Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 222 views

    City of Manila Vs Chinese Community of Manila

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    This case involves a dispute over the City of Manila's attempt to expropriate land belonging to the Chinese Community of Manila to extend Rizal Avenue. The Chinese Community argued the land was a cemetery and should not be converted to a public street. The lower court ruled there was no necessity for expropriating this particular strip of land. The City of Manila appealed, arguing the courts only role was to determine land value, not inquire into the necessity of the expropriation. The Supreme Court held that private property already devoted to public use, like a cemetery, cannot be expropriated without genuine necessity. Courts have the right to inquire into whether an entity has properly exercised the power of eminent domain in a particular case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    City of Manila Vs Chinese Community of Manila

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    222 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the City of Manila's attempt to expropriate land belonging to the Chinese Community of Manila to extend Rizal Avenue. The Chinese Community argued the land was a cemetery and should not be converted to a public street. The lower court ruled there was no necessity for expropriating this particular strip of land. The City of Manila appealed, arguing the courts only role was to determine land value, not inquire into the necessity of the expropriation. The Supreme Court held that private property already devoted to public use, like a cemetery, cannot be expropriated without genuine necessity. Courts have the right to inquire into whether an entity has properly exercised the power of eminent domain in a particular case.

    Original Title

    City of Manila vs Chinese Community of Manila

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the City of Manila's attempt to expropriate land belonging to the Chinese Community of Manila to extend Rizal Avenue. The Chinese Community argued the land was a cemetery and should not be converted to a public street. The lower court ruled there was no necessity for expropriating this particular strip of land. The City of Manila appealed, arguing the courts only role was to determine land value, not inquire into the necessity of the expropriation. The Supreme Court held that private property already devoted to public use, like a cemetery, cannot be expropriated without genuine necessity. Courts have the right to inquire into whether an entity has properly exercised the power of eminent domain in a particular case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    222 views2 pages

    City of Manila Vs Chinese Community of Manila

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    This case involves a dispute over the City of Manila's attempt to expropriate land belonging to the Chinese Community of Manila to extend Rizal Avenue. The Chinese Community argued the land was a cemetery and should not be converted to a public street. The lower court ruled there was no necessity for expropriating this particular strip of land. The City of Manila appealed, arguing the courts only role was to determine land value, not inquire into the necessity of the expropriation. The Supreme Court held that private property already devoted to public use, like a cemetery, cannot be expropriated without genuine necessity. Courts have the right to inquire into whether an entity has properly exercised the power of eminent domain in a particular case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CITY OF MANILA VS CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA

    Private property already devoted to public use cannot be


    expropriated by a delegate of legislature acting under a general
    grant of authority.

    FACTS:

    Petitioner (City of Manila) filed a petition praying that certain lands be


    expropriated for the purpose of constructing a public improvement namely,
    the extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila and claiming that such expropriation
    was necessary.
    Herein defendants, on the other hand, alleged (a) that no necessity
    existed for said expropriation and (b) that the land in question was a
    cemetery, which had been used as such for many years, and was
    covered with sepulchres and monuments, and that the same should not be
    converted into a street for public purposes.

    The lower court ruled that there was no necessity for the expropriation
    of the particular strip of land in question.
    Petitioner therefore assails the decision of the lower court claiming that it
    (petitioner) has the authority to expropriate any land it may desire; that the
    only function of the court in such proceedings is to ascertain the value of
    the land in question; that neither the court nor the owners of the land can
    inquire into the advisable purpose of the expropriation or ask any questions
    concerning the necessities therefor; that the courts are mere appraisers of
    the land involved in expropriation proceedings, and, when the value of the
    land is fixed by the method adopted by the law, to render a judgment in
    favor of the defendant for its value.

    ISSUE:  W/N the courts may inquire into and hear proof upon the necessity
    of the expropriation?
    Whether or not a private property devoted for public use can
    still be expropriated?

    HELD:  

    Yes. Private property already devoted to public use cannot be


    expropriated by a delegate of legislature acting under a general
    grant of authority.
    Yes. The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a
    genuine necessity, and that necessity must be of a public character.
    The ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany, and
    not follow, the taking of the land. (Morrison vs. Indianapolis, etc. Ry.
    Co., 166 Ind., 511; Stearns vs. Barre, 73 Vt., 281; Wheeling, etc. R. R.
    Co. vs. Toledo, Ry. etc. Co., 72 Ohio St., 368.)
    The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain must not
    be confused with the right to exercise it in a particular case. The
    power of the legislature to confer, upon municipal corporations and
    other entities within the State, general authority to exercise the
    right of eminent domain cannot be questioned by the courts, but
    that general authority of municipalities or entities must not be
    confused with the right to exercise it in particular instances. The
    moment the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the
    authority conferred, it must comply with the conditions
    accompanying the authority. The necessity for conferring the
    authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise the right of
    eminent domain is admittedly within the power of the
    legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is
    exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions
    imposed by the general authority, is a question which the courts
    have the right to inquire into.
    The conflict in the authorities upon the question whether the necessity for
    the exercise of the right of eminent domain is purely legislative and not
    judicial, arises generally in the wisdom and propriety of the legislature in
    authorizing the exercise of the right of eminent domain instead of in the
    question of the right to exercise it in a particular case. (Creston Waterworks
    Co. vs. McGrath, 89 Iowa, 502.)
    By the weight of authorities, the courts have the power of restricting the
    exercise of eminent domain to the actual reasonable necessities of the case
    and for the purposes designated by the law. (Fairchild vs. City of St. Paul.
    48 Minn., 540.)

    You might also like