Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 156 views

    Manosca vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Katherine Aplacador
    1) Petitioners inherited land that was declared a national historical landmark as it was the birth site of Felix Y. Manalo, founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. 2) Petitioners argued the intended expropriation was not for public purpose and would constitute use of public funds to support a religious entity. 3) The court held that the expropriation was valid as long as the purpose was public, which removing historical sites satisfies as it benefits general welfare.

    Copyright:

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

    Manosca vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Katherine Aplacador
    156 views1 page
    1) Petitioners inherited land that was declared a national historical landmark as it was the birth site of Felix Y. Manalo, founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. 2) Petitioners argued the intended expropriation was not for public purpose and would constitute use of public funds to support a religious entity. 3) The court held that the expropriation was valid as long as the purpose was public, which removing historical sites satisfies as it benefits general welfare.

    Original Description:

    Manosca vs CA digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioners inherited land that was declared a national historical landmark as it was the birth site of Felix Y. Manalo, founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. 2) Petitioners argued the intended expropriation was not for public purpose and would constitute use of public funds to support a religious entity. 3) The court held that the expropriation was valid as long as the purpose was public, which removing historical sites satisfies as it benefits general welfare.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    156 views1 page

    Manosca vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Katherine Aplacador
    1) Petitioners inherited land that was declared a national historical landmark as it was the birth site of Felix Y. Manalo, founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. 2) Petitioners argued the intended expropriation was not for public purpose and would constitute use of public funds to support a religious entity. 3) The court held that the expropriation was valid as long as the purpose was public, which removing historical sites satisfies as it benefits general welfare.

    Copyright:

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

    Manosca vs.

    CA
    G.R. NO. 106440, January 29, 1996
    Facts: Petitioners inherited a piece of land when the parcel was ascertained by the NHI to have
    been the birth site of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No. 1,
    declaring the land to be a national historical landmark. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint
    on the main thesis that the intended expropriation was not for a public purpose and, incidentally,
    that the act would constitute an application of public funds, directly or indirectly, for the use,
    benefit, or support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of Section 29(2),
    Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution.
    Issue: Whether or not the expropriation of the land whereat Manalo was born is valid and
    constitutional.
    Held: Yes. The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time when it was felt that a
    literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be
    for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable.
    It is not so any more. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent
    domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt,
    determines what public use is. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for
    resale at cost to individuals. The other is the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities
    and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present
    whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public
    use.

    You might also like