Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    Masikip V City of Pasig

    Uploaded by

    Ben Dover McDuffins
    The petitioner owned a 4,521 square meter parcel of land that the city of Pasig intended to expropriate 1,500 square meters of for sports development and recreational activities. However, the petitioner refused, stating the expropriation was unconstitutional and her remaining land was insufficient and unsuitable for housing for the poor. The Supreme Court ruled the expropriation was not valid, as the city failed to establish a genuine necessity. While expropriation can be for public purposes, the intended beneficiary here was a private homeowners association, not the public residents, and an alternative recreational facility already existed. Therefore, the necessity for expropriating the petitioner's land was not shown.

    Copyright:

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

    Masikip V City of Pasig

    Uploaded by

    Ben Dover McDuffins
    62 views1 page
    The petitioner owned a 4,521 square meter parcel of land that the city of Pasig intended to expropriate 1,500 square meters of for sports development and recreational activities. However, the petitioner refused, stating the expropriation was unconstitutional and her remaining land was insufficient and unsuitable for housing for the poor. The Supreme Court ruled the expropriation was not valid, as the city failed to establish a genuine necessity. While expropriation can be for public purposes, the intended beneficiary here was a private homeowners association, not the public residents, and an alternative recreational facility already existed. Therefore, the necessity for expropriating the petitioner's land was not shown.

    Original Title

    MASIKIP V CITY OF PASIG

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner owned a 4,521 square meter parcel of land that the city of Pasig intended to expropriate 1,500 square meters of for sports development and recreational activities. However, the petitioner refused, stating the expropriation was unconstitutional and her remaining land was insufficient and unsuitable for housing for the poor. The Supreme Court ruled the expropriation was not valid, as the city failed to establish a genuine necessity. While expropriation can be for public purposes, the intended beneficiary here was a private homeowners association, not the public residents, and an alternative recreational facility already existed. Therefore, the necessity for expropriating the petitioner's land was not shown.

    Copyright:

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

    Masikip V City of Pasig

    Uploaded by

    Ben Dover McDuffins
    The petitioner owned a 4,521 square meter parcel of land that the city of Pasig intended to expropriate 1,500 square meters of for sports development and recreational activities. However, the petitioner refused, stating the expropriation was unconstitutional and her remaining land was insufficient and unsuitable for housing for the poor. The Supreme Court ruled the expropriation was not valid, as the city failed to establish a genuine necessity. While expropriation can be for public purposes, the intended beneficiary here was a private homeowners association, not the public residents, and an alternative recreational facility already existed. Therefore, the necessity for expropriating the petitioner's land was not shown.

    Copyright:

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

    MASIKIP V CITY OF PASIG

    FACTS

    Petitioner Lourdes Dela Paz Masikip is the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of 4,521
    square meters in Pasig. The City of Pasig, respondent, notified petitioner of its intention to expropriate a
    1,500 square meter portion of her property to be used for the sports development and recreational
    activities of the residents of Barangay Caniogan. This was pursuant to Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1993
    enacted by the then Sangguniang Bayan of Pasig. Subsequently, respondent wrote another letter to
    petitioner, but this time the purpose was allegedly in line with the program of the Municipal
    Government to provide land opportunities to deserving poor sectors of our community. Petitioner, in
    her reply, refused, stating that the expropriation is unconstitutional and her lot is neither sufficient nor
    suitable to provide housing for the poor. Respondent initiated expropriation proceedings against
    petitioner whose motion to dismiss was denied on the ground that there is a genuine necessity to
    expropriate the property for the sports and recreational activities of the residents of Pasig.

    ISSUE

    WON the expropriation proceedings are valid

    HELD

    NO. The right to take private property for public purposes necessarily originates from the necessity and
    the taking must be limited to such necessity. In City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, we held
    that the very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that
    necessity must be of a public character. Moreover, the ascertainment of the necessity must precede or
    accompany and not follow, the taking of the land. In City of Manila v. Arellano Law College, we ruled that
    necessity within the rule that the particular property to be expropriated must be necessary, does not
    mean an absolute but only a reasonable or practical necessity, such as would combine the greatest benefit
    to the public with the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and the property owner
    consistent with such benefit.

    Applying this standard, we hold that respondent City of Pasig has failed to establish that there is
    a genuine necessity to expropriate petitioners property. Our scrutiny of the records shows that the
    Certification issued by the Caniogan Barangay Council authorizing the expropriation, indicates that the
    intended beneficiary is the Melendres Compound Homeowners Association, a private, non-profit
    organization, not the residents of Caniogan. It can be gleaned that the members of the said Association
    are desirous of having their own private playground and recreational facility. Petitioners lot is the nearest
    vacant space available. The purpose is, therefore, not clearly and categorically public. The necessity has
    not been shown, especially considering that there exists an alternative facility for sports development and
    community recreation in the area, which is the Rainforest Park, available to all residents of Pasig City,
    including those of Caniogan.

    You might also like