Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    Epza Vs Dulay

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    The four parcels of land that were the subject of the case were where the Mactan Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) planned to be constructed. However, the private landowner, San Antonio Development Corporation, claimed the land was expropriated without their agreement on compensation. Respondent Judge Dulay appointed commissioners to determine just compensation, but San Antonio objected to the government's payment of P15 per square meter, arguing that just compensation under PD 1533 should be the fair market value declared by the owner or assessor, whichever is lower. The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determining just compensation exclusively under PD 1533 was unconstitutional, as determining just compensation is a judicial function and the executive or legislature cannot mandate their

    Copyright:

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

    Epza Vs Dulay

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    57 views2 pages
    The four parcels of land that were the subject of the case were where the Mactan Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) planned to be constructed. However, the private landowner, San Antonio Development Corporation, claimed the land was expropriated without their agreement on compensation. Respondent Judge Dulay appointed commissioners to determine just compensation, but San Antonio objected to the government's payment of P15 per square meter, arguing that just compensation under PD 1533 should be the fair market value declared by the owner or assessor, whichever is lower. The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determining just compensation exclusively under PD 1533 was unconstitutional, as determining just compensation is a judicial function and the executive or legislature cannot mandate their

    Original Title

    Epza vs Dulay

    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 four parcels of land that were the subject of the case were where the Mactan Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) planned to be constructed. However, the private landowner, San Antonio Development Corporation, claimed the land was expropriated without their agreement on compensation. Respondent Judge Dulay appointed commissioners to determine just compensation, but San Antonio objected to the government's payment of P15 per square meter, arguing that just compensation under PD 1533 should be the fair market value declared by the owner or assessor, whichever is lower. The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determining just compensation exclusively under PD 1533 was unconstitutional, as determining just compensation is a judicial function and the executive or legislature cannot mandate their

    Copyright:

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

    Epza Vs Dulay

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    The four parcels of land that were the subject of the case were where the Mactan Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) planned to be constructed. However, the private landowner, San Antonio Development Corporation, claimed the land was expropriated without their agreement on compensation. Respondent Judge Dulay appointed commissioners to determine just compensation, but San Antonio objected to the government's payment of P15 per square meter, arguing that just compensation under PD 1533 should be the fair market value declared by the owner or assessor, whichever is lower. The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determining just compensation exclusively under PD 1533 was unconstitutional, as determining just compensation is a judicial function and the executive or legislature cannot mandate their

    Copyright:

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

    EPZA VS.

    DULAY

    Facts:  The four parcels of land which are the subject of this case is where
    the Mactan Export Processing Zone Authority in Cebu (EPZA) is to be
    constructed. Private respondent San Antonio Development Corporation (San
    Antonio, for brevity), in which these lands are registered under, claimed
    that the lands were expropriated to the government without them reaching
    the agreement as to the compensation.

    Respondent Judge Dulay then issued an order for the appointment of the


    commissioners to determine the just compensation. It was later found out
    that the payment of the government to San Antonio would be P15 per
    square meter, which was objected to by the latter contending that under PD
    1533, the basis of just compensation shall be fair and according to
    the fair market value declared by the owner of the property sought
    to be expropriated, or by the assessor, whichever is lower.
    Such objection and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration were denied
    and hearing was set for the reception of the commissioner’s report. EPZA
    then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus enjoining the
    respondent from further hearing the case.

    Issue: Whether or Not the exclusive and mandatory mode of


    determining just compensation in PD 1533 is unconstitutional.

    Held: 

    Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determination of just
    compensation in PD 1533 is unconstitutional.
    The ascertainment of what constitutes just compensation for
    property taken in eminent domain cases is a judicial prerogative,
    and PD 76, which fixes payment on the basis of the assessment by
    the assessor or the declared valuation by the owner, is
    unconstitutional.

    The method of ascertaining just compensation constitutes impermissible


    encroachment to judicial prerogatives. It tends to render the courts inutile
    in a matter in which under the Constitution is reserved to it for financial
    determination. The valuation in the decree may only serve as guiding
    principle or one of the factors in determining just compensation, but
    it may not substitute the court’s own judgment as to what amount
    should be awarded and how to arrive at such amount. The
    determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The
    executive department or the legislature may make the initial determination
    but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of
    Rights that the private party may not be taken for public use without just
    compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its
    own determination shall prevail over the court’s findings. Much less can the
    courts be precluded from looking into the justness of the decreed
    compensation

    You might also like