Case Digest - Eminent Domain

The City of Manila Vs.
Chinese community of Manila
G.R. No. L-14355 October 31, 1919
Johnson, J.:
FACTS:
The City of Manila has applied for expropriation for a part of land in a private cemetery. City of
Manila claims that the expropriation is necessary for public improvement, however, the
defendants proposed that it would not be necessary as there are other routes available that can
satisfy the plaintiff’s purposes at a much less expense and without disturbing the resting places
of the dead.
Lower court had ruled that the improvement was not necessary but the plaintiff asserted that
they have the power of eminent domain and courts cannot inquire the validity of the
expropriation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not courts may inquire about the necessity of expropriation of private properties for
public purposes
HELD:
Yes, private properties can be subjected to expropriation for constructing them into public
domain. Section 248, gives the Supreme Court authority to inquire into the right of expropriation
on the part of the plaintiff. Courts have the power for exercising law of eminent domain to
properties within reasonable necessities as supported by law.
Republic Of The Philippines Vs. Carmen M. Vda. De Castellvi, Et Al.,
G.R. No. L-20620 August 15, 1974
Zaldivar, J.:
FACTS:
The Republic of the Philippines; the appellant, is the lessee of Castellvi’s property on a year to
year basis. Before the expiration of the contract of lease on June 30, 1956 the Republic sought
to renew the same but Castellvi refused. The AFP refused to vacate the premises as there had
been permanent installations and other facilities erected already in Castellvi’s property. The
Republic argues that the "taking" should be reckoned from the year 1947 when by virtue of a
special lease agreement.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the compensation should follow the taking as 1947 and not in 1956.
HELD:
No, the Supreme Court has ruled that the taking should not be reckoned as of 1947. Under
Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, the "just compensation" is to be determined as of the
date of the filing of the complaint. The court has ruled that when the taking of the property
sought to be expropriated coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings,
or takes place subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent domain, the just
compensation should be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.
City government of Quezon City and City Council of Quezon City Vs. Hon. Judge Vicente G.
Ericta as Judge of The Court Of First Instance Of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch Xviii; Himlayang
Pilipino, Inc.,
G.R. No. L-34915 June 24, 1983
Gutierrez, Jr., J.:
FACTS:
This is a petition that seeks the reversal of the decision declaring Section 9 of Ordinance No.
6118, S-64, of the Quezon City Council null and void. Sec. 9. states that at least six (6) percent
of the total area of the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for charity burial of deceased
persons who are paupers and have been residents of Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to
their death, to be determined by competent City Authorities. The area designated shall
immediately be developed and should be open for operation not later than six months from the
date of approval of the application. Himlayang Pilipino responded by filing a petition seeking to
annul Section 9 of ordinance.
Petitioners argue that the taking of the respondent's property is a valid and reasonable exercise
of police power and that the land is taken for a public use as it is intended for the burial ground
of paupers. They further argue that the Quezon City Council is authorized under its charter, in
the exercise of local police power, " to make such further ordinances and resolutions not
repugnant to law as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties
conferred by this Act and such as it shall deem necessary and proper to provide for the health
and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort and
convenience of the city and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein.”
ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 9 of the ordinance in question is a valid exercise of the police power.
HELD:
The court has decided that this is not a valid exercise of police power as there is no reasonable
relation between the setting aside of at least six (6) percent of the total area of an private
cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers and the promotion of health, morals,
good order, safety, or the general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually a taking
without compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit paupers who are
charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for
this purpose, the city passes the burden to private cemeteries. The petition for review is
dismissed and the decision of the respondent court is affirmed.

Case Digest - Eminent Domain

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Eminent Domain

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Eminent Domain

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The City of Manila Vs.

Chinese community of Manila

G.R. No. L-14355 October 31, 1919

G.R. No. L-20620 August 15, 1974

G.R. No. L-34915 June 24, 1983

Gutierrez, Jr., J.:

You might also like