h) A license to operate a motor vehicle is
guaranteed by the Charter, their exercise not a property right, but a privilege
may be so regulated pursuant to the granted by the State, which may be
police power of the State to safeguard suspended or revoked by the State in the
health, morals, peace, education, order, exercise of its police power, in the interest
safety, and the general welfare of the of public safety and welfare, subject to the
people. This regulation assumes procedural due process requirements
particular pertinence in the field of [Metropolitan Manila Development
medicine, to protect the public from the Authority v. Garin, G.R. No. 130230,
potentially deadly effects of incompetence April 15, 2005].
and ignorance [Professional Regulation
Commission v. De Guzman, G.R. No. i) R.A. 9257, otherwise known as
144681, June 21, 2004]. the “Expanded Senior Citizens Act of
2003”, is a legitimate exercise of
f) The right to bear arms is merely a police power. Administrative Order
statutory privilege. The license to carry a No. 177 issued by the Department of
firearm is neither a property or a Health, providing that the 20%
property right. Neither does it create a discount privilege of senior citizens
Page | 5
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
shall not be limited to the purchase (2) in order to foster the common good. It
of unbranded generic medicine but is not capable of an exact definition but
shall extend to both prescription has been, purposely, veiled in general
and non-prescription medicince, terms to underscore its all-
whether branded or generic, is valid. comprehensive embrace.
When conditions so demand, as
determined by the legislature, "Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the
property rights must bow to the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate
primacy of police power because the future where it could be done,
property rights, though sheltered by provides enough room for an efficient and
the due process clause, must yield to flexible response to conditions and
the general welfare [Carlos circumstances thus assuring the greatest
Superdrug Corporation v. DSWD, benefits."
etal., G.R. No. 166494, June 29,
2007]. It finds no specific Constitutional grant for
the plain reason that it does not owe its
origin to the Charter. Along with the
taxing power and eminent domain, it is
May the government regulate home or inborn in the very fact of statehood and
outside home? sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute
- Anything that affects public of government that has enabled it to
welfare. perform the most vital functions of
governance. Marshall, to whom the
expression has been credited, refers to it
succinctly as the plenary power of the
DOCTRINES: PASEI vs DRILON State "to govern its citizens." "The police
power of the State . . . is a power
CONCEPT OF POLICE POWER. The coextensive with self-protection, and it is
concept of police power is well- not inaptly termed the 'law of
established in this jurisdiction. It has been overwhelming necessity.' It may be said
defined as the "state authority to enact to be that inherent and plenary power in
legislation that may interfere with the State which enables it to prohibit all
personal liberty or property in order to things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and
promote the general welfare." As defined, welfare of society." It constitutes an
it consists of implied limitation on the Bill of Rights.
According to Fernando, it is "rooted in the
(1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty conception that men in organizing the
or property, state and imposing upon its government
limitations to safeguard constitutional
Page | 6
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
rights did not intend thereby to enable an President, to administrative bodies and to
individual citizen or a group of citizens to lawmaking bodies of local government
obstruct unreasonably the enactment of units. Local government units exercise the
such salutary measures calculated to power under the general welfare clause
ensure communal peace, safety, good [Sec. 16, R.A. 7160], and under Secs. 391,
order, and welfare." 447, 458 and 468, R.A. 7160..
Page | 7
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In this petition for certiorari and The concept of police power is well-
prohibition, PASEI, challenges the validity established in this jurisdiction. It has
of Department Order No. 1 (deployment been defined as the "state authority to
ban) of the DOLE on the following enact legislation that may interfere
grounds: with personal liberty or property in
order to promote the general welfare."
1) it is discriminatory as it only applies to As defined, it consists of
female workers;
2) it is an invalid exercise of the (1)an imposition of restraint upon
lawmaking power. The respondents liberty or property,
invoke the police power of the Philippine (2) in order to foster the common good.
State. It is not capable of an exact definition
but has been, purposely, veiled in
ISSUE: Whether or not the enactment of general terms to underscore its all
DO No. 1 is a valid exercise of police comprehensive embrace.
power.
"Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the
HELD: Yes, it is a valid exercise of police exigencies of the times, even to anticipate
power. Police power has been defined as the future where it could be done,
the "state authority to enact legislation provides enough room for an efficient and
that may interfere with personal liberty flexible response to conditions and
or property in order to promote the circumstances thus assuring the greatest
general welfare." It finds no specific benefits." It finds no specific
Constitutional grant for the plain reason Constitutional grant for the plain
that it does not owe its origin to the reason that it does not owe its origin to
Charter. It is a fundamental attribute of the Charter. Along with the taxing
government that has enabled it to power and eminent domain, it is inborn
perform the most vital functions of in the very fact of statehood and
governance. It constitutes an implied sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute
limitation on the Bill of Rights. However, of government that has enabled it to
police power is not without its own perform the most vital functions of
limitations. It may not be exercised governance. Marshall, to whom the
arbitrarily or unreasonably. It is admitted expression has been credited, refers to it
that Department Order No. 1 is in the succinctly as the plenary power of the
nature of a police power measure. The State "to govern its citizens." "The police
only question is whether or not it is valid power of the State . . . is a power
under the Constitution. coextensive with self-protection, and it is
not inaptly termed the 'law of
overwhelming necessity.' It may be said
Page | 8
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
to be that inherent and plenary power in DO No. 1 applies only to "female contract
the State which enables it to prohibit all workers," but it does not thereby make an
things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and undue discrimination between the sexes.
welfare of society." “Equality before the law" admits of
classifications, provided that
It constitutes an implied limitation on
the Bill of Rights. According to (1) such classifications rest on substantial
Fernando, it is "rooted in the conception distinctions;
that men in organizing the state and (2) they are germane to the purposes of
imposing upon its government the law;
limitations to safeguard constitutional (3) they are not confined to existing
rights did not intend thereby to enable conditions; and
an individual citizen or a group of (4) they apply equally to all members of
citizens to obstruct unreasonably the the same class.
enactment of such salutary measures
calculated to ensure communal peace, It is the avowed objective of DO No. 1 to
safety, good order, and welfare." "enhance the protection for Filipino
Significantly, the Bill of Rights itself does female overseas workers. Discrimination
not purport to be an absolute guaranty of in this case is justified. Police power is the
individual rights and liberties "Even domain of the legislature, but it does not
liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is mean that such an authority may not be
not unrestricted license to act according lawfully delegated. The Labor Code itself
to one's will." It is subject to the far more vests the DOLE with rulemaking powers
overriding demands and requirements of in the enforcement whereof. Hence it is a
the greater number. valid exercise of police power.
Page | 9
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 10
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
While concededly, the President has the and it is almost impossible to limit its
authority to provide for the establishment sweep. It derives its existence from the
of the Greater Manila Mass Transport very existence of the State itself, and does
System, in order to decongest traffic by not need to be expressed or defined in its
eliminating bus terminals along major scope. It is said to be co-extensive with
Metro Manila thoroughfares, EO No. 179, self - protection and survival, and as such
which designates the Metro Manila it is the most positive and active of all
Development Authority as the governmental processes, the most
implementing agency for the project, is essential, insistent and illimitable.
ultra vires. Under the provisions of EO Especially is it so under a modern
125, as amended, it is the DOTC, not the democratic framework where the
MMDA, which is authorized to establish demands of society and of nations have
and implement such a project. The multiplied to almost unimaginable
President must exercise the authority proportions; the field and scope of police
through the instrumentality of the DOTC power has become almost boundless, just
which, by law is the primary as the fields of public interest and public
implementing and administrative entity welfare have become almost all-
in the promotion, development and embracing and have transcended human
regulation of networks of transportation. foresight.
By designating the MMDA as the
implementing agency, the President The conflict between police power and
overstepped the limits of the authority the guarantees of due process and equal
conferred by law [Metropolitan Manila protection of the laws is more apparent
Development Authority v. Viron than real. Properly related, the power and
Transportation, G.R. No. 170656, August the guarantees are supposed to coexist.
15, 2007]. The balancing is the essence, or the
indispensable means for the attainment of
legitimate aspirations of any democratic
DOCTRINES: ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ society. There can be no absolute power,
whoever exercises it, for that would be
Why is it considered “law of tyranny. Yet there can neither be absolute
overwhelming necessity”? liberty, for that would mean license and
anarchy. So the State can deprive persons
Ichong vs Hernandez- almost all of life, liberty or property, provided there
embracing and transcending is due process of law; and persons may be
classified into classes and groups,
provided everyone is given the equal
POLICE POWER; NATURE AND SCOPE. protection of the law.
— Police power is far-reaching in scope,
Page | 11
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The test or standard, as always, is reason. contract. The law in question was enacted
The police power legislation must be to remedy a real actual threat and
firmly grounded on public interest and danger to national economy posed by
welfare, and a reasonable relation must alien dominance and control of the
exist between purposes and means. And if retail business and free the citizens and
distinction or classification has been country from such dominance and
made, there must be a reasonable basis control; that the enactment clearly falls
for said distinction. within the scope of the police power of
the State, thru which and by which it
protects its own personality and insures
its security and future.
ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ
101 PHIL. 1155 Resuming what we have set forth above
we hold that the disputed law was
FACTS: enacted to remedy a real actual threat and
Republic Act 1180 or commonly known as danger to national economy posed by
“An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” alien dominance and control of the retail
was passed. The said law provides for a business and free citizens and country
prohibition against foreigners as well as from such dominance and control; that
corporations owned by foreigners from the enactment clearly falls within the
engaging from retail trade in our country. scope of the police power of the state,
Petitioner filed a suit to invalidate the through which and by which it protects its
Retail Trade Nationalization Law, on the own personality and insures its security
premise that it violated several treaties and future; that the law does not violate
which under the rule of pacta sunt the equal protection clause of the
servanda, a generally accepted principle Constitution because sufficient grounds
of international law, should be observed exist for the distinction between alien and
by the Court in good faith. citizen in the exercise of occupation
regulated, nor the due process of the law
ISSUE: Whether or not the Retail Trade clause; because the law is prospective in
Nationalization Law is unconstitutional operation and recognizes the privilege of
for it is in conflict with treaties which are aliens already engaged in the occupation
generally accepted principles of and reasonably protects their privilege;
international law. that the wisdom and efficacy of the law to
carry out its objectives appear to us to be
HELD: The Supreme Court said it saw no plainly evident - as a matter of fact it
conflict. The reason given by the Court seems not only appropriate but actually
was that the Retail Trade National Law necessary - and that in any case such
was passed inthe medium of a treaty or a matter falls within the prerogative of the
Page | 12
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 13
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
to find that the general welfare demanded in character. If objective and methods are
that the sugar industry should be alike constitutionally valid, no reason is
stabilized in turn; and in the wide field of seen why the state may not be levy taxes
its police power, the law-making body to raise funds for their prosecution and
could provide that the distribution of attainment. Taxation may be made the
benefits therefrom be readjusted among implement of the state's police power
its components to enable it to resist the
added strain of the increase in taxes that
it had to sustain.
WALTER LUTZ, et. al vs. ANTONIO
As stated in Johnson vs. State ex rel. ARANETA, G.R. No. L-7859, December
Marey, with reference to the citrus 22, 1955, REYES, J.B L., J.
industry in
Florida —
FACTS: Plaintiffs seek to recover tax from
the respondent alleging that such is
"The protection of a large industry unconstitutional and void, being levied for
constituting one of the great the aid and support of the sugar industry
sources of the state's wealth and exclusively, which in plaintiff's opinion is
therefore directly or indirectly not a public purpose for which a tax may
affecting the welfare of so great a be constitutionally levied. The action
portion of the population of the having been dismissed by the Court of
State is affected to such an extent First Instance, the plaintiffs appealed the
by public interests as to be within case directly to the Supreme Court.
the police power of the sovereign."
(128 So. 857)
ISSUE: Whether or not the imposition of
tax under the CA No. 567 is a valid
Once it is conceded, as it must, that the exercise of police power.
protection and promotion of the sugar
industry is a matter of public concern, it HELD: Yes. The tax is levied with a
follows that the Legislature may regulatory purpose , to provide means
determine within reasonable bounds for the rehabilitation and stabilization
what is necessary for its protection and of the threatened sugar industry. In
expedient for its promotion. Here, the other words, the act is primarily an
legislative discretion must be allowed full exercise of the police power. The
play, subject only to the test of protection of a large industry constituting
reasonableness; and it is not contended one of the great sources of the state's
that the means provided in section 6 of
wealth and therefore directly or indirectly
the law (above quoted) bear no relation affecting the welfare of so great a portion
to the objective pursued or are oppressive of the population of the State is affected
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Almost Always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 14
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 15
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
destroyed in the interest of public morals. restriction here in question is merely the
The confiscation of such property is not prohibition of a noxious use. The property
compensable, unlike the taking of so restricted remains in the possession of
property under the power of its owner. The state does not appropriate
expropriation, which requires the it or make any use of it. The state merely
payment of just compensation to the prevents the owner from making a use
owner. which interferes with paramount rights of
the public. Whenever the use prohibited
In the case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. ceases to be noxious — as it may because
Mahon, Justice Holmes laid down the of further changes in local or social
limits of the police power in a famous conditions — the restriction will have to
aphorism: "The general rule at least is be removed and the owner will again be
that while property may be regulated to a free to enjoy his property as heretofore.
certain extent, if regulation goes too far it
will be recognized as a taking." The Recent trends, however, would indicate
regulation that went "too far" was a law not a polarization but a mingling of the
prohibiting mining which might cause the police power and the power of eminent
subsidence of structures for human domain, with the latter being used as an
habitation constructed on the land implement of the former like the power of
surface. This was resisted by a coal taxation. The employment of the taxing
company which had earlier granted a power to achieve a police purpose has
deed to the land over its mine but long been accepted. As for the power of
reserved all mining rights thereunder, expropriation, Prof. John J. Costonis of the
with the grantee assuming all risks and University of Illinois College of Law
waiving any damage claim. The Court held (referring to the earlier case of Euclid v.
the law could not be sustained without Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365, which
compensating the grantor. Justice sustained a zoning law under the police
Brandeis filed a lone dissent in which he power) makes the following significant
argued that there was a valid exercise of remarks:
the police power. He said: Every
restriction upon the use of property
imposed in the exercise of the police Euclid, moreover, was decided in an era
power deprives the owner of some right when judges located the police and
theretofore enjoyed, and is, in that sense, eminent domain powers on different
an abridgment by the State of rights in planets. Generally speaking, they viewed
property without making compensation. eminent domain as encompassing public
But restriction imposed to protect the acquisition of private property for
public health, safety or morals from improvements that would be available for
dangers threatened is not a taking. The "public use," literally construed. To the
Page | 16
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
police power, on the other hand, they there is definitely a taking under the
assigned the less intrusive task of power of eminent domain for which
preventing harmful externalities, a point payment of just compensation is
reflected in the Euclid opinion's reliance imperative. The taking contemplated is
on an analogy to nuisance law to bolster not a mere limitation of the use of the
its support of zoning. So long as land. What is required is the surrender of
suppression of a privately authored harm the title to and the physical possession of
bore a plausible relation to some the said excess and all beneficial rights
legitimate "public purpose," the pertinent accruing to the owner in favor of the
measure need have afforded no farmer-beneficiary. This is definitely an
compensation whatever. With the exercise not of the police power but of the
progressive growth of government's power of eminent domain.
involvement in land use, the distance
between the two powers has contracted
considerably. Today government often ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS
employs eminent domain interchangeably IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., et. Al vs.
with or as a useful complement to the HONORABLE SECRETARY OF
police power — a trend expressly AGRARIAN REFORM
approved in the Supreme Court's 1954 G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989, CRUZ, J.
decision in Berman v. Parker, which
broadened the reach of eminent domain's Facts: In these consolidated cases,
"public use" test to match that of the petitioners primarily assail the
police power's standard of "public constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No.
purpose." 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and
229 arguing that no private property shall
The cases before us present no knotty be taken for public use without just
complication insofar as the question of compensation. The respondent invokes
compensable taking is concerned. To the the police power of the State.
extent that the measures under challenge
merely prescribe retention limits for ISSUE: Whether or not the taking of
landowners, there is an exercise of the property under the said laws is a valid
police power for the regulation of private exercise of police power or of the power
property in accordance with the of eminent domain.
Constitution.
HELD: It is an exercise of the power of
But where, to carry out such regulation, it eminent domain. The cases present no
becomes necessary to deprive such knotty complication insofar as the
owners of whatever lands they may own question of compensable taking is
in excess of the maximum area allowed, concerned. To the extent that the
Page | 17
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 18
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 19
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 20
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(a) the interests of the public generally, as true of any other calling in which the
distinguished from those of a particular public interest is involved; and the closer
class, require the interference of the State, the link, the longer the bridge to one's
and ambition. The State has the responsibility
(b) the means employed are reasonably to harness its human resources and to see
necessary to the attainment of the object to it that they are not dissipated or, no
sought to be accomplished and not unduly less worse, not used at all. These
oppressive upon individuals. resources must be applied in a manner
that will best promote the common good
while also giving the individual a sense of
What are the two tests of Valid satisfaction.
Exercise of PP?
A person cannot insist on being a
Lawful Subject physician if he will be a menace to his
Lawful Means patients. If one who wants to be a lawyer
may prove better as a plumber, he should
be so advised and adviced. Of course, he
In other words, the proper exercise of the may not be forced to be a plumber, but on
police power requires the concurrence of the other hand he may not force his entry
a lawful subject and a lawful method. into the bar. By the same token, a student
who has demonstrated promise as a
The subject of the challenged regulation is pianist cannot be shunted aside to take a
certainly within the ambit of the police course in nursing, however appropriate
power. It is the right and indeed the this career may be for others.
responsibility of the State to insure that
the medical profession is not infiltrated The right to quality education invoked by
by incompetents to whom patients may the private respondent is not absolute.
unwarily entrust their lives and health. The Constitution also provides that "every
citizen has the right to choose a
The method employed by the challenged profession or course of study, subject to
regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose fair, reasonable and equitable admission
of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. and academic requirements." The private
The three-flunk rule is intended to respondent must yield to the challenged
insulate the medical schools and rule and give way to those better
ultimately the medical profession from prepared. Where even those who have
the intrusion of those not qualified to be qualified may still not be accommodated
doctors. While every person is entitled to in our already crowded medical schools,
aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a there is all the more reason to bar those
constitutional right to be a doctor. This is
Page | 21
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
who, like him, have been tested and found Thus, the subject of the challenged
wanting. regulation is certainly within the ambit
of the police
power. It is the right and indeed the
responsibility of the State to insure that
DECS VS SAN DIEGO the medical profession is not infiltrated
180 SCRA 233, Cruz, J. by incompetents to whom patients may
unwarily entrust their lives and health.
FACTS: The petitioner disqualified the
private respondent who had actually While every person is entitled to aspire to
taken and failed four times the National be a doctor, he does not have a
Medical Admission Test from taking it constitutional right to be a doctor. The
again under its regulation. But the private private respondent has failed the NMAT
respondent contends that he is still five times and this is sufficed to say that
entitled and hence, applied to take a fifth he must yield to the challenged rule and
examination based on constitutional give way to those better prepared. The
grounds: right to academic freedom and Court upheld the constitutionality of the
quality education, due process and equal NMAT as a measure intended to limit the
protection. He filed a petition for admission to medical schools only to
mandamus. The respondent judge those who have initially proved their
declared the said rule invalid and granted competence and preparation for a
the petition. medical education. The decision of the
respondent judge is reversed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the three flunk
rule is a valid exercise of police power.
DOCTRINES: YNOT VS. IAC
HELD: Yes. The police power is validly
exercised if InYnot v IAC; EO 626-A; is the
(a) the interests of the public generally, as preservation of carabaos lawful
distinguished from those of a particular subject?
class, require the interference of the State,
Yes.
and
(b) the means employed are reasonably
necessary to the attainment of the object
sought to be accomplished and not unduly Is there lawful means employed?
oppressive upon individuals.
None. NO rational connection between
the means employed and the purpose or
object of the law.
Page | 22
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Furthermore, because of the scarcity of In the light of the tests mentioned above,
the animals and the consequent increase we hold with the Toribio Case that the
in their price, cattle-rustling had spread carabao, as the poor man's tractor, so to
alarmingly, necessitating more effective speak, has a direct relevance to the public
measures for the registration and welfare and so is a lawful subject of
branding of these animals. The Court held Executive Order No. 626. The method
that the questioned statute was a valid chosen in the basic measure is also
exercise of the police power and declared reasonably necessary for the purpose
in part as follows: "To justify the State in sought to be achieved and not unduly
thus interposing its authority in behalf of oppressive upon individuals, again
the public, it must appear, first, that the following the above-cited doctrine. There
interests of the public generally, as is no doubt that by banning the slaughter
distinguished from those of a particular of these animals except where they are at
class, require such interference; and second, least seven years old if male and eleven
that the means are reasonably necessary years old if female upon issuance of the
necessary permit, the executive order will
Page | 23
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
be conserving those still fit for farm work preventing their slaughter cannot be
or breeding and preventing their prohibited, it should follow that there is
improvident depletion. no reason either to prohibit their transfer
But while conceding that the amendatory as, not to be flippant, dead meat.
measure has the same lawful subject as
the original executive order, we cannot Even if a reasonable relation between the
say with equal certainty that it complies means and the end were to be assumed,
with the second requirement, viz., that we would still have to reckon with the
there be a lawful method. We note that to sanction that the measure applies for
strengthen the original measure, violation of the prohibition. The penalty is
Executive Order No. 626-A imposes an outright confiscation of the carabao or
absolute ban not on the slaughter of the carabeef being transported, to be meted
carabaos but on their movement, out by the executive authorities, usually
providing that "no carabao regardless of the police only. In the Toribio Case, the
age, sex, physical condition or purpose statute was sustained because the penalty
(sic) and no carabeef shall be transported prescribed was fine and imprisonment, to
from one province to another." The object be imposed by the court after trial and
of the prohibition escapes us. The conviction of the accused. Under the
reasonable connection between the challenged measure, significantly, no such
means employed and the purpose sought trial is prescribed, and the property being
to be achieved by the questioned measure transported is immediately impounded by
is missing. the police and declared, by the measure
itself, as forfeited to the government.
We do not see how the prohibition of the
interprovincial transport of carabaos can
prevent their indiscriminate slaughter, YNOT VS INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
considering that they can be killed COURT 148 SCRA 659, Cruz, J.
anywhere, with no less difficulty in one
province than in another. Obviously, FACTS: President Marcos issued E.O. 626-
retaining the carabaos in one province A amending E.O. 626, which prohibits the
will not prevent their slaughter there, any transport of carabaos or carabeefs from
more than moving them to another one province to another for the purpose
province will make it easier to kill them of preventing indiscriminate slaughter
there. As for the carabeef, the prohibition of these animals. The petitioner had
is made to apply to it as otherwise, so says transported six carabaos from Masbate to
executive order, it could be easily Iloilo where they were confiscated for
circumvented by simply killing the animal. violation of the said order. He sued for
Perhaps so. However, if the movement of recovery and challenges the
the live animals for the purpose of constitutionality of the said order. The
Page | 24
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
lower court sustained the confiscation of executive authorities, usually the police
the carabaos. He appealed the decision to only. In the Toribio Case, the statute was
the Intermediate Appellate Court which sustained because the penalty prescribed
upheld the lower court. Hence this was fine and imprisonment, to be
petition for review on certiorari. imposed by the court after trial and
conviction of the accused. Under the
ISSUE: Whether or not the purpose of E.O. challenged measure, significantly, no such
626-A is a valid exercise of police power. trial is prescribed, and the property being
transported is immediately impounded by
HELD: No. We do not see how the the police and declared, by the measure
prohibition of the interprovincial itself, as forfeited to the government.
transport of carabaos can prevent their
indiscriminate slaughter, considering In the instant case, the carabaos were
that they can be killed anywhere, with arbitrarily confiscated by the police station
no less difficulty in one province than in commander, were returned to the
another. Obviously, retaining the petitioner only after he had filed a
carabaos in one province will not complaint for recovery and given a
prevent their slaughter there, any more supersedeas bond of P12,000.00, which was
than moving them to another province ordered confiscated upon his failure to
will make it easier to kill them there. As produce the carabaos when ordered by the
for the carabeef, the prohibition is trial court. The executive order defined the
made to apply to it as otherwise, so says prohibition, convicted the petitioner and
executive order, it could be easily immediately imposed punishment, which
circumvented by simply killing the was carried out forthright. The measure
animal. Perhaps so. struck at once and pounced upon the
petitioner without giving him a chance to
However, if the movement of the live be heard, thus denying him the centuries-
animals for the purpose of preventing old guaranty of elementary fair play.
their slaughter cannot be prohibited, it
should follow that there is no reason In the instant case, the challenged
either to prohibit their transfer as, not to measure is an invalid exercise of the
be flippant, dead meat. Even if a police power because the method
reasonable relation between the means employed to conserve the carabaos is not
and the end were to be assumed, we would reasonably necessary to the purpose of
still have to reckon with the sanction that the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive.
the measure applies for violation of the Moreover, there was no such pressure of
prohibition. The penalty is outright time or action calling for the petitioner's
confiscation of the carabao or carabeef peremptory treatment. The properties
being transported, to be meted out by the involved were not even inimical per se as
Page | 25
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
to require their instant destruction. Thus, would justify the ordinance in question
the Court cannot say with equal certainty except the provision granting police
that it complies with the second power to the City. Section 9 cannot be
requirement, that there be a lawful justified under the power granted to
method. The reasonable connection Quezon City to tax, fix the license fee, and
between the means employed and the regulate such other business, trades, and
purpose sought to be achieved by the occupation as may be established or
questioned measure is missing. Executive practiced in the City.' (Subsections 'C', Sec.
Order No. 626-A is hereby declared 12, R.A. 537). "The power to regulate does
unconstitutional. not include the power to prohibit (People
vs. Esguerra, 81 Phil. 33, Vega vs.
Municipal Board of Iloilo, L-6765, May 12,
DOCTRINE: City Government of Quezon 1954; 39 N.J. Law, 70, Mich. 396). A
City vs. Ericta fortiori, the power to regulate does not
include the power to confiscate. The
In City Government of Quezon City v ordinance in question not only confiscates
Ericta, is the 6% imposition a taking or but also prohibits the operation of a
a regulation? Imposition amounts to memorial park cemetery, because under
confiscation. If regulation goes too far it Section 13 of said ordinance, 'Violation of
amounts to taking. the provision thereof is punishable with a
fine and/or imprisonment and that upon
Is it taking for destruction? conviction thereof the permit to operate
No. taking of private property for public and maintain a private cemetery shall be
use – NOT proper object of police power. revoked or cancelled.' The confiscatory
clause and the penal provision in effect
If for Police power – it must be for
deter one from operating a memorial park
destruction.
cemetery. Neither can the ordinance in
question be justified under sub-section 't',
We find the stand of the private Section 12 of Republic Act 537 which
respondent as well as the decision of the authorizes the City Council to —
respondent Judge to be well-founded. We "'prohibit the burial of the dead within
quote with approval the lower court's the center of population of the city and
ruling which declared null and void provide for their burial in such proper
Section 9 of the questioned city place and in such manner as the council
ordinance: "The issue is: Is Section 9 of may determine, subject to the provisions
the ordinance in question a valid exercise of the general law regulating burial
of the police power? "An examination of grounds and cemeteries and governing
the Charter of Quezon City (Rep. Act No. funerals and disposal of the dead.'(Sub-
5371), does not reveal any provision that sec. (t), Sec. 12, Rep. Act No. 537).
Page | 26
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 27
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
impossible to limit its sweep. As it derives welfare. It does not involve the taking or
its existence from the very existence of confiscation of property with the
the state itself, it does not need to be exception of a few cases where there is a
expressed or defined in its scope. Being necessity to confiscate private property in
coextensive with self-preservation and order to destroy it for the purpose of
survival itself, it is the most positive and protecting the peace and order and of
active of all governmental processes, the promoting the general welfare as for
most essential, insistent and illimitable. instance, the confiscation of an illegally
Especially it is so under the modern possessed article, such as opium and
democratic framework where the firearms.
demands of society and nations have
multiplied to almost unimaginable "It seems to the court that Section 9 of
proportions. The field and scope of police Ordinance No. 6118, Series of 1964 of
power have become almost boundless, Quezon City is not a mere police
just as the fields of public interest and regulation but an outright confiscation. It
public welfare have become almost all deprives a person of his private property
embracing and have transcended human without due process of law, nay, even
foresight. Since the Courts cannot foresee without compensation."
the needs and demands of public interest
and welfare, they cannot delimit
beforehand the extent or scope of the Elements of Taking:
police power by which and through which There is no reasonable relation between
the state seeks to attain or achieve public the setting aside of at least six (6) percent
interest and welfare. (Ichong vs. of the total area of an private cemeteries
Hernandez, L-7995, May 31, 1957). for charity burial grounds of deceased
paupers and the promotion of health,
"The police power being the most active morals, good order, safety, or the general
power of the government and the due welfare of the people. The ordinance is
process clause being the broadest actually a taking without compensation of
limitation on governmental power, the a certain area from a private cemetery to
conflict between this power of benefit paupers who are charges of the
government and the due process clause of municipal corporation. Instead of building
the Constitution is oftentimes inevitable. or maintaining a public cemetery for this
purpose, the city passes the burden to
"It will be seen from the foregoing private cemeteries. City Govt. of Quezon
authorities that police power is usually City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759 (1983)
exercised in the form of mere regulation
or restriction in the use of liberty or
property for the promotion of the general
Page | 28
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
CITY GOVT OF QUEZON CITY VS ERICTA due process of law, nay, even without
122 SCRA 759, Gutierrez, Jr., J compensation.
Page | 29
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
MANILA MEMORIAL PARK vs. DSWD carnivals and other similar places of
GR. 175356 culture, leisure and amusement, which
discount shall be deducted by the said
FACTS: On April 23, 1992, RA 7432 was establishments from their gross income for
passed into law, granting senior citizens income tax purposes and from their gross
the following privileges: SECTION 4. sales for value-added tax or other
Privileges for the Senior Citizens. – The percentage tax purposes.
senior citizens shall be entitled to the
following:
a) the grant of twenty percent (20%) On February 26, 2004, RA 92578
discount from all establishments relative amended certain provisions of RA 7432,
to utilization of transportation services, to wit:
SECTION 4. Privileges for the
hotels and similar lodging Senior Citizens. – The senior citizens shall
establishment[s], restaurants and be entitled to the following:
(a) the grant
recreation centers and purchase of of twenty percent (20%) discount from all
medicine anywhere in the country: establishments relative to the utilization
Provided, That private establishments of services in hotels and similar lodging
may claim the cost as tax credit; establishments, restaurants and
recreation centers, and purchase of
b) a minimum of twenty percent (20%) medicines in all establishments for the
discount on admission fees charged by exclusive use or enjoyment of senior
theaters, cinema houses and concert halls, citizens, including funeral and burial
circuses, carnivals and other similar services for the death of senior citizens;
places of culture, leisure, and amusement;
The establishment may claim the
On August 23, 1993, Revenue Regulations discounts granted under (a), (f), (g) and
(RR) No. 02-94 was issued to implement (h) as tax deduction based on the net cost
RA 7432. Sections 2(i) and 4 of RR No. of the goods sold or services rendered:
02-94 provide: Provided, That the cost of the discount
Sec. 2. DEFINITIONS. – For purposes of shall be allowed as deduction from gross
these regulations: i. Tax Credit – refers to income for the same taxable year that the
the amount representing the 20% discount discount is granted. Provided, further,
That the total amount of the claimed tax
granted to a qualified senior citizen by all
deduction net of value added tax if
establishments relative to their utilization
of transportation services, hotels and applicable, shall be included in their gross
similar lodging establishments, restaurants, sales receipts for tax purposes and shall
be subject to proper documentation and
drugstores, recreation centers, theaters,
to the provisions of the National Internal
cinema houses, concert halls, circuses,
Revenue Code, as amended.
Page | 30
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 31
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The priority given to senior citizens finds When we ruled that petitioners in Carlos
its basis in the Constitution as set forth in Superdrug case failed to prove that the
the law itself. 20% discount is arbitrary, oppressive or
confiscatory. We noted that no evidence,
As a form of reimbursement, the law such as a financial report, to establish the
provides that business establishments impact of the 20% discount on the overall
extending the twenty percent discount to profitability of petitioners was presented
senior citizens may claim the discount as in order to show that they would be
a tax deduction. The law is a legitimate operating at a loss due to the subject
exercise of police power which, similar to regulation or that the continued
the power of eminent domain, has general implementation of the law would be
welfare for its object. unconscionably detrimental to the
business operations of petitioners.
While the Constitution protects property
rights, petitioners must accept the In the case at bar, petitioners proceeded
realities of business and the State, in the with a hypothetical computation of the
exercise of police power, can intervene in alleged loss that they will suffer similar to
Page | 32
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 33
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 34
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 35
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 36
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
No. Eminent Domain is an inherent power, Likewise in the exercise of police power,
while Expropriation is the exercise of property rights of individuals are
eminent domain. subjected to restraints and burdens in
order to secure the general comfort,
Is the question of necessity a health and prosperity of the State. Where
justiciable question? a property interest is merely restricted
If exercised by Congress because the continued use thereof would
be injurious to public interest, there is no
-If exercised by Congress – a compensable taking.
political question
-If exercised by a delegate under However, when a property interest is
specific delegation – a political appropriated and applied to some public
question purpose, there is need to pay just
-If exercised by a delegate under compensation. In the exercise of police
general delegation – a justiciable power, the State restricts the use of
question private property, but none of the property
interests in the bundle of rights which
constitute ownership is appropriated for
use by or for the benefit of the public. Use
How will you distinguish from police of the property by the owners is limited,
power? but no aspect of the property is used by or
for the benefit of the public.
Police power is the power of the
State to
promote public welfare by restraining The deprivation of use can, in fact, be total,
and regulating the use of liberty and and it will not constitute compensable
property. The power of eminent domain taking if nobody else acquires use of the
is the inherent right of the State to property or any interest therein. If,
condemn private property to public use however, in the regulation of the use of
upon payment of just compensation. the property, somebody else acquires the
Although both police power and eminent use or interest thereof, such restriction
domain have the general welfare for their constitutes compensable taking [Didipio
object, and recent trends show a mingling Earth-Savers MultiPurpose Association
of the two with the latter being used as an v. Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, March 30,
implement of the former, there are still 2006].
traditional distinctions between the two.
Property condemned under police power
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Almost Always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 37
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Who may exercise the Power of Taking may not only include the
Eminent domain? import of a physical possession of the
owner, as when he is ousted from his land
1. The Congress or relieved of his watch or car but also
2. The President covers trespass without actual eviction of
3. The local legislative bodies the owner, material impairment of the
4. Certain public corporations (e.g. Land value of the property or prevention of the
Authority and the MWSS) ordinary uses for which the property was
5. Quasi-public corporations (e.g. PLDT and intended.
Meralco)
The following cases constitute taking:
· Where a farmland is
What are the requisites in exercising inundated because of the
the power of eminent domain? construction of a damn
1. The property taken must be private nearby, the owner who is
property; prevented from planting on
2. The taking must be within constitutional the land.
sense; · Where government planes
3. The taking must be for public use fly over private property at
4. Just compensation must be paid; such a low altitude as to
5. There must be due process of law. practically touch the tops of
the trees.
· A municipal ordinance
The following essential requisites must prohibiting construction of
concur before an LGU can exercise the any building that would
power of eminent domain: destroy the view of the
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local plaza from the highway.
legislative council authorizing the local
chief executive to exercise the power of
eminent domain;
2. It is exercised for the public use, purpose Query: A building which is on the verge
and welfare; of collapse was ordered to be
3. There must be payment of just demolished. The owner objected
compensation; and thereto since the demolition
4. A valid and definite offer has been constitutes taking without payment of
previously made to the owner of the just compensation. Is the contention of
property south to be expropriated. the owner correct?
Page | 38
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 39
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
3. Use must be public Public use need not the municipal courts or in the courts of
be direct, as long as there is benefit derived first instance would depend on the
4. Compensation must be just amount of the claim.
Just compensation = Fair Market Value
(FMV) + Consequential Damages (CD) – However, where the basic issue is
Consequential Benefits (CB) something other than the right to recover
5. “Shall not” means that the default a sum of money, or where the money
stance of the state is “not to” (take) claim is purely incidental to, or a
consequence of, the principal relief sought,
like in suits to have the defendant
perform his part of the contract (specific
performance) and in actions for support,
or for annulment of a judgment or to
foreclose a mortgage, this Court has
considered such actions as cases where
the subject of the litigation may not be
estimated in terms of money, and are
cognizable exclusively by courts of first
instance (now RTC).
Page | 40
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
What kind of private property? All Can one property be the subject of
except money and choses in action different interests? Yes.
Page | 41
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
-jurisdiction of courts is not the fact that the decisions depend largely
limited to authority and just upon particular constitutional or
compensation, but also necessity statutory provisions. It cannot be denied,
under general delegation if the legislature under proper authority
should grant the expropriation of a
certain or particular parcel of land for
Expropriation can only be exercised some specified public purpose, the courts
by? would be without jurisdiction to inquire
into the purpose of that legislation.
Congress (City of Manila v Chinese
Community)
If, upon the other hand, however, the
-but the statement is inaccurate – Legislature should grant general
may also be exercised by a authority to a municipal corporation to
delegate expropriate private land for public
purposes, we think the courts have ample
authority in this jurisdiction, under the
NECESSITY OF EXPROPRIATION IS A provisions above quoted, to make inquiry
JUSTICEABLE QUESTION WHEN THE and to hear proof, upon an issue properly
POWER IS EXERCISED BY A DELEGATE. presented, concerning whether or not the
It is contended on the part of the plaintiff lands were private and whether the
that the phrase in said section, "and if the purpose was, in fact, public. In other
court shall find that the right to words, have not the courts in this
expropriate exists," means simply that, if jurisdiction the right, inasmuch as the
the court finds that there is some law questions relating to expropriation must
authorizing the plaintiff to expropriate, be referred to them (sec.241, Act No.
then the courts have no other function 190) for final decision, to ask whether or
than to authorize the expropriation and to not the law has been complied with?
proceed to ascertain the value of the land Suppose, in a particular case, it should be
involved; that the necessity for the denied that the property is not private
expropriation is a legislative and not a property but public, may not the courts
judicial question. Upon the question hear proof upon that question?
whether expropriation is a legislative
function exclusively, and that the courts Or, suppose the defense is, that the
cannot intervene except for the purpose purpose of the expropriation is not public
of determining the value of the land in but private, or that there exists no public
question, there is much legal literature. purpose at all, may not the courts make
Much has been written upon both sides of inquiry and hear proof upon that
that question. A careful examination of question?
the discussions pro and con will disclose
Page | 42
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
We are of the opinion that the power of in this jurisdiction is compelled to stand
the court is not limited to that question. mute while his land is being expropriated
The right of expropriation is not an for a use not public, with the right simply
inherent power in a municipal to beg the city of Manila to pay him the
corporation, and before it can exercise the value of his land? Does the law in this
right some law must exist conferring the jurisdiction permit municipalities to
power upon it. When the courts come to expropriate lands, without question,
determine the question, they must not simply for the purpose of satisfying the
only find aesthetic sense of those who happen for
the time being to be in authority?
(a) that a law or authority exists for the Expropriation of lands usually calls for
exercise of the right of eminent domain, public expense. The taxpayers are called
but upon to pay the costs. Cannot the owners
(b) also that the right or authority is being of land question the public use or the
exercised in accordance with the law. public necessity?
In the present case there are two "The legislature, in providing for the
conditions imposed upon the authority exercise of the power of eminent domain,
conceded to the City of Manila: First, the may directly determine the necessity for
land must be private; and, second, the appropriating private property for a
purpose must be public. If the court, upon particular improvement for public use,
trial, finds that neither of these conditions and it may select the exact location of the
exists or that either one of them fails, improvement. In such a case, it is well
certainly it cannot be contended that the settled that the utility of the proposed
right is being exercised in accordance improvement, the extent of the public
with law. necessity for its construction, the
expediency of constructing it, the
Whether the purpose for the exercise of suitableness of the location selected and
the right of eminent domain is public, is a the consequent necessity of taking the
question of fact. Whether the land is land selected for its site, are all questions
public or private is also a question of fact; exclusively for the legislature to
and, in our opinion, when the legislature determine and the courts have no power
conferred upon the courts of the to interfere, or to substitute their own
Philippine Islands the right to ascertain views for those of the representatives of
upon trial whether the right exists for the the people."
exercise of eminent domain, it intended
that the courts should inquire into, and "But when the statute does not designate
hear proof upon, those questions. Is it the property to be taken nor how much
possible that the owner of valuable land may be taken, then the necessity of taking
Page | 43
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
particular property is a question for the public purposes, appropriates the land of
courts. Where the application to condemn an individual without his consent, the
or appropriate is made directly to the plain meaning of the law should not be
court, the question (of necessity) should enlarged by doubtly interpretation.
be raised and decided in limine." (Bensley vs. Mountain lake Water Co.,
13 Cal., 306 and cases cited [73 Am. Dec.,
There is a wide distinction between a 576].)
legislative declaration that a municipality
is given authority to exercise the right of The statutory power of taking property
eminent domain, and a decision by the from the owner without his consent is one
municipality that there exists a necessity of the most delicate exercise of
for the exercise of that right in a governmental authority. It is to be
particular case. The first is a declaration watched with jealous scrutiny. Important
simply that there exist reasons why the as the power may be to the government,
right should be conferred upon municipal the inviolable sanctity which all free
corporation, while the second is the constitutions attach to the right of
application of the right to a particular property of the citizens, constrains the
case. Certainly, the legislative declaration strict observance of the substantial
relating to the advisability of granting the provisions of the law which are
power cannot be converted into a prescribed as modes of the exercise of the
declaration that a necessity exists for its power, and to protect it from abuse. Not
exercise in a particular case, and only must the authority of municipal
especially so when, perhaps, the land in corporations to take property be
question was not within the territorial expressly conferred and the use for which
jurisdiction of the municipality at the time it is taken specified, but the power, with
the legislative authority was granted. all constitutional limitation and directions
for its exercise, must be strictly pursued.
The exercise of the right of eminent (Dillon on Municipal Corporations [5th
domain, whether directly by the State, or Ed.], sec. 1040, and cases cited; Tenorio
by its authorized agents, is necessarily in vs. Manila Railroad Co., 22 Phil., 411.)
derogation of private rights, and the rule
in that case is that the authority must be It can scarcely be contended that a
strictly construed. No species of property municipality would be permitted to take
is held by individuals with greater property for some public use unless some
tenacity, and none is guarded by the public necessity existed therefore. The
constitution and laws more sedulously, right to take private property for public
than the right to the freehold of use originates in the necessity, and the
inhabitants. When the legislature taking must be limited by such necessity.
interferes with that right, and, for greater The appellant contends that inasmuch as
Page | 44
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 45
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 46
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 47
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
appropriation of title to, and possession of, the PLDT, as the needs of the government
the expropriated property; but no cogent service may require, subject to the
reason appears why the said power may payment of just compensation to be
not be availed of to impose only a burden determined by the court.
upon the owner of condemned property,
without loss of title and possession. It is Normally, of course, the power of eminent
unquestionable that real property may, domain results in the taking or
through expropriation, be subjected to an appropriation of title to, and possession of,
easement of right of way. the expropriated property; but no cogent
reason appears why the said power may
not be availed of to impose only a burden
PERSONS AND ENTITIES MAY NOT BE upon the owner of condemned property,
COMPELLED TO ENTER INTO A without loss of title and possession. It is
CONTRCT WITH THE GOVERNMENT, unquestionable that real property may,
BUT THE LATTER MAY EXERCISE THE through expropriation, be subjected to an
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO easement of right of way. The use of the
IMPOSE BURDEN ON A PROPERTY PLDT's lines and services to allow
WITHOUT ACTUAL TAKING. We agree interservice connection between both
with the court below that parties cannot telephone systems is not much different.
be coerced to enter into a contract where In either case private property is
no agreement is had between them as to subjected to a burden for public use and
the principal terms and conditions of the benefit. If under Section 6, Article XIII, of
contract. Freedom to stipulate such terms the Constitution, the State may, in the
and conditions is of the essence of our interest of national welfare, transfer
contractual system, and by express utilities to public ownership upon
provision of the statute, a contract may be payment of just compensation, there is no
annulled if tainted by violence, reason why the State may not require a
intimidation or undue influence (Articles public utility to render services in the
1306, 1336, 1337, Civil Code of the general interest, provided just
Philippines). compensation is paid therefor. Ultimately,
the beneficiary of the interconnecting
But the court a quo has apparently service would be the users of both
overlooked that while the Republic may telephone systems, so that the
not compel the PLDT to celebrate a condemnation would be for public use.
contract with it, the Republic may, in the
exercise of the sovereign power of The Bureau of Telecommunications,
eminent domain, require the telephone under Section 78(b) of Executive Order
company to permit interconnection of the No. 94, may operate and maintain wire
government telephone system and that of telephone or radio telephone
Page | 48
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 49
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Republic may not compel the PLDT to heard People v. Fajardo , 104 Phil.443
celebrate a contract with it, the Republic, (1958)
in the exercise of the sovereign of
eminent domain, may require the The easement of right-of-way is definitely
telephone company to permit a taking under the power of eminent
interconnection of the Government domain. Considering the nature and effect
Telephone System and that of PLDT, as of the installation of the 230 KV Mexico-
the needs of the government service Limay transmission lines, the limitation
may require, subject to the payment of imposed by NPC against the use of the
just compensation. Ultimately, the land for an indefinite period deprives
beneficiary of the interconnecting service private respondents of its ordinary use.
would be the users of both telephone Napocor v. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1
systems, so that condemnation would be (1991)
for public use.
REGULATION OF PROPERTY WHICH
FOREVER DEPRIVES THE OWNER OF
DOCTRINE: People vs. Fajardo THE BENEFICIAL USE THEREOF
CANNOT BE SUSTAINED UNDER THE
Gabby: In People v Fajardo – respondent EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER. It is
was deprived with all the beneficial use of contended, on the other hand, that the
the property even though respondent is mayor can refuse a permit solely in case
still the owner and possessor. The Court that the proposed building "destroys the
held that there was taking. view of the public plaza or occupies any
public property" (as stated in its section
3); and in fact, the refusal of the Mayor of
DEPRIVATION OF USE: Baao to issue a building permit to the
As the case now stands, every structure appellant was predicated on the ground
that may be erected on appellants' land, that the proposed building would
regardless of its own beauty, stands "destroy the view of the public plaza" by
condemned under the ordinance in preventing its being seen from the public
question, because it would interfere with highway.
the view of the public plaza from the
highway. The appellants would, in effect, Even thus interpreted, the ordinance is
be constrained to let their land remain unreasonable and oppressive, in that it
idle and unused for the obvious purpose operates — to permanently deprive
for which it is best suited, being urban in appellants of the right to use their own
character. To legally achieve that result, property; hence, it oversteps the bounds
the municipality must give appellants just of police power, and amounts to a taking
compensation and an opportunity to be of appellants property without just
Page | 50
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 51
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 52
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 53
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
permanently, as may be inferred from the part of the Republic to expropriate the
construction of permanent improvements. lands in the future did not, and could not,
But this "intention" cannot prevail over bind the landowner, nor bind the land
the clear and express terms of the lease itself. The expropriation must be actually
contract. Intent is to be deduced from the commenced in court (Republic vs.
language employed by the parties, and the Baylosis, et al., 96 Phil. 461, 484).
terms of the contract, when unambiguous,
as in the instant case, are conclusive in Third, the entry into the property should
the absence of averment and proof of be under warrant or color of legal
mistake or fraud — the question being authority. This circumstance in the
not what the intention was, but what is "taking" may be considered as present in
expressed in the language used. (City of the instant case, because the Republic
Manila v. Rizal Park Co., Inc., 53 Phil. entered the Castellvi property as lessee.
515, 525); Magdalena Estate, Inc. v.
Myrick, 71 Phil. 344, 348). Fourth, the property must be devoted to a
public use or otherwise informally
Moreover, in order to judge the intention appropriated or injuriously affected. It
of the contracting parties, their may be conceded that the circumstance of
contemporaneous and subsequent acts the property being devoted to public use
shall be principally considered (Art. 1371, is present because the property was used
Civil Code). If the intention of the lessee by the air force of the AFP.
(Republic) in 1947 was really to occupy
permanently Castellvi's property, why Fifth, the utilization of the property for
was the contract of lease entered into on public use must be in such a way as to
year to year basis? Why was the lease oust the owner and deprive him of all
agreement renewed from year to year? beneficial enjoyment of the property. In
Why did not the Republic expropriate this the instant case, the entry of the Republic
land of Castellvi in 1949 when, according into the property and its utilization of the
to the Republic itself, it expropriated the same for public use did not oust Castellvi
other parcels of land that it occupied at and deprive her of all beneficial
the same time as the Castellvi land, for the enjoyment of the property. Castellvi
purpose of converting them into a jet air remained as owner, and was continuously
base?" recognized as owner by the Republic, as
shown by the renewal of the lease
It might really have been the intention of contract from year to year, and by the
the Republic to expropriate the lands in provision in the lease contract whereby
question at some future time, but the Republic undertook to return the
certainly mere notice — much less an property to Castellvi when the lease was
implied notice — of such intention on the terminated. Neither was Castellvi
Page | 54
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
deprived of all the beneficial enjoyment of In the instant case, it is undisputed that
the property, because the Republic was the Republic was placed in possession of
bound to pay, and had been paying, the Castellvi property, by authority of the
Castellvi the agreed monthly rentals until court, on August 10, 1959. The "taking" of
the time when it filed the complaint for the Castellvi property for the purposes of
eminent domain on June 26, 1959. determining the just compensation to be
paid must, therefore, be reckoned as of
JUST COMPENSATION IS DETERMINED June 26, 1959 when the complaint for
FROM THE TIME OF FILING THE eminent domain was filed.
COMPLAINT. We hold, therefore, that the
"taking' of the Castellvi property should In expropriation proceedings, therefore,
not be reckoned as of the year 1947 when the owner of the land has the right to its
the Republic first occupied the same value for the use for which it would bring
pursuant to the contract of lease, and that the most in the market. The owner may
the just compensation to be paid for the thus show every advantage that his
Castellvi property should not be property possesses, present and
determined on the basis of the value of prospective, in order that the price it
the property as of that year. The lower could be sold for in the market may be
court did not commit an error when it satisfactorily determined. The owner may
held that the "taking" of the property also show that the property is suitable for
under expropriation commenced with the division into village or town lots.
filing of the complaint in this case.
Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Who has the priority in expropriation?
Court, the "just compensation" is to be
determined as of the date of the filing of Private lands rank last in the order of
the complaint. This Court has ruled that priority for purposes of socialized
when the taking of the property sought to housing. In the same vein, expropriation
be expropriated coincides with the proceedings are to be resorted to only
commencement of the expropriation when the other modes of acquisition have
proceedings, or takes place subsequent to been exhausted. Compliance with these
the filing of the complaint for eminent conditions must be deemed mandatory
domain, the just compensation should be because these are the only safeguards in
determined as of the date of the filing of securing the right of owners of private
the complaint. (Republic vs. Philippine property to due process when their
National Bank, L-14158, April 12, 1961, property is expropriated for public use.
1 SCRA 957, 961-962). The governing law that deals with the
subject of expropriation for purposes of
urban land reform and housing is
Page | 55
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban this Act shall include, among others,
Development and Housing Act of 1992) community mortgage, land swapping, land
and Sections 9 and 10 of which assembly or consolidation, land banking,
specifically provide as follows: donation to the Government, joint venture
agreement, negotiated purchase, and
Sec. 9. Priorities in the acquisition of Land. expropriation. Provided, however, That
— Lands for socialized housing shall be expropriation shall be resorted to only
acquired in the following order: when other
modes of acquisition have been exhausted.
(a) Those owned by the Government or
any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, Provided further, That where
or agencies, including government-owned expropriation is resorted to, parcels of
or controlled corporations and their land owned by small property owners
subsidiaries; shall be exempted for purposes of this Act.
Provided, finally, That abandoned
(b) Alienable lands of the public domain; property, as herein defined, shall be
reverted and escheated to the State in a
(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle proceeding analogous to the procedure
lands; laid down in Rule 91 of the Rules of Court.
(d) Those within the declared Areas for
Priority Development, Zonal For the purpose of socialized housing,
Improvement sites, and Slum government-owned and foreclosed
Improvement and Resettlement Program properties shall be acquired by the local
sites which have not yet been acquired; government units, or by the National
Housing Authority primarily through
(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites negotiated purchase: Provided, That
and Services or BLISS sites which have qualified beneficiaries who are actual
not yet been acquired; and occupants of the land shall be given the
right of first refusal. (Emphasis supplied).
(f) Privately-owned lands. Where on-site Filstream International v. CA, 284
development is found more practicable SCRA 716 (1998)
and advantageous to the beneficiaries, the
priorities mentioned in this section shall
not apply. The local government units
shall give budgetary priority to on-site REPUBLIC VS VDA. De CASTELLVI
development of government lands. GR No. 20620, Aug.15, 1974
Sec. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. — The FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines
modes of acquiring lands for purposes of occupied the land of Carmen M. vda. de
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Almost Always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 56
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Castellvi from 1 July 1947, by virtue of a ISSUE: Whether the taking of Castellvi’s
contract of lease, on a year to year basis property occurred in 1947 or in 1959.
(from July 1 of each year to June 30 of the
succeeding year). The Republic sought to HELD: The Republic urges that the
renew the same but Castellvi refused. The "taking " of Castellvi's property should be
AFP refused to vacate the leased premises deemed as of the year 1947 by virtue of
after the termination of the contract afore-quoted lease agreement. In
because it would difficult for the army to American Jurisprudence, Vol. 26, 2nd
vacate the premises in view of the edition, Section 157, on the subject of
permanent installations and other "Eminent Domain, we read the definition
facilities worth almost P500,000.00 that of "taking" (in eminent domain) as
were erected and already established on follows:
the property. Castellvi then brought suit
to eject the Philippine Air Force from "Taking”under the power of eminent
the land. While this ejectment case was domain may be defined generally as
pending, the Republic filed on 26 June entering upon private property for more
1959 complaints for eminent domain than a momentary period, and, under the
against the respondents over the 3 warrant or color of legal authority,
parcels of land. devoting it to a public use, or otherwise
informally appropriating or injuriously
In its complaint, the Republic alleged, affecting it in such a way as substantially
among other things, that the fair market to oust the owner and deprive him of all
value of the above-mentioned lands, beneficial enjoyment thereof."
according to the Committee on Appraisal
for the Province of Pampanga, was not Pursuant to the aforecited authority, a
more than P2,000 per hectare.The court number of circumstances must be present
authorizes the Republic to take in the "taking" of property for purposes of
immediate possession of the lands upon eminent domain.
deposit of that amount with the Provincial First, the expropriator must enter a
Treasurer of Pampanga. private property. This circumstance is
present in the instant case, when by
In 1961, the trial court, rendered its virtue of the lease agreement the Republic,
decision in the ejectment case, finding through the AFP, took possession of the
that the unanimous recommendation of property of Castellvi.
the commissioners of P10.00 per square
meter for the 3 lots subject of the action is Second, the entrance into private
fair and just; and required the Republic to property must be for more than a
pay interests. momentary period. "Momentary" means,
"lasting but a moment; of but a moment's
Page | 57
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 58
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 59
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Neither can it be said that the right of property of its true and fair market value
eminent domain may be exercised by at the time when the expropriation
simply leasing the premises to be proceedings were actually instituted in
expropriated (Rule 67, Section 1, Rules of court. The Republic's claim that it had the
Court). Nor can it be accepted that the "right and privilege" to buy the property
Republic would enter into a contract of at the value that it had at the time when it
lease where its real intention was to buy, first occupied the property as lessee
or why the Republic should enter into a nowhere appears in the lease contract.
simulated contract of lease ("under time
the Republic had the right of eminent What was agreed expressly in paragraph
domain, and could expropriate Castellvi's No. 5 of the lease agreement was that,
land if it wanted to without resorting to should the lessor require the lessee to
any guise whatsoever. Neither can we see return the premises in the same condition
how a right to buy could be merged in a as at the time the same was first occupied
contract of lease in the absence of any by the AFP, the lessee would have the
agreement between the parties to that "right and privilege" (or option) of paying
effect. To sustain the contention of the the lessor what it would fairly cost to put
Republic is to sanction a practice whereby the premises in the same condition as it
in order to secure a low price for a land was at the commencement of the lease, in
which the government intends to lieu of the lessee's performance of the
expropriate (or would eventually undertaking to put the land in said
expropriate) it would first negotiate with condition. The "fair value" at the time of
the owner of the land to lease the land occupancy, mentioned in the lease
(for say ten or twenty years) then agreement, does not refer to the value of
expropriate the same when the lease is the property if bought by the lessee, but
about to terminate, then claim that the refers to the cost of restoring the property
"taking" of the property for the purposes in the same condition as of the time when
of the expropriation be reckoned as of the the lessee took possession of the property.
date when the Government started to Such fair value cannot refer to the
occupy the property under the lease, and purchase price, for purchase was never
then assert that the value of the property intended by the parties to the lease
being expropriated be reckoned as of the contract. It is a rule in the interpretation
start of the lease, in spite of the fact that of contracts that "However general the
the value of the property, for many good terms of a contract may be, they shall not
reasons, had in the meantime increased be understood to comprehend things that
during the period of the lease. This would are distinct and cases that are different
be sanctioning what obviously is a from those upon which the parties
deceptive scheme, which would have the intended to agree" (Art. 1372, Civil Code).
effect of depriving the owner of the
Page | 60
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 61
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 62
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
government; and that it had long addition, the government should pay for
prescribed, nor did it have jurisdiction attorney's fees, the amount of which
over said claim because the government should be fixed by the trial court after
had not given its consent to be sued. hearing.
Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.
(NOTE: The owner does not need to file
ISSUE: Can the appellant sue the the usual claim for recovery of just
government? compensation with the Commission on
Audit if the government takes over his
HELD: Yes. Considering that no property and devotes it to public use
annotation in favor of the government without the benefit of expropriation. He
appears at the back of her certificate of may immediately file a complaint with the
title and that she has not executed any proper court for payment of his property
deed of conveyance of any portion of her as the arbitrary action of the government
lot to the government, the appellant shall be deemed a waiver of its immunity
remains the owner of the whole lot. As from suit.) Cruz, pg. 74)
registered owner, she could bring an
action to recover possession of the
portion of land in question at anytime
because possession is one of the DOCTRINE: Philippine Press Institute
attributes of ownership. vs. COMELEC
However, since restoration of
possession of said portion by the TAKING IN EMINENT DOMAIN. - To
government is neither convenient nor compel print media companies to donate
feasible at this time because it is now
"Comelec space" of the dimensions
and has been used for road purposes, specified in Section 2 of resolution No.
the only relief available isfor the 2772 (not less than one-half Page),
government to make due compensation amounts to "taking" of private personal
which it could and should have done property for public use or purposes.
years ago. To determine the due Section 2 failed to specify the intended
compensation for the land, the basis frequency of such compulsory "donation:"
should be the price or value thereof at only once during the period from 6 March
the time of the taking. 1995 (or 21 March 1995) until 12 May
1995? or everyday or once a week? or has
As regards the claim for damages, the often as Comelec may direct during the
plaintiff is entitled thereto in the form of same period? the extent of the taking or
legal interest on the price of the land from
deprivation is not insubstantial; this is not
the time it was taken up to the time that a case of a de minimis temporary
payment is made by the government. In limitation or restraint upon the use of
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Almost Always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 63
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
private property. The monetary value of Commission would be used not only for
the compulsory "donation," measured by informing the public about the identities,
the advertising rates ordinarily charged qualifications and programs of
by newspaper publishers whether in government of candidates for elective
cities or in non-urban areas, may be very office but also for "dissemination of vital
substantial indeed. election information" (including,
presumably, circulars, regulations, notices,
The taking of print space here sought to directives, etc. issued by Comelec). It
be effected may first be appraised under seems to the Court a matter of judicial
the public of expropriation of private notice that government offices and
personal property for public use. The agencies (including the Supreme Court)
threshold requisites for a lawful taking of simply purchase print space, in the
private property for public use need to be ordinary course of events, when their
examined here: one is the necessity for rules and regulations, circulars, notices
the taking; another is the legal authority and so forth need officially to be brought
to effect the taking. The element of to the attention of the general public.
necessity for the taking has not been
shown by respondent Comelec. It has not The taking of private property for public
been suggested that the members of PPI use it, of course, authorized by the
are unwilling to sell print space at their Constitution, but not without payment of
normal rates to Comelec for election "just compensation" (Article III, Section
purposes. Indeed, the unwillingness or 9). And apparently the necessity of paying
reluctance of Comelec to buy print space compensation for "Comelec space" is
lies at the heart of the problem. Similarly, precisely what is sought to be avoided by
it has not been suggested, let alone respondent Commission, whether Section
demonstrated, that Comelec has been 2 of resolution No. 2772 is read as
granted the power of imminent domain petitioner PPI reads it, as an assertion of
either by the Constitution or by the authority to require newspaper
legislative authority. A reasonable publishers to "donate" free print space
relationship between that power and the for Comelec purpose, or as an exhortion,
enforcement and administration of or perhaps an appeal, to publishers to
election laws by Comelec must be shown; donate free print space, as Section 1 of
it is not casually to be assumed. Resolution No. 2772-A attempts to
suggest. There is nothing at all to prevent
That the taking is designed to subserve newspaper and magazine publishers from
"public use" is not contested by petitioner voluntarily giving free print space to
PPI. We note only that, under Section 3 of Comelec for the purposes contemplated in
Resolution No. 2772, the free "Comelec Resolution No. 2772. Section 2 of
space" sought by the respondent resolution No. 2772 does not, however,
Page | 64
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 65
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Constitution, but not without payment of compliance in the instant case with the
"just compensation" (Article III, Section 9). requisites of a lawful taking under the
And apparently the necessity of paying police power.
compensation for "Comelec space" is
precisely what is sought to be avoided by Section 2 of Resolution No. 2772 is a blunt
respondent Commission. There is nothing and heavy instrument that purports,
at all to prevent newspaper and magazine without a showing of existence of a
publishers from voluntarily giving free national emergency or other imperious
print space to Comelec for the purposes public necessity, indiscriminately and
contemplated in Resolution No. 2772. without regard the the individual business
Section 2 of resolution No. 2772 does not, condition of particular newspapers or
however, provide a constitutional basis magazines located in different parts of the
for compelling publishers, against their country, to take private property of
will, in the kind of factual context here newspaper or magazine publishers. No
present, to provide free print space for attempt was made to demonstrate that
Comelec purposes. Section 2 does not a real and palpable or urgent necessity
constitute a valid exercise of the power of for the taking of print space confronted
eminent domain. the Comelec and that Section 2 of
Resolution No. 2772 was itself the only
As earlier noted, the Solicitor General also reasonable and calibrated response to
contended that Section 2 of Resolution No. such necessity available to Comelec.
2772, even if read as compelling publishers Section 2 does not constitute a valid
to "donate" "Comelec space," may be exercise of the police power of the State.
sustained as a valid exercise of the police
power of the state. This argument was,
however, made too casually to require
prolonged consideration on their part . DOCTRINE: Sumulong vs. Guerrero
Firstly, there was no effort (and Gabby: In Sumulong v Guerrero, does
apparently no inclination on the part of
size matter? (hahaha) No. Even small
Comelec) to show that the police power -
essentially a power of legislation - has properties may be expropriated.
been constitutionally delegated to -In Gido Case, only large tracts of land, not
respondent Commission. the number of beneficiaries, mat be
expropriated. This is an old case
Secondly, while private property may abandoned by the Sumulong Case.
indeed be validly taken in the legitimate
exercise of the police power of the state, What was the reason in allowing the
there was no attempt to show taking in the case of Sumulong?
Page | 66
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
PUBLIC USE: This Court holds that use. There was a time when it was felt
"socialized housing" defined in Pres. that a literal meaning should be attached
Decree No. 1224, as amended by Pres. to such a requirement. Whatever project
Decree Nos. 1259 and 1313, constitutes is undertaken must be for the public to
"public use" for purposes of expropriation. enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks.
However, as previously held by this Court, Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable.
the provisions of such decrees on just It is not anymore. As long as the purpose
compensation are unconstitutional; and of the taking is public, then the power of
in the instant case the Court finds that the eminent domain comes into play. As just
Orders issued pursuant to the corollary noted, the constitution in at least two
provisions of those decrees authorizing cases, to remove any doubt, determines
immediate taking without notice and what is public use. One is the
hearing are violative of due process. expropriation of lands to be subdivided
Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 into small lots for resale at cost to
(1987) individuals. The other is in the transfer,
through the exercise of this power, of
utilities and other private enterprise to
the government. It is accurate to state
CONCEPT OF PUBLIC USE IN EMINENT then that at present whatever may be
DOMAIN. Petitioners contend that beneficially employed for the general
"socialized housing" as defined in Pres. welfare satisfies the requirement of
Decree No. 1224, as amended, for the public use [Heirs of Juancho Ardona v.
purpose of condemnation proceedings is Reyes, G.R. Nos. 60549, 60553-60555,
not "public use" since it will benefit only October 26, 1983, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)
"a handful of people, bereft of public at 234-5 quoting E. FERNANDO, THE
character." "Socialized housing" is defined CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
as, "the construction of dwelling units for 523-4, (2nd e., 1977) Emphasis
the middle and lower class members of supplied]
our society, including the construction of
the supporting infrastructure and other The term "public use" has acquired a
facilities" (Pres. Decree No. 1224, par. 1). more comprehensive coverage. To the
literal import of the term signifying strict
The "public use" requirement for a valid use or employment by the public has been
exercise of the power of eminent domain added the broader notion of indirect
is a flexible and evolving concept public benefit or advantage. As discussed
influenced by changing conditions. In this in the above cited case of Heirs of Juancho
jurisdiction, the statutory and judicial Ardona:
trend has been summarized as follows:
The taking to be valid must be for public
Page | 67
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The restrictive view of public use may be with the private sector, a continuing
appropriate for a nation which program of urban land reform and
circumscribes the scope of government housing which will make available at
activities and public concerns and which affordable cost decent housing and basic
possesses big and correctly located public services to underprivileged and homeless
lands that obviate the need to take private citizens in urban centers and resettlement
property for public purposes. Neither areas. It shall also promote adequate
circumstance applies to the Philippines. employment opportunities to such
We have never been a laissez faire State. citizens. In the implementation of such
And the necessities which impel the program the State shall respect the rights
exertion of sovereign power are an too of small property owners. (Art. XIII, sec. 9,
often found in areas of scarce public land Emphasis supplied)
or limited government resources.
Housing is a basic human need. Shortage
Specifically, urban renewal or in housing is a matter of state concern
redevelopment and the construction of since it directly and significantly affects
low-cost housing is recognized as a public public health, safety, the environment and
purpose, not only because of the in sum, the general welfare. The public
expanded concept of public use but also character of housing measures does not
because of specific provisions in the change because units in housing projects
Constitution. The 1973 Constitution made cannot be occupied by all but only by
it incumbent upon the State to establish, those who satisfy prescribed
maintain and ensure adequate social qualifications. A beginning has to be made,
services including housing [Art. II, sec. 7]. for it is not possible to provide housing
The 1987 Constitution goes even further for all who need it, all at once.
by providing that:
The State shall promote a just and SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT
dynamic social order that will ensure the DETERMINATIVE OF THE PROPER
prosperity and independence of the EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN.
nation and free the people from poverty Petitioners further contend that Pres.
through policies that provide adequate Decree 1224, as amended, would allow
social services, promote full employment, the taking of "any private land" regardless
a rising standard of living and an of the size and no matter how small the
improved quality of life for all. [Art. II, sec. area of the land to be expropriated.
9] Petitioners claim that "there are vast
areas of lands in Mayamot, Cupang, and
The state shall, by law, and for the San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal hundred of
common good, undertake, in cooperation hectares of which are owned by a few
Page | 68
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 69
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The Congress shall give highest priority to Tax values can serve as guides but cannot
the enactment of measures that protect be absolute substitutes for just
and enhance the right of all the people to compensation. To say that the owners are
human dignity, reduce social, economic, estopped to question the valuations made
and political inequalities, and remove by assessors since they had the
cultural inequities by equitably diffusing opportunity to protest is illusory. The
wealth and political power for the overwhelming mass of landowners accept
common good. To this end, the State shall unquestioningly what is found in the tax
regulate the acquisition, ownership, use declarations prepared by local assessors
and disposition of property and its or municipal clerks for them. They do not
increments. (Art. XIII, sec. 1) even look at, much less analyze, the
statements. The idea of expropriation
JUST COMPENSATION. Just simply never occurs until a demand is
compensation means the value of the made or a case filed by an agency
property at the time of the taking. It authorized to do so.
means a fair and full equivalent for the
loss sustained. All the facts as to the
condition of the property and its
surroundings, its improvements and SUMULONG VS GUERRERO
capabilities, should be considered. GR 48685, Sept 30,1987
Various factors can come into play in the FACTS: On December 5,1977, the
valuation of specific properties singled National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a
out for expropriation. The values given by complaint for expropriation of parcels of
provincial assessors are usually uniform land covering approximately 25 hectares,
for very wide areas covering several (in Antipolo Rizal) including the lots of
barrios or even an entire town with the Lorenzo Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes-
exception of the poblacion. Individual Balaoing with an area of 6,667 square
differences are never taken into account. meters and 3,333 square meters
The value of land is based on such respectively. The land sought to be
generalities as its possible cultivation for expropriated were valued by the NHA at
rice, corn, coconuts, or other crops. Very P1.00 per square meter adopting the
often land described as "cogonal" has market value fixed by the provincial
been cultivated for generations. Buildings assessor in accordance with presidential
are described in terms of only two or decrees prescribing the valuation of
three classes of building materials and property in expropriation proceedings.
estimates of areas are more often
inaccurate than correct.
Page | 70
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Together with the complaint was a import of the term signifying strict use or
motion for immediate possession of the employment by the public has been added
properties. The NHA deposited the the broader notion of indirect public
amount of P158,980.00 with the benefit or advantage. Specifically, urban
Philippine National Bank, representing renewal or redevelopment and the
the “total market value” of the subject 25 construction of low-cost housing is
hectares of land, pursuant to Presidential recognized as a public purpose, not only
Decree 1224 which defines “the policy on because of the expanded concept of public
the expropriation of private property for use but also because of specific provisions
socialized housing upon payment of just in the Constitution. The 1973 Constitution
compensation.” On 17 January 1978, made it incumbent upon the State to
Judge Buenaventura Guerrero issued the establish, maintain and ensure adequate
order issuing a writ of possession in favor social services including housing [Art. II,
of NHA. Sumulong and Vidanes-Balaoing sec. 7]. Shortage in housing is a matter
filed a motion for reconsideration on the of state concern since it directly and
ground that they had been deprived of the significantly affects public health, safety,
possession of their property without due the environment and in sum, the
process of law. This was, however, denied. general welfare. The public character of
They filed a petition for certiorari with housing measures does not change
the Supreme Court. because units in housing projects cannot
be occupied by all but only by those who
ISSUE: Whether the taking of private satisfy prescribed qualifications. A
property for “socialized housing,” which beginning has to be made, for it is not
would benefit a few and not all citizens, possible to provide housing for all who
constitutes taking for “public use.” need it, all at once. “Socialized housing”
falls within the confines of “public use”.
HELD: Yes. The exercise of the power of
eminent domain is subject to certain Various factors can come into play in the
limitations imposed by the constitution valuation of specific properties singled
(1973), i.e. that private property shall not out for expropriation. The values given
be taken for public use without just by provincial assessors are usually
compensation” (Art. IV, sec. 9); and that uniform for very wide areas covering
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, several barrios or even an entire town
or property without due process of law, with the exception of the poblacion.
nor shall any person be denied the equal Individual differences are never taken
protection of the laws” (Art. IV, sec. 1). into account.
The term “public use” has acquired a more The value of land is based on such
comprehensive coverage. To the literal generalities as its possible cultivation for
Page | 71
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
rice, corn, coconuts, or other crops. Very it is not at all to be said, however, that
often land described as "cogonal" has public use should thereby be restricted to
been cultivated for generations. Buildings such traditional uses. The idea that
are described in terms of only two or "public use" is strictly limited to clear
three classes of building materials and cases of "use by the public" has long been
estimates of areas are more often discarded. Manosca v. Court of Appeals,
inaccurate than correct. Tax values can 252 SCRA 412 (1996)
serve as guides but cannot be absolute
substitutes for just compensation. To
say that the owners are estopped to PUBLIC USE IN EMINENT DOMAIN. The
question the valuations made by term "public use," not having been
assessors since they had the otherwise defined by the constitution,
opportunity to protest is illusory. The must be considered in its general concept
overwhelming mass of landowners accept of meeting a public need or a public
unquestioningly what is found in the tax exigency. Black summarizes the
declarations prepared by local assessors characterization given by various courts
or municipal clerks for them. They do not to the term: thus:
even look at, much less analyze, the "Public Use. Eminent domain. The
statements. The idea of expropriation constitutional and statutory basis for
simply never occurs until a demand is taking property by eminent domain. For
made or a case filed by an agency condemnation purposes, 'public use' is
authorized to do so. one which confers some benefit or
advantage to the public; it is not confined
to actual use by public. It is measured in
DOCTRINE: Manosca vs. Court of terms of right of public to use proposed
Appeals facilities for which condemnation is
sought and, as long as public has right of
PUBLIC USE: This Court is asked to use, whether exercised by one or many
resolve whether or not the "public use" members of public, a 'public advantage' or
requirement of Eminent Domain is extant 'public benefit' accrues sufficient to
in the attempted expropriation by the constitute a public use.
Republic of a 492-square- meter parcel of
land so declared by the National "Public use, in constitutional provisions
Historical Institute ("NHI") as a national restricting the exercise of the right to take
historical landmark. x x x (the birthsite of private property in virtue of eminent
Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni domain, means a use concerning the
Cristo) x x x The validity of the exercise of whole community as distinguished from
the power of eminent domain for particular individuals. But each and every
traditional purposes is beyond question; member of society need not be equally
Page | 72
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
interested in such use, or be personally not the casual consequences that might
and directly affected by it; if the object is follow from, the exercise of the power.
to satisfy a great public want or exigency,
that is sufficient. Rindge Co. vs. Los The purpose in setting up the marker is
Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700, 43 S.Ct. essentially to recognize the distinctive
689, 692, 67 L.Ed. 1186. contribution of the late Felix Manalo to
the culture of the Philippines, rather than
The term may be said to mean public to commemorate his founding and
usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The
is productive of general benefit. It may be practical reality that greater benefit may
limited to the inhabitants of a small or be derived by members of the Iglesia ni
restricted locality, but must be in common, Cristo than by most others could well be
and not for a particular individual. The true but such a peculiar advantage still
use must be a needful one for the public, remains to be merely incidental and
which cannot be surrendered without secondary in nature. Indeed, that only a
obvious general loss and inconvenience. A few would actually benefit from the
'public use' for which land may be taken expropriation of property does not
defies absolute definition for it changes necessarily diminish the essence and
with varying conditions of society, new character of public use.
appliances in the sciences, changing
conceptions of scope and functions of
government, and other differing MANOSCA VS COURT OF APPEALS
circumstances brought about by an G.R. No. 106440 , 29 January 1996
increase in population and new modes of
communication and transportation. Katz FACTS: Petitioners inherited a piece of
v. Brandon, 156 Conn., 521, 245 A.2d land which was later declared as national
579,586." landmark due to being ascertained by
National Historic Institute (NHI) as the
etitioners ask: But "(w)hat is the so-called birthplace of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder
unusual interest that the expropriation of of Iglesia ni Cristo. On the opinion of
(Felix Manalo's) birthplace become so Secretary of Justice, he said that the place
vital as to be a public use appropriate for must be subjected to the power of
the exercise of the power of eminent eminent domain since places invested
domain" when only members of the with unusual historical interest is a public
Iglesia ni Cristo would benefit? This use which such power may be authorized.
attempt to give some religious Thus, Republic, through the office of
perspective to the case deserves little Solicitor General instituted a complaint
consideration, for what should be for expropriation and filed an urgent
significant is the principal objective of, motion for the issuance for an order to
Page | 73
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 74
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
defies absolute definition for it changes beneficially employed for the general
with varying conditions of society, new welfare satisfies the requirement of
appliances in the sciences, changing public use. Chief Justice Fernando, writing
conceptions of scope and functions of the ponencia in J.M. Tuason & Co. vs.
government, and other differing Land Tenure Administration, has viewed
circumstances brought about by an the Constitution a dynamic instrument
increase in population and new modes of and one that "is not to be construed
communication and transportation. Katz narrowly or pedantically" so as to enable
v. Brandon, 156 Conn., 521, 245 A.2d it "to meet adequately whatever problems
579,586. 17 the future has in store." Fr. Joaquin
Bernas, a noted constitutionalist himself,
The validity of the exercise of the power has aptly observed that what, in fact, has
of eminent domain for traditional ultimately emerged is a concept of public
purposes is beyond question; it is not at use which is just as broad as "public
all to be said, however, that public use welfare."
should thereby be restricted to such
traditional uses. The idea that "public use" Petitioners ask: But "(w)hat is the so-
is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by called unusual interest that the
the public" has long been discarded. The expropriation of (Felix Manalo's)
taking to be valid must be for public use. birthplace become so vital as to be a
There was a time when it was felt that a public use appropriate for the exercise of
literal meaning should be attached to such the power of eminent domain" when only
a requirement. Whatever project is members of the Iglesia ni Cristo would
undertaken must be for the public to benefit? This attempt to give some
enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. religious perspective to the case deserves
Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. little consideration, for what should be
It is not so any more. As long as the significant is the principal objective of,
purpose of the taking is public, then the not the casual consequences that might
power of eminent domain comes into play. follow from, the exercise of the power.
As just noted, the constitution in at least
two cases, to remove any doubt, The purpose in setting up the marker is
determines what is public use. One is the essentially to recognize the distinctive
expropriation of lands to be subdivided contribution of the late Felix Manalo to
into small lots for resale at cost to the culture of the Philippines, rather
individuals. The other is the transfer, than to commemorate his founding and
through the exercise of this power, of leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The
utilities and other private enterprise to practical reality that greater benefit
the government. It is accurate to state may be derived by members of the
then that at present whatever may be Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others
Page | 75
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
could well be true but such a peculiar eminent domain cases is a judicial
advantage still remains to be merely function. The executive department or the
incidental and secondary in nature. legislature may make the initial
Indeed, that only a few would actually determinations but when a party claims a
benefit from the expropriation of violation of the guarantee in the Bill of
property does not necessarily diminish Rights that private property may not be
the essence and character of public use. taken for public use without just
compensation, no statute, decree, or
executive order can mandate that its own
determination shall prevail over the
DOCTRINE: EPZA vs. Dulay court's findings. Much less can the courts
be precluded from looking into the "just-
DETERMINATION OF JUST ness" of the decreed compensation.
COMPENSATION: It is violative of due
process to deny to the owner the The method of ascertaining just
opportunity to prove that the valuation in compensation under the aforecited
the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And decrees constitutes impermissible
it is repulsive to basic concepts of justice encroachment on judicial prerogatives. It
and fairness to allow the haphazard work tends to render this Court initial in a
of a minor bureaucrat or clerk to matter which under the Constitution is
absolutely prevail over the judgment of a reserved to it for final determination.
court promulgated only after expert Thus, although in an expropriation
commissioners have actually viewed the proceeding the court technically would
property, after evidence and arguments still have the power to determine the just
pro and con have been presented, and compensation for the property, following
after all factors and considerations the applicable decrees, its task would be
essential to a fair and just determination relegated to simply stating the lower
have been judiciously evaluated. x x x P.D. value of the property as declared either
No. 1533, which eliminates the court's by the owner or the assessor. As a
discretion to appoint commissioners necessary consequence, it would be
pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, useless for the court to appoint
is unconstitutional and void. EPZA v. commissioners under Rule 67 of the
Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987) Rules of Court. Moreover, the need to
satisfy the due process clause in the
taking of private property is seemingly
DETERMINATION OF JUST fulfilled since it cannot be said that a
COMPENSATION IS A POWER THAT judicial proceeding was not had before
BELONGS TO THE COURT. The the actual taking.
determination of "just compensation" in
Page | 76
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
However, the strict application of the means the value of the property at the
decrees during the proceedings would be time of the taking. It means a fair and full
nothing short of a mere formality or equivalent for the loss sustained. All the
charade as the court has only to choose facts as to the condition of the property
between the valuation of the owner and and its surroundings, its improvements
that of the assessor, and its choice is and capabilities, should be considered. In
always limited to the lower of the two. this particular case, the tax declarations
The court cannot exercise its discretion or presented by the petitioner as basis for
independence in determining what is just just compensation were made by the
or fair. Even a grade school pupil could Lapu-Lapu municipal, later city assessor
substitute for the judge insofar as the long before martial law, when land was
determination of constitutional just not only much cheaper but when assessed
compensation is concerned. We are values of properties were stated in figures
convinced and so rule that the trial court constituting only a fraction of their true
correctly stated that the valuation in the market value. The private respondent was
decree may only serve as a guiding not even the owner of the properties at
principle or one of the factors in the time. It purchased the lots for
determining just compensation but it may development purposes. To peg the value
not substitute the court's own judgment of the lots on the basis of documents
as to what amount should be awarded which are out of date and at prices below
and how to arrive at such amount. A the acquisition cost of present owners
return to the earlier well-established would be arbitrary and confiscatory.
doctrine, to our mind, is more in keeping
with the principle that the judiciary
should live up to its mission "by vitalizing
and not denigrating constitutional rights." EPZA vs. DULAY
(See Salonga v. Cruz Paño, 134 SCRA G.R. No. L-59609, 29 April 1987
438, 462; citing Mercado v. Court of
First Instance of Rizal, 116 SCRA 93.) FACTS: A certain parcel of land was
reserved by the President of the
The doctrine we enunciated in National Philippines for petitioner Export
Housing Authority v. Reyes, supra, Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) for the
therefore, must necessarily be abandoned establishment of an export processing
if we are to uphold this Court's role as the zone. However, not all of the reserved
guardian of the fundamental rights area was public land. The petitioner made
guaranteed by the due process and equal an offer to purchase the lands registered
protection clauses and as the final arbiter
in the name of the private respondent, but,
over transgressions committed against the parties failed to have an agreement on
constitutional rights. Just compensation the sale of the property. Thus, the
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Almost Always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 77
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 78
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Petitioner seeks to bolster this contention Provided, however, That the power of
by citing Article 36, Rule VI of the Rules eminent domain may not be exercised
and Regulations Implementing the Local unless a valid and definite offer has been
Government Code, which provides: previously made to the owner, and such
offer was not accepted:
"If the LGU fails to acquire a private
property for public use, purpose, or Provided, further, That the local
welfare through purchase, the LGU may government unit may immediately take
expropriate said property through a possession of the property upon the filing
resolution of the Sanggunian authorizing of the expropriation proceedings and upon
its chief executive to initiate making a deposit with the proper court of
expropriation proceedings." at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair
market value of the property based on the
The Court disagrees. The power of current tax declaration of the property to
eminent domain is lodged in the be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the
legislative branch of government, which amount to be paid for the
may delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, expropriated .property shall be determined
other public entities and public utilities. by the proper court, based on the fair
An LGU may therefore exercise the power market value at the time of the taking of
to expropriate private property only the property."
when authorized by Congress and subject
to the latter's control and restraints Thus, the following essential requisites
imposed "through the law conferring the must concur before an LGU can exercise
power or in other legislations." In this the
case, Section 19 of RA 7160, which power of eminent domain:
delegates to LGUs the power of eminent
domain, also lays down the parameters 1. An ordinance is enacted by the local
for its exercise. It provides as follows: legislative council authorizing the local
chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to
exercise the power of eminent domain or
"Section 19. Eminent Domain. — A local pursue expropriation proceedings over a
government unit may, through its chief particular private property.
executive and acting pursuant to an
ordinance, exercise the power of eminent 2. The power of eminent domain is
domain for public use, or purpose, or exercised for public use, purpose or welfare,
welfare for the benefit of the poor and the or for the benefit of the poor and the
landless, upon payment of just landless.
compensation, pursuant to the provisions
of the Constitution and pertinent laws.
Page | 79
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
4. A valid and definite offer has been ISSUE: Whether or not the exercise of the
previously made to the owner of the power of eminent domain is valid.
property sought to be expropriated, but
said offer was not accepted. HELD:The following essential requisites
must concur before an LGU can exercise
the power of eminent domain:
Municipality of Parañaque vs. V.M.
Realty Corporation (1) An ordinance is enacted by the
G.R. No. 127820, 20 July 1998 local legislative council
authorizing the local chief
FACTS: A complaint for expropriation executive, in behalf of the LGU, to
was filed by the Municipality of exercise the power of eminent
Parañaque against V.M. Realty domain or pursue expropriation
Corporation involving two parcels of land proceedings over a particular
located at Parañaque, Metro Manila. The private property.
complaint was in pursuant to
Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 93-95, (2) The power of eminent domain is
Series of 1993. The complaint was for the exercised for public use, purpose
purpose of alleviateing the living or welfare, or for the benefit of
conditions of the underprivileged by the poor and the landless.
providing homes for the homeless
through a socialized housing project. (3) There is payment of just
compensation, as required
Previously, an offer for the sale of the under Section 9, Article III of the
property was made by the petitioner, Constitution, and other pertinent
however, the latter did not accept. The laws.
Regional Trial Court of Makati issued
order authorizing the petitioner to take (4) A valid and definite offer has
possession of the subject property upon been previously made to the
deposit to the Clerk of Court of an amount owner of the property sought to
equivalent to 15 percent of its fair market be expropriated, but said offer
value base on its current tax declaration. was not accepted.
However, upon the private respondent’s
motion to dismiss, the trial court nullified The Supreme Court ruled that there was
its previous order and dismissed the case. no compliance with the first requisite
Page | 80
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 81
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
execute a deed of sale in favor the government, and the government may
Republic. take them whenever the necessity or the
exigency of the occasion demands,
In 1964, since the Republic still failed to however, the Constitution guarantees
pay the just compensation Valdehueza that when this governmental right of
and Panerio mortgaged the land to expropriation is exercised, it shall be
Vicente Lim, who later foreclosed the attended by compensation. From the
mortgage in 1976 for the former’s failure taking of private property by the
to pay. In 1991, Lim instituted a suit for government under the power of eminent
quieting of title against AFP and the domain, there arises an implied promise
Republic. The RTC held that Lim was the to compensate the owner for his loss.
absolute and exclusive owner of the
property. This decision was sustained by There are two stages in expropriation.
the CA. A petition for certiorari was filed The first stage determines the authority
with SC but the SC affirmed the CA to exercise the power of eminent domain
decision. A second motion for and the propriety of its exercise in the
reconsideration was filed. context of the facts involved in the suit.
The second phase of the eminent domain
ISSUE: Whether or not the Republic has action is concerned with the
retained ownership of the land despite its determination by the court of the just
failure to pay respondent’s predecessors- compensation for the property sought to
in-interest the just compensation. be taken. It is only upon the completion of
these two stages that expropriation is
HELD: As early as May 19, 1966, in said to have been completed
Valdehueza, this Court mandated the
Republic to pay respondent’s The recognized rule is that title to the
predecessors-in-interest the sum of P16, property expropriated shall pass from the
248.40 as “reasonable market value of the owner to the expropriator only upon full
two lots in question.” payment of the just compensation, and
that “non-payment of just compensation
Unfortunately, it did not comply and (in an expropriation proceedings) does
allowed several decades to pass without not entitle the private landowners to
obeying this Court’s mandate. Such recover possession of the expropriated
prolonged obstinacy bespeaks of lack of lots.” However, the facts of the present
respect to private rights and to the rule of case do not justify its application. It bears
law, which we cannot countenance. It is stressing that the Republic was ordered
tantamount to confiscation of private to pay just compensation twice; the first
property. While it is true that all private was in the expropriation proceedings and
properties are subject to the need of the second, in Valdehueza. Fifty-seven
Page | 82
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(57) years have passed since then. We title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so
cannot but construe the Republic’s failure that the plaintiff cannot with accuracy or
to pay just compensation as a deliberate certainty specify who are the real owners,
refusal on its part. Under such averment to that effect shall be made in
circumstance, recovery of possession is in the complaint. (1a)
order. In cases where the government
failed to pay just compensation within Section 2. Entry of plaintiff upon
five (5) years from the finality of the depositing value with authorized
judgment in the expropriation government depositary. — Upon the filing
proceedings, the owners concerned shall of the complaint or at any time thereafter
have the right to recover possession of and after due notice to the defendant, the
their property. This is in consonance with plaintiff shall have the right to take or
the principle that “the government cannot enter upon the possession of the real
keep the property and dishonor the property involved if he deposits with the
judgment.” authorized government depositary an
amount equivalent to the assessed value
of the property for purposes of taxation to
be held by such bank subject to the orders
of the court. Such deposit shall be in
money, unless in lieu thereof the court
authorizes the deposit of a certificate of
RULE 67
deposit of a government bank of the
Republic of the Philippines payable on
Expropriation
demand to the authorized government
Section 1. The complaint. — The right of depositary.
eminent domain shall be exercised by the
If personal property is involved, its value
filing of a verified complaint which shall
shall be provisionally ascertained and the
state with certainty the right and purpose
amount to be deposited shall be promptly
of expropriation, describe the real or
fixed by the court.
personal property sought to be
expropriated, and join as defendants all
persons owning or claiming to own, or After such deposit is made the court shall
occupying, any part thereof or interest order the sheriff or other proper officer to
forthwith place the plaintiff in possession
therein, showing, so far as practicable, the
of the property involved and promptly
separate interest of each defendant. If the
submit a report thereof to the court with
title to any property sought to be
service of copies to the parties. (2a)
expropriated appears to be in the
Republic of the Philippines, although
occupied by private individuals, or if the
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Almost Always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 83
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 84
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 85
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 86
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Section 12. Costs, by whom paid. — The could do in such proceedings if he were of
fees of the commissioners shall be taxed age or competent. (14a)
as a part of the costs of the proceedings.
All costs, except those of rival claimants
litigating their claims, shall be paid by the
plaintiff, unless an appeal is taken by the
owner of the property and the judgment
is affirmed, in which event the costs of the POWER OF TAXATION
appeal shall be paid by the owner. (12a)
Page | 87
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Justice Malcolm believed that the the tax may be successfully attacked as an
power to tax “is an attribute of inordinate and unconstitutional exercise
sovereignty. It is the strongest of all of the discretion that is usually vested
the powers of government.” This led exclusively in the legislature in
Chief Justice Marshall of the US ascertaining the amount of the tax.
Supreme Court, in the celebrated case of Justice Isagani Cruz
McCulloch v. Maryland, to declare: “The
power to tax involves the power to It is not the purpose of the government
destroy.” This might be construed to to throttle private business. On the
mean that the power to tax includes the contrary, the government ought to
power to regulate even to the extent of encourage private enterprise. Taxpayer,
prohibition or destruction (Cooley) since just like any concern organized for a
the inherent power to tax vested who to tax, lawful economic activity, has a right to
what to tax and how much tax is to be maintain a legitimate business. As aptly
imposed. held in Roxas, et al v. CA, et al.:
Page | 88
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 89
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 90
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 91
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 92
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 93
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
state and both states impose tax on • Tax exemption- required vote?
that income or capital. (CIR vs. S.C. Majority
Johnson and Son, Inc)
• Avelino v Cuenco (how is majority
construed)
The Supreme Court declared that
double taxation, in general, is not
forbidden by our Constitution since It was held that there is a quorum
we have not adopted as part thereof that 12 being the majority of 23. In fine,
the injunction against double all the four justice agree that the Court
taxation found in the Constitution being confronted with the practical
of the United States and some states situation that of the twenty three
of the Union. Double taxation senators who may participate in the
becomes obnoxious only where the Senate deliberations in the days
taxpayer is taxed twice for the immediately after this decision, twelve
benefit of the same governmental senators will support Senator Cuenco
entity or by the same jurisdiction and, at most, eleven will side with
for the same purpose, but not in a Senator Avelino, it would be most
case where one tax is imposed by injudicious to declare the latter as the
the State and the other by the city rightful President of the Senate, that
or municipality. (Pepsi-Cola office being essentially one that
Bottling Co. v. Mun. of Tanauan, depends exclusively upon the will of
Leyte) the majority of the senators, the rule of
the Senate about tenure of the
President of that body being amenable
at any time by that majority. And at any
Despite the lack of a specific session hereafter held with thirteen or
prohibition, however double more senators, in order to avoid all
taxation will not be allowed if it controversy arising from the
results in a violation of the equal divergence of opinion here about
protection clause. Hence, if certain quorum and for the benefit of all
properties are subjected to an concerned, the said twelve senators
additional tax whereas others who approved the resolutions herein
similarly situated are not similarly involved could ratify all their acts and
taxed, the owners of the properties thereby place them beyond the shadow
would have a right to complain. of a doubt.
(Cruz, Constitutional Law)
• Majority of ALL members of house
(fixed), majority of the house
Page | 94
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
• Senate preside- majority of all members (4) No law granting any tax exemption
of the house
shall be passed without the concurrence
of a majority of all the Members of the
• 23 senators, 1 vacant. Out 5 of 23 went Congress.
to US. Quorum? Senate
President?
Atty. Gab: Religious org has two
parcels of land. TCT 1- church TCT 2-
Atty. Gab? Does the constitution directly
convent. Are both tax exempt? Kahit
grants exemption? Yes living quarters lang ang TCT
2?
Exclusively includes incidental
Section 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall
be uniform and equitable. The Congress LLadoc v CIR
shall evolve a progressive system of
taxation. • RC church owns a property and is being
asses for RPT. Church
presented
as evidence its ownership. Is that
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize enough? No, it must be
actually,
the President to fix within specified limits, exclusively and directly used for
and subject to such limitations and religious purpose
restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates,
import and export quotas, tonnage and • RC built a church on the property of A.
wharfage dues, and other duties or May be A be assessed for
RPT?
imposts within the framework of the No, ownership is not important but
national development program of the USE.
Government.
• Meaning of ADE? Include incidental
Page | 95
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Requisite: No law granting any tax C) Sec. 4 (4), Art. XIV: Subject to
exemption shall be passed without the conditions prescribed by law, all
concurrence of a majority of all the grants, endowments, donations, or
members of the Congress. [Sec28. (4), Art. contributions used actually,
VI] directly, and exclusively for
educational purposes shall be
- In granting tax exemption, is ownership exempt from tax.
material? NO, the USE determines D) Where tax exemption is granted
exemption. gratuitously, it may be revoked at
will; but not if granted for a
valuable consideration.
A) Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI: Charitable
institutions, churches and
parsonages or convents 6. Police Power vs. Taxation
appurtenant thereto, mosques, The distinction between the two rests in
non-profit cemeteries, and all the purpose.
lands, buildings and improvements,
actually, directly and exclusively - If generation of revenue is the
used for religious, charitable or primary purpose and the
educational purposes shall be regulation is merely incidental, the
exempt from taxation. imposition is a tax; but if
B) Sec. 4 (3), Art. XIV: All revenues regulation is the primary purpose,
and assets of non-stock, non-profit the fact that revenue is incidentally
educational institutions used raised does not make the
actually, directly, and exclusively imposition a tax.
for educational purposes shall be
exempt from taxes and duties.
Upon the dissolution or cessation Atty. Gab: difference of License fee
of the corporate existence of such from tax?
institutions, their assets shall be 7. License Fee vs. Tax
disposed of in the manner
provided by law. Proprietary LICENSE FEE TAX
educational institutions, including
those cooperatively owned, may It is a police It is a revenue
likewise be entitled to such measure. measure.
exemptions, subject to the
limitations provided by law, Amount collected Amount of tax may
including restrictions on dividends for a license fee is be unlimited
and provisions for reinvestment. limited to the cost provided it is not
Page | 96
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 97
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 98
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Facts: Batas Pambansa 135 was enacted. expense, while professionals and
Sison, as taxpayer, alleged that its businessmen have no uniform costs or
provision (Section 1) unduly expenses necessary to produce their
discriminated against him by the income. There is ample justification to
imposition of higher rates upon his adopt the gross system of income taxation
income as a professional, that it amounts to compensation income, while
to class legislation, and that it continuing the system of net income
transgresses against the equal protection taxation as regards professional and
and due process clauses of the business income.
Constitution as well as the rule requiring
uniformity in taxation.
Issue: Whether BP 135 violates the due * On due process - it is undoubted that it
process and equal protection clauses, and may be invoked where a taxing statute is
the rule on uniformity in taxation. so arbitrary that it finds no support in the
Constitution. An obvious example is
Held: There is a need for proof of such where it can be shown to amount to the
persuasive character as would lead to a confiscation of property from abuse of
conclusion that there was a violation of power. Petitioner alleges arbitrariness
the due process and equal protection but his mere allegation does not suffice
clauses. Absent such showing, the and there must be a factual foundation of
presumption of validity must prevail. such unconsitutional taint.
Equality and uniformity in taxation means
that all taxable articles or kinds of On equal protection - it suffices that the
property of the same class shall be taxed laws operate equally and uniformly on all
at the same rate. The taxing power has the persons under similar circumstances,
authority to make reasonable and natural both in the privileges conferred and the
classifications for purposes of taxation. liabilities imposed.
Where the differentitation conforms to On the matter that the rule of taxation
the practical dictates of justice and equity, shall be uniform and equitable - this
similar to the standards of equal requirement is met when the tax operates
protection, it is not discriminatory within with the same force and effect in every
the meaning of the clause and is therefore
place where the subject may be found."
uniform. Taxpayers may be classified into
Also, :the rule of uniformity does not call
different categories, such as recipients of for perfect uniformity or perfect equality,
compensation income as against because this is hardly unattainable."
professionals. Recipients of compensation When the problem of classification
income are not entitled to make became of issue, the Court said: "Equality
deductions for income tax purposes as and uniformity in taxation means that all
there is no practically no overhead
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Almost Always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 99
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 100
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 101
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
with injunction, upon the ground that approval of Republic Act. No. 920, and the
Republic Act No. 920, entitled "An Act sum of P85,000.00 appropriated therein
Appropriating Funds for Public Works", for the construction of the projected feeder
approved on June 20, 1953, contained, in roads in question; that the municipal
section 1-C (a) thereof, an item (43[h]) of council of Pasig endorsed said letter of
P85,000.00 "for the construction, respondent Zulueta to the District
reconstruction, repair, extension and Engineer of Rizal, who, up to the present
improvement" of Pasig feeder road "has not made any endorsement
terminals, that, at the time of the passage thereon" that inasmuch as the projected
and approval of said Act, the said feeder feeder roads in question were private
roads were "nothing but projected and property at the time of the passage and
planned subdivision roads within the approval of Republic Act No. 920, the
Antonio Subdivision situated at Pasig, appropriation of P85,000.00 therein
Rizal" near Shaw Boulevard, not far away made, for the construction,
from the intersection between the latter reconstruction, repair, extension and
and EDSA, which projected feeder roads improvement of said projected feeder
"do not connect any government property roads, was illegal and, therefore, void
or any important premises to the main ab initio"; that said appropriation of
highway"; that the aforementioned P85,000.00 was made by Congress
Antonio Subdivision (as well as the lands because its members were made to
on which said feeder roads were to be believe that the projected feeder roads
construed) were private properties of in question were "public roads and not
respondent Jose C. Zulueta, who, at the time private streets of a private
of the passage and approval of said Act, subdivision"'; that, "in order to give a
was a member of the Senate of the semblance of legality, when there is
Philippines; that on May, 1953, respondent absolutely none, to the aforementioned
Zulueta, addressed a letter to the appropriation", respondents Zulueta
Municipal Council of Pasig, Rizal, offering executed on December 12, 1953, while
to donate said projected feeder roads to he was a member of the Senate of the
the municipality of Pasig, Rizal; that, on Philippines, an alleged deed of donation
June 13, 1953, the offer was accepted by of the four (4) parcels of land
the council, subject to the condition "that constituting said projected feeder roads,
the donor would submit a plan of the said in favor of the Government of the
roads and agree to change the names of Republic of the Philippines; that said
two of them"; that no deed of donation in alleged deed of donation was, on the
favor of the municipality of Pasig was, same date, accepted by the then
however, executed; that on July 10, 1953, Executive Secretary; that being subject
respondent Zulueta wrote another letter to to an onerous condition, said donation
said council, calling attention to the partook of the nature of a contract; that,
Page | 102
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 103
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 104
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 105
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 106
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 107
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Bishop of the Missionary District, 14 SCRA It must be stressed however, that while
991 [1965], thus — this Court allows a more liberal and non-
restrictive interpretation of the phrase
Moreover, the exemption in "exclusively used for educational
favor of property used purposes" as provided for in Article VI,
exclusively for charitable or Section 22, paragraph 3 of the 1935
educational purposes is 'not Philippine Constitution, reasonable
limited to property actually emphasis has always been made that
indispensable' therefor exemption extends to facilities which are
(Cooley on Taxation, Vol. 2, incidental to and reasonably necessary
p. 1430), but extends to for the accomplishment of the main
facilities which are purposes. Otherwise stated, the use of the
incidental to and school building or lot for commercial
reasonably necessary for purposes is neither contemplated by law,
the accomplishment of said nor by jurisprudence. Thus, while the use
purposes, such as in the of the second floor of the main building in
case of hospitals, "a school the case at bar for residential purposes of
for training nurses, a the Director and his family, may find
nurses' home, property use justification under the concept of
to provide housing facilities incidental use, which is complimentary to
for interns, resident the main or primary purpose—
doctors, superintendents, educational, the lease of the first floor
and other members of the thereof to the Northern Marketing
hospital staff, and Corporation cannot by any stretch of the
recreational facilities for imagination be considered incidental to
student nurses, interns, and the purpose of education.
residents' (84 CJS 6621),
such as "Athletic fields"
including "a firm used for
the inmates of the Abra Valley College vs. Aquino GR L-
institution. (Cooley on 39086, 15 June 1988
Taxation, Vol. 2, p. 1430).
Facts:
The test of exemption from taxation is the
The petitioner filed a complaint on 10 July
use of the property for purposes
1972 in the court a quo to annul and
mentioned in the Constitution (Apostolic
declare void the “Notice of Seizure” and
Prefect v. City Treasurer of Baguio, 71
the “Notice of Sale” of its lot and building
Phil, 547 [1941]).
located at Bangued, Abra, for non-
Page | 108
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
payment of real estate taxes and penalties Adonis Notes: The SC stated that if only
amounting to P5,140.31. On 12 April 1973, the judge had read the 1973 Constitution,
the parties entered into a stipulation of he should have known the difference
facts adopted and embodied by the trial between the 1935 and the 1973
court in its questioned decision. The trial Constitution and he could not have
court ruled for the government, holding summarily dismissed the case. There is a
that the second floor of the building is substantial distinction between the 1935
being used by the director for residential and the 1973 Constitution. In the 1935
purposes and that the ground floor used Constitution the requirement for
and rented by Northern Marketing exemption for real property taxes is
Corporation, a commercial establishment, “exclusively” , while the 1973
and thus the property is not being used Constitution requires
“exclusively” for educational purposes.
Instead of perfecting an appeal, petitioner Petitioner Abra Valley College is an
availed of the instant petition for review educational corporation and institution of
on certiorari with prayer for preliminary higher learning duly incorporated with
injunction before the Supreme Court, by the SEC in 1948. On 6 July 1972, the
filing said petition on 17 August 1974. Municipal and Provincial treasurers
(Gaspar Bosque and Armin Cariaga,
Issue: Whether the College is exempt respectively) and issued a Notice of
from taxes. Seizure upon the petitioner for the college
lot and building (OCT Q-83) for the
Held: Yes. While the Court allows a more satisfaction of said taxes thereon. The
liberal and non-restrictive interpretation treasurers served upon the petitioner a
of the phrase “exclusively used for Notice of Sale on 8 July 1972, the sale
educational purposes,” reasonable being held on the same day. Dr. Paterno
emphasis has always been made that Millare, then municipal mayor of Bangued,
exemption extends to facilities which are Abra, offered the highest bid of P 6,000 on
incidental to and reasonably necessary public auction involving the sale of the
for the accomplishment of the main college lot and building. The certificate of
purposes. While the second floor’s use, as sale was correspondingly issued to him.
residence of the director, is incidental to
education; the lease of the first floor “actually, directly & exclusively”. The SC
cannot by any stretch of imagination be remanded to the Court of Origin for
considered incidental to the purposes of further hearing. (excerpts from Sababan
education. The test of exemption from Notes)
taxation is the use of the property for
purposes mentioned in the Constititution.
Page | 109
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 110
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 111
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
lifeblood of the government, the State’s cloak of authority and waives its
power to tax must give way to foster the governmental immunity. Truly, tax
creation and growth of cooperatives. To exemptions of this kind may not be
borrow the words of Justice Isagani Cruz: revoked without impairing the
“The power of taxation, while obligations of contracts. These
indispensable, is not absolute and may be contractual tax exemptions, however, are
subordinated to the demands of social not to be confused with tax exemptions
justice.” (Dumaguete Credit Cooperative granted under franchises. A franchise
v. CIR) partakes the nature of a grant which is
beyond the purview of the non-
Is there a distinction between the right impairment clause of the constitution.
of the State or any of its subdivisions to (Cagayan Electric vs. Commissioner).
revoke a contractual tax exemption Indeed, Article XII, Section 11, of the 1987
from that of tax exemption granted in a Constitution, like its precursor provisions
franchise? Explain. in the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions, is
explicit that no franchise for the operation
There is. Contractual tax exemptions of a public utility shall be granted except
cannot be revoked without impairing the under the condition that such privilege
obligations of contracts. (Cassanova vs. shall be subject to amendment, alteration
Hord). If the tax exemption is granted in a or repeal by Congress as and when the
franchise, it can be revoked without common good requires.
impairing the obligations of contracts
because it partakes of the nature of a When is notice and hearing necessary
grant. In Meralco vs. Province of Laguna, in taxation?
it was ruled that tax exemptions
contained in special franchises are in As a rule, notice and hearing is not
nature of contracts and part of the necessary in the collection of all kinds of
inducement for carrying on the franchise taxes. In all cases of specific taxes on
but are far from being strictly contractual things, persons, or occupations or poll
in nature. Contractual tax exemptions, in taxes, where the amounts are fixed by
the real sense of the term and where the law, notice is not necessary. But if a tax is
non-impairment clause of the levied on property not specifically, but
Constitution can rightly be invoked, are according to its value, to be ascertained
those agreed to by the taxing authority in by assessors appointed for that purpose,
contracts, such as those contained in notice and hearing are requisites of due
government bonds or debentures, process. This is so in ad valorem taxes. But
lawfully entered into by them under the hearing need not be held in court. The
enabling laws in which the government, necessity for speedy and prompt
acting in its private capacity, sheds its collection requires that administrative
Page | 112
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
officials perform this work. This is directly and exclusively used for
sufficient compliance with due process. educational purpose. (Abra Valley College
The personal presence of the taxpayer is vs. Aquino)
not indispensable for the validity of the
assessment. In 1957, the M.B. Estate, Inc. of Bacolod
City donated P10,000.00 in cash to Rev.
How are tax exemptions construed? Crispin Ruiz, then parish priest of
Why? Victorias, Negros Occ., for the
construction of a new Catholic Church
Exemptions from taxation are construed in the locality. On April 29, 1960,
in istrictissimi juri I against the taxpayer respondent issued an assessment for
and liberally in favor of the taxing donee’s gift tax against the Catholic
authority, primarily because taxes are the Parish of Victoria, of which petitioner
lifeblood of the government and their was the priest. Petitioner protested the
prompt and certain availability is an assessment and it was denied, he
imperious need. (Province of Tarlac v. appealed to the Tax Court claiming,
Hon. Fernando Alcantara, et al) among others that said tax is a clear
violation of the Constitution. The Tax
Under what condition may tax Court affirmed the decision of the
exemption be granted? respondent hence this appeal.
The Constitution provides that no law Sec. 28(3) of Art. VI of the Constitution
granting any tax exemptions shall be exempts from taxation, cemeteries,
passed without the concurrence of a churches and parsonages or convents,
majority of all the Members of Congress appurtenant thereto, and all lands,
(Sec. 28[4], Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) buildings and improvements used
exclusively for religious purposes. The
If a part of a building of a school in exemption is only from the payment of
Abra is used as quarters of visiting taxes assessed on such properties
officials from Manila, may the enumerated as property taxes as
Commissioner of Internal revenue distinguished from excise taxes. In the
assess tax on the said portion of the present case, what the Commission
building? Why? assessed was a donee’s gift tax, the
assessment was not on the properties
No. Because the fact that a part of the themselves. It did not rest upon general
building is used as quarters does not ownership, it was an excise tax upon the
remove its primary purpose, for it is use made of the properties. Manifestly,
merely incidental to the purpose it is gift tax is not within the exemption
intended. It is still considered as actually, provisions. A gift tax is not a property tax,
Page | 113
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
but an excise tax imposed on the transfer incumbent upon the state of residence to
of the property used exclusively for allow relief in order to avoid double
religious purposes does not constitute an taxation. There are two methods of relief –
impairment of the Constitution. (Lladoc the exemption method and the credit
vs. CIR) method. In the exemption method, the
income or capital which is taxable in the
What is double taxation? state of source or situs is exempted in the
state of residence, although in some
When additional taxes are laid on the instances it may be taken into account in
same subject by the same taxing determining the rate of tax applicable to
jurisdiction during the same taxing period the taxpayer’s remaining income or
and for the same purpose, there is double capital. On the other hand, in the credit
taxation.(Punzalan v. Mun. Board of method, although the income or capital
Manila) which is taxed in the state of source is still
taxable in the state of residence, the tax
Double taxation usually takes place when a paid in the former is credited against the
person is a resident of a contracting state tax levied in the latter. The basic difference
and derives income from, or owns capital between the two methods is that in the
in, the other contracting state and both exemption method, the focus is on the
impose tax on that income or capital. income or capital itself, whereas the credit
method focuses upon the tax (Justice
In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax Dimaapao citing CIR v. Johnson and Sons,
resorts to several methods. FIRST, it sets Inc.,)
out the respective rights to tax of the
state of source or situs and of the state Respondent spouses are both
of residence with regard to certain American citizens residing in the
classes of income or capital. In some Philippines and have derived all their
cases, an exclusive right to tax is conferred income from Philippine sources for the
on one of the contracting states; however, taxable years under question. In
for other items of income or capital, both compliance with local law, they filed
states are given the right to tax, although their income tax returns and paid the
the amount of tax that may be imposed by assessed taxes. Thereafter, they
the state of source is limited. claimed for refund of the amount paid
to the United States Government as
The SECOND method for the elimination federal income taxes. When petitioner
of double taxation applies whenever the failed to answer the claim,
state of source is given a full or limited respondents filed their petition with
right to tax together with the state of the Tax Court which rendered
residence. In this case, the treaties make it judgment in their favor. The issue
Page | 114
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
raised on appeal to the Supreme Court increasing the tax rates on the alien
is whether or not a citizen of the resident. Every time the rate is increased,
United States residing in the the deduction from Philippine taxes
Philippines, who derives income would correspondingly increase and the
wholly from sources within the proceeds for the Philippines diminished,
Republic of the Philippines, may thereby subordinating the latter country’s
deduct from his gross income the taxes to those levied by the foreign
income taxes he has paid to the US government. Such a result is incompatible
Government. with the status of the Philippines as an
independent and sovereign state. (CIR v.
Respondents contend that if they are not V.E Lednickey, et al.)
allowed to deduct the income taxes in
question, they would be subjected to What is the nature of the Manila
double taxation. Respondents fail to International Airport Authority?
observe that double taxation becomes
obnoxious only where the taxpayer is It is an instrumentality of the National
taxed twice for the benefit of the same government, not a government-owned or
government entity (CF Manila vs. controlled corporation. (MIAA v. CA)
Interisland Gas Service). In the present
case, while the taxpayers would have to Instrumentality- refers to any agency of
pay two (2) taxes on the same income, the the national government, not integrated
Philippines where the income was earned within the department framework, vested
and where the taxpayers are domiciled, with special functions or jurisdiction by
and the United States, it is undisputable law, endowed with some if not all
that justice and equity demand that the corporate powers, administering special
tax on the income should accrue to the funds, and enjoying operational
benefit of the Philippines. Any relief from autonomy, usually through a charter. (Sec.
the alleged double taxation should come 2(10), Administrative Code)
from the United States and not from the
Philippines, since the former’s right to GOCC- refers to any agency organized as a
burden the taxpayers is solely predicated stock or non-stock corporation, vested
on their citizenship without contributing with functions relating to public needs
to the production of the wealth that is whether governmental or proprietary in
being taxed. Finally, to allow an alien nature, and owned by the Government
resident to deduct from his gross income directly or through its instrumentalities
whatever taxes he pays to his own either wholly, or, where applicable as in
government amounts to conferring on the the case of stock corporations, to the
latter the power to reduce the tax income extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of
of the Philippine government simply by its capital stock: Provided, That
Page | 115
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
When local governments invoke the Lung Center of the Philippines, a non-
power to tax on national government stock and non-profit entity, is the
instrumentalities, such power is registered owner of a real estate
construed strictly against local property in Quezon City. Erected in the
governments. The rule is that a tax is middle of the lot is a hospital known,
never presumed and there must be clear as the Lung Center of the Philippines.
language in the law imposing the tax. Any The ground floor s being leased to
doubt whether a person, article or activity private parties, for canteen and small
is taxable is resolved against taxation. store spaces and to medical or
This rule applies with greater force when professional practitioners who use the
local governments seek to tax national same as their private clinics. The
Page | 116
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
hospital accepts paying and non- and no money inures to the private
paying patients. Aside from its income benefit. (Lung Center of the Phils. v.
from paying patients, it receives Quezon City)
annual subsidies from government.
As a charitable institution, are all the
In 1993, both the land and the hospital properties of the Lung Center exempt
were assessed for real property taxes from taxation? Explain.
by the City Assessor of Quezon City.
Lung Center filed a claim for No. Even if it is a charitable institution,
exemption from real property taxes those portions of its real properties that
predicated on its claim that it is a are leased to private entities are not
charitable institution. It was denied on exempt from real property taxes as they
the basis that the Lung Center is not a are not actually directly and exclusively
charitable institution and its real used for charitable purposes.
estate properties were not actually,
directly and exclusively used for Under the 1987 Constitution, lands,
charitable purpose. Is the contention buildings and improvements of the
that it is a charitable institution charitable institutions to be considered
correct? Explain. exempt should not only be exclusively
used for charitable purposes but should
Yes, it is a charitable institution. The test be used actually and directly for such
whether, an enterprise is charitable or not purposes.
is whether it exists to carry out a purpose
recognized in law as charitable or Exclusively is defined as possessed and
whether it is maintained for gain, profit or enjoyed to the exclusion of others. It is
private advantage. synonymous with “solely”. What is meant
by actual, direct , and exclusive use of the
Under its charter, it was organized for the property is the direct and immediate
welfare and benefit of the Filipino people actual application of the property itself to
principally to help combat the high the purposes for which it is organized. It
incidence of lung and pulmonary diseases is not the use of the income from the real
in the Philippines. property that is determinative of whether
the property is used for tax exempt
It does not lose its character as such and purposes. (Lung Center of the Phils. v.
its exemption from taxes simply because Quezon City)
it derives income from paying patients or
receives subsidies from the government It was contended that charging rentals
so long as the money received is devoted for the offices used by its accredited
or used altogether to a charitable object physicians can be equated to a
Page | 117
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 118
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
wisdom of any law. The Congress policies, which is outside their field”
is the constitutional repository of
the police power and exercises the Q- what are the basic limitations on
prerogative of determining the the State’s exercise of police power?
policy of the state
A- they are
Q- is there a need to provide for the (1) the due process clause which
exercise of police power in the provides that no person shall be
constitution? Why? deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law and
A- there is no need. Police power is an (2) vehicle protection clause which
inherent attribute of sovereignty. provides that x xx nor shall any
It can exist even without the person be denied the equal
reservation in the Constitution, as protection of the laws
it is the most illimitable of the
powers of the government. It is
based on the society, as without it, Q- Illustrate how the due process
there can be no effective clause limits the exercise of the police
government. power(PP) of the state
Q- can the courts interfere with A- The Due Process clause has
determination by the Congress of the something to do with the
necessity and means of the exercise of reasonableness of the laws enacted
police power? Why? in the implementation of the PP of
the State. Laws implementing the
A- as a rule yes for it is not conclusive. PP concern public interest, public
The purpose of judicial purpose and general welfare
interference, however, is to (Ichong v Hernandez)
ascertain whether or not the
exertion of that authority is within
or outside lawful limits. Cinco, in
his book of Constitutional Law said Q- Illustrate how the equal protection
that “this does not mean that the clause limits the exercise of PP
courts may substitute their
A- In Ichong v Hernandez, the SC said
judgment for that of the legislature
that the Equal Protection Clause is
as to whether the purpose is good
against undue favor and individual
or bad, advisable or not, expedient
or class privileges, as well as
or otherwise. To do so would
hostile discrimination ot
permit the courts to usurp the
oppression or inequality. It is not
legislative function of determining
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Almost Always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 119
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 120
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 121
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 122
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 123
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 124
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 125
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 126
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 127
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 128
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
violative of the equal protection clause. giving him a fair chance to be heard thus
Decide. denying him the centuries–old guarantee
of fair play. It cannot even be justified
under the police power because it is
unreasonable and unduly oppressive. The
A - the phasing out of six-year-old authority given to the public officers
taxicabs in Metro Manila is a valid named in the EO phrase “may see fit” is
exercise of police power to protect laden with perilous opportunities for
the riding public from dilapidated, partiality and abuse and the commission
word out and unsafe vehicles of graft. It is an authority so sweeping and
considering the traffic in Metro broad that it is not canalized within banks
Manila is different from those in that keeps it from overflowing. (Ynot v
other places in the country. The IAC)
phase out is designed to ensure the
safety convenience and comfort of
the riding public (Taxicab
Operators of Metro Manila v Q- RA No. 2382 otherwise known as the
BOT) medical act of 1959 is a law primarily
designed to standardize and regulate
Q- EO No. 626-A is being questioned as the medical profession. Pursue want to
violent eve of the due process clause said law DECS issued an order
for the reason that it prohibits the establishing a uniform admission test
transporting of carabao, regardless of called the national medical admission
sex, age and physical condition, and test (NMAT) as an additional
Carabeef from one province to another requirement for the issuance of a
violation of the order will result in the certificate of eligibility for admission
confiscation and forfeiture of Caribeef. to medical school beginning the school
The chairman of the national meat year 19 86–87. The order is being
commission is authorized to dispose questioned because it is violative of
the Carabeef to charitable agencies as the Constitution which states that “The
he may deem fit. Likewise, the director State shall protect and promote the
of the bureau of animal industry is rights of all citizens to quality
authorized to distribute the carabeef education at all levels and shall take
in pursuance with the program of the appropriate steps to make such
government. Decide. education accessible to all, “and of the
due process clause. Decide.
A-the order is oppressive and
confiscatory. It is patently offensive to the A- the NMAT requirement relates to
due process clause as the order the wisdom and desirability which
immediately convict the violator without
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Almost Always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 129
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 130
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 131
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 132
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 133
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 134
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 135
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 136
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 137
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 138
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
this reform program and its said parcel of land and the owner did
objectives would suffer major not challenge the right of the
setbacks. That the government’s government to expropriate the
agrarian reform program and its property. The only issue then is the
success are matters of public compensation to be paid to the owner,
interest, to our mind, cannot be whether it should be determined as of
disputed as the program seeks to 1947, when the government started
remedy long existing and possessing the land or should it be
widespread social justice and computed in 1959, when the
economic problems. (Apo Fruits government filed its expropriation
Corp. vs. LBP, et al., G.R. No. proceedings. It was contended by the
164195, April5, 2011). government that the compensation
should be reckoned from 1947, when
the government took possession of the
property. Castelvi, on the other hand,
Q -What matters may be considered in
contended that it should be computed
determining just compensation?
as of the filing of the complaint for
Explain.
expropriation. Rule on the contention.
Page | 139
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 140
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 141
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
terminals. This is inspite of the fact that it A - No. socialized housing has been
was not mentioned in the original charter. recognized as public use for purposes of
But it was said that EPZA was to be exercising the power of eminent domain.
created as a viable commercial, industrial
and investment area. The Decree creating
it did not intend to limit the The public purpose of the socialized
establishment of an export processing housing project is not in any way
zone but it was bestowed with authority diminished by the amount of just
to expropriate parcels of land for the compensation that the court has fixed.
construction of terminal facilities, The need to provide decent housing to the
structures and approaches thereto. The urban poor dwellers in the locality was
leasing of portions of the lots to banks not just by mere fact that the land cost
and the construction of terminals have
more than petitioner had expected.
the purpose of making banking and
transportation facilities easily accessible
for the persons working at the industries
located in the EPZA. This is so because of The landowners had already been
EPZA’s goal of being a major force in the prejudiced by the expropriation case.
economic development of the country and NHA cannot be permitted to institute
this has to be realized. (estate of Salud condemnation proceedings against the
Jimenez vs. Phil. Export Processing Zone) owners only to abandon it later when it
finds the amount of just compensation
unacceptable. Coscuellueta vs CA it is
arbitrary and capricious for a government
Q - In an expropriation proceeding the
agency to initiate expropriation
NHA which sought to expropriate proceedings, seize a person’s property,
properties for socialized housing allow the judgment of the court to become
sought to dismiss the petition final and executor and then refuse to pay
contending that the intended public on the ground that there are no
use was rendered nugatory by the appropriation for the property earlier
unreasonable just compensation fixed taken and profitably used. We condemn
by the court, which is beyond the in the strongest possible terms the
means of the intended beneficiaries of
cavalier attitude of government officials
the socialized housing project. Is the
who adopt such a despotic and
contention correct? Why? irresponsible stance. (NHA vs. Heirs of
Isidro Guivelondo)
Page | 142
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Q - What could be some of the bases in certiorari with the Supreme Court
the change of the interpretation of the contending that:
term “public use”?
(a) the intended taking is not for public
use;
A - A public use for which a parcel of land (b) the land was covered by the land
may be taken defies absolute definition reform program; and
for it changes with varying conditions of
society, newly appliances in the sciences, (c) expropriation would impair the
changes conceptions of scope and obligation of contracts. Decide.
functions of government and other
differing circumstances brought about by
an increase in population and new modes A - The concept of public use is not
of communication and transportation. At limited to the traditional purposes for the
present, it may not be amiss to state that construction of roads and bridges. The
whatever is beneficially employed for the idea that public use means “use by the
general welfare satisfies the requirement public” has been discarded. As long as the
of public use. (Estate of Salud vs. PEZA) purpose of the taking is for the use of the
public, then the power of eminent domain
comes into play. In at least 2 cases, the SC
Q - May the State take private property decided to remove any doubt as to the
for tourism purposes? determination of public use. One is the
expropriation of lands to be subdivided
A - Yes, because its taking may likewise into small lots for sale at cost to
satisfy the public purpose clause. individuals. The other is in the transfer
through the exercise of this power, of
utilities and other private enterprises to
Q - The Philippine Tourism Authority the government. It is accurate to state
sought the expropriation of 282 then that at present, whatever, may be
beneficially employed for the general
hectares of land in Barangay Malubog
welfare satisfies the requirement of
and Babag, Cebu City for the
public use. The petitioners have not
development of a sports complex.
After depositing the amount shown that the area being developed is
land reform area and that the affected
equivalent to 10% of the value of the
persons have been given emancipation
property, the court authorized the PTA
parents and certificate of land transfer.
to take immediate possession of the
The contract clause has never been
property. The petitioners, occupants
of the land, filed a petition for regarded as a barrier to the exercise of
Page | 143
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the police power of the State and likewise Estero Sunog Apog, in both petitions,
eminent domain. (heirs of ardona vs the petitioners questioned the
reyes) constitutionality of the laws as
depriving them of property without
due process of law, denying them their
right to just compensation and equal
Q - If a private property is taken for the
protection of the laws. P.D. No. 1669
establishment of a sports and
provides that the just compensation
recreational facility despite the
existence of the same facility nearby, is shall be the market value determined
by the City Assessor pursuant to P.D.
it considered public use? Explain.
No. 76 and P.D. No. 1533, but shall in
no case exceed P17, 000,000.00 which
shall be payable within 5 years. The
A - No, since there is no genuine necessity same provision is true in P.D. No. 1670
to take it. The rule is that where the but the just compensation shall in no
taking by the state of private property is case exceed P8,000,000.00 payable in
done for the benefit of a small community 5 years. Rule on the petition.
which seeks to have its own sports and
recreational facility, notwithstanding that
there is such a recreational facility only a
A - The power of eminent domain is
short distance away, such taking cannot
inherent in every State and the provisions
be considered to be for public use. Its
in the Constitution pertaining to such
expropriation is not valid.
power only serve to limit its exercise in
order to protect individuals against
whose property the power is sought to be
The reason for the rule is that, the enforced. In Republic vs. Juan, it was said
expropriating authority must establish a that the sovereign right of the state is not
genuine necessity which justifies the subject to any limitations other than those
condemnation of the property. If there is imposed by the Constitution which are:
no genuine necessity, the expropriation
would not be justified. (Lourdes De La (1) payment of just compensation; and
Paz Masikip vs. The City of Pasig)
(2) due process must be observed in the
taking.
Page | 144
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 145
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
valuation of the property is when the trial institution on the said land, if
court made its order of expropriation in any.
2001 (heirs of Mateo Pidacan and
Romana Eligo vs. ATO) In Land Bank v Banal, 478 Phil.
701 (2004); LBP v Rivera, GR No.
182431 November 17, 2010, 635
SCRA 285, it was said that these
factors and formula are mandatory
Q- What are the factors that should be and not mere guides that the SAC
taken into consideration in the may disregard. While the
computation of just compensation determination of just
under RA 6657? Explain compensation is essentially a
judicial function vested in the RTC
Ans- In determining the just acting as a (SAC), the judge cannot
compensation, the RTC is required to abuse his discretion by not taking
consider the following factors into consideration the factors
enumerated in Sec. 17 of RA 6657: specially identified by law and
implementing rules. (SACs) are not
1. The acquisition cost of the land
at liberty to disregard the formula
2. The current value of the laid down (by the DAR), because
properties unless a administrative orders is
3. Its nature, actual use and declared invalid, courts have no
income option but to apply it. The (SAC)
4. The sworn valuation by the cannot ignore, without violating
the agrarian law, the formula
owner
provided by the DAR for the
5. The tax declarations determination of just
6. The assessments made by compensation. (LBP v Heirs of
government assessors Encinas, GR No. 167735, April 18,
7. The social and economic 2012; NPC v Sps. Zabala, GR No.
benefits contributed by the 173520, January 30, 2013.)
farmers and the farmworkers,
and by the government to the
property Q- In the exercise of the power of
8. The non-payment of taxes or eminent domain, what value shall be
paid to the owner? Explain.
loans secured from any
government financing Ans- The general rule in determining just
compensation in eminent domain is the
Page | 146
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
value of the property as of the date of the compensation and would discourage the
filing of the complaint. construction of important public
improvements.
Normally, the time of the taking coincides
with the filing of the complaint for In subsequent cases, the Court, following
expropriation, Hence, many rulings of the the above doctrine, invariably held that
court have equated just compensation the time of taking is the critical date in
with the value of the property as of the determining lawful or just compensation.
time of the filing of the complaint Justifying this stance, Mr. Justice later
consistent with the Rules. So too, where Chief Justice) Enrique Fernando, speaking
the institution of the action precedes for the Court in Municipality of La Carlota
entry to the property; just compensation v Sps Felicidad Baltazar and Vicente Gan,
is to be ascertained as of the time of the said, the owner as is the constitutional
filing of the complaint. intent is paid what he is entitled to
according to the value of the property so
The general rule however admits of an devoted to public use as of the date of the
exception: where the Court fixed the value taking. From that time, he had been
of the property as of the date it was taken deprived thereof. He had no choice but to
and not the date of the commencement of submit. He is not however, to be
the expropriation proceedings. (NPC v despoiled of such a right. No less than the
Ibrahim et al., GR No. 168732, June 29, fundamental law guarantees just
2007; NPC v Zabala, GR No. 173520, compensation. It would be injustice to
January 30, 2013) him certainly if from such a period, he
could not recover the value of what was
lost. There could be on the other hand,
Q- Give an example of such exception injustice to the expropriator if by a delay
in the collection, the increment in price
Ans- In the case of Provincial Government would accrue to the owner. The doctrine
of Rizal v. Caro de Araullo, it was ruled to which this Court has been committed is
that the owners of the land have no right intended precisely to avoid either
to recover damages for this unearned contingency fraught with unfairness.
increment resulting from the construction
of the public improvement (lengthening Simply stated, the exception finds the
of Taft Avenue from Manila to Pasay) application where the owner would be
from which the land was taken. To permit given undue increment advantages
them do to so would be to allow them to arising from the use to which the
recover more than the value of the land at government devoted the property
the time it was taken, which is the true expropriated- as for instance, the
measure of the damages, or just extension of a main thoroughfare as was
in the case in Caro de Araullo. In the
MILKTEA NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM
"Almost Always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better."
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER | DE TORRES, RECHEL | SIERRA, DONNABELLE | DIOKNO ANNE LORAIINE |
SALUD, VANIA | CAPCO, REINIER | REYES, LOUISA | ASAYO, MERRY JEOYA|
Page | 147
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 148
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
compensation which should be neither Public Land Act. Section 112 of the
more nor less, whenever it is possible to Public Land Act provides that land
make the assessment, than the money granted by patent shall be subject to a
equivalent of said property. (NPC v right-of-way not exceeding 60 meters
Ibrahim et al., GR No. 168732, June 29, in width for public highways, irrigation
2007). ditches, aqueducts, and other similar
works of the government or any public
enterprise, free of charge, except only
Q- NPC contended that if ever it is for the value of the improvements
liable, it should be made to pay the existing thereon that may be affected.
value of the land from the time it In view of this, the Court of Appeals
declared that all the Republic needs to
constructed the tunnels. Is the
do is to enforce such right without
contention correct? Why?
having to pay any just compensation.
Ans- No. To allow it to use the date it Hence, the Republic may appropriate
constructed the tunnels as the date of the 701 square meters necessary for
valuation would be grossly unfair. First, it the construction of the floodwalls
did not enter the land under warrant or without paying for it. Is the Republic
color of legal authority or with intent to liable for just compensation if in
expropriate the same. It did not notify the enforcing the legal easement of right-
owners and wrongly assume that it had of-way if on a property, the remaining
the right to dig the tunnels under their area would be rendered unusable and
property. Secondly, the improvements uninhabitable? Explain?
introduced in no way contributed to an
Ans- Yes, it is liable to pay consequential
increase in the value of the land. The
damages if in enforcing the legal
valuation should be based at the time of
the discovery of the construction of the easement on Andaya’s property, the
remaining area would be rendered
underground tunnels. (NPC v Ibrahim, et
unusable and uninhabitable. “Taking” in
al supra.)
the exercise of the power of eminent
domain, occurs not only when the
government actually deprives or
Q- It is undisputed that there is a legal dispossess the property owner of his
easement of right-of-way in favor of property or of its ordinary use, but also
the Republic. Andaya’s transfer when there is a practical destruction or
certificates of title contained the material impairment of the value of his
reservation that the lands covered property. Using this standard, there was
thereby are subject to the provisions of undoubtedly a taking of the remaining
the Land Registration Act and the area of Andaya’s property. True, no
Page | 149
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 150
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Page | 151
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
property or simple easement fee? Ans- Yes, while it is true that said final
Why? judgment of the Supreme Court on the
subject becomes the law of the case, it is
Ans- NPC should pay the full market value equally true that the right of the Republic
of the property because under the to take private property for public use
premises, the acquisition of the right of upon payment of just compensation is so
way easement falls within the purview of provided in the Constitution and our law.
the power of eminent domain, hence, just Such expropriation proceedings may be
compensation should be paid. The undertaken by the Republic not only by
easement of right or way is definitely a voluntary negotiation with the owners
taking under the power of eminent but also by taking appropriate action or
domain. Considering the nature and effect by legislation. When the Batasang
f the installation of 230 KV transmission Pambansa passed B.P. Blg. 340 on
lines, the limitation imposed by NPC February17, 1993, expropriating the very
against the use of the land for an properties subject if the present
indefinite period deprives the owners of proceedings, and for the same purpose, it
its ordinary use. (NPC v Sps Gutierrez, GR appears that it was based on supervening
No. 60077, Jan 18, 1991; NPC v Manubay events that occurred after the decision of
Agr-Industrial Devs. Corp., GR No. the SC was rendered in 1980 justifying
150936, August 18, 2003; NPC v Sps the expropriation.
Saludares, GR No. 189127, April 25,
2012). The said decision is no obstacle to the
legislative arm of the Government
thereafter making its own independent
assessment of the circumstances then
Q- In De Knecht v Bautista, Oct 30,
prevailing as to the propriety of the
1980, it set aside the power of the State
to take possession of the properties expropriation of the properties in
question and thereafter in enacting the
sought to be condemned. The
corresponding legislation. The SC agreed
judgment became final. Later on, B.P.
in the wisdom and necessity of enacting
Blg. 340 was enacted, expropriating
Batas Pambansa Blg. 340. Thus, the
the same properties which are the
subject in the case above-cited. The anterior decision of the SC must yield to
basis issue was whether or not an
expropriation proceeding that was
determined in a final judgment of the
SC can be the subject of a subsequent
legislation expropriating the same
property for the same purpose. Is the
law valid?
Page | 152