Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 891 views

    Case Sumulong vs. Guerrero

    Uploaded by

    kookie_jacinto
    Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of PD 1224 which authorized the expropriation of private lands for socialized housing. They argued that expropriating land to benefit only a few people did not constitute a public use. The Supreme Court held that the term "public use" is an evolving concept influenced by changing conditions, and that urban renewal and low-cost housing are recognized as public purposes under the Constitution given the shortage of housing. The Court also held that the test for a valid expropriation is the area of land needed, not the number of people benefited, and that the state has broad discretion to designate which lands to expropriate.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Sumulong vs. Guerrero

    Uploaded by

    kookie_jacinto
    891 views1 page
    Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of PD 1224 which authorized the expropriation of private lands for socialized housing. They argued that expropriating land to benefit only a few people did not constitute a public use. The Supreme Court held that the term "public use" is an evolving concept influenced by changing conditions, and that urban renewal and low-cost housing are recognized as public purposes under the Constitution given the shortage of housing. The Court also held that the test for a valid expropriation is the area of land needed, not the number of people benefited, and that the state has broad discretion to designate which lands to expropriate.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of PD 1224 which authorized the expropriation of private lands for socialized housing. They argued that expropriating land to benefit only a few people did not constitute a public use. The Supreme Court held that the term "public use" is an evolving concept influenced by changing conditions, and that urban renewal and low-cost housing are recognized as public purposes under the Constitution given the shortage of housing. The Court also held that the test for a valid expropriation is the area of land needed, not the number of people benefited, and that the state has broad discretion to designate which lands to expropriate.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    891 views1 page

    Case Sumulong vs. Guerrero

    Uploaded by

    kookie_jacinto
    Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of PD 1224 which authorized the expropriation of private lands for socialized housing. They argued that expropriating land to benefit only a few people did not constitute a public use. The Supreme Court held that the term "public use" is an evolving concept influenced by changing conditions, and that urban renewal and low-cost housing are recognized as public purposes under the Constitution given the shortage of housing. The Court also held that the test for a valid expropriation is the area of land needed, not the number of people benefited, and that the state has broad discretion to designate which lands to expropriate.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sumulong v.

    Guerrero 154 SCRA 461 (1987) Facts: On December 5, 1977, the National Housing Authority filed a complaint for the expropriation of 25 hectares of land in Antipolo, Rizal pursuant to PD 1224 authorizing the expropriation of private lands for socialized housing. Among those lands sought to be expropriated are the petitioners'' lands. They brought this suit in the SC challenging the constitutionality of PD 1224. Issue: Whether or not the contention of the petitioners that socialized housing for the benefit of only a handful of people is considered public use? HELD: The term "public use" requirement is an evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. Urban renewal or redevelopment and the construction of lowcost housing are recognized as a public purpose, not only because of the expanded concept of public use but also because of specific provisions in the Constitution. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the environment and, in sum, the general welfare. Petitioners claim that there are vast areas of lands in Rizal hundreds of hectares of which are owned by a few landowners only. Why should the NHA pick their small lots? Expropriation is not confined to landed estates. The test to be applied for a valid expropriation of private lands was the area of the land and not the number of people who stood to be benefited. The State acting through the NHA is vested with broad discretion to designate the property. The property owner may not interpose objections merely because in their judgment some other property would have been more suitable. The provisions on just compensation found in PD 1224, 1259, and 1313 are the same provisions which were declared unconstitutional in EPZA v. Dulay (1987) for being encroachments on judicial prerogatives.

    You might also like