Manosca v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)

HISTORICAL PURPOSE = PUBLIC USE
Manosca vs. Court of Appeals

[GR 106440,
29 January 1996]
First Division, Vitug (J): 4 concur
FACTS:
Alejandro, Asuncion and Leonica Manosca inherited a piece of land located at P. Burgos Street,
Calzada, Taguig, Metro Manila, with an area of about 492 square meters.
NHI: When the parcel was ascertained by the National Historical Institute (NHI) to have been
the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution 1, Series
of 1986, pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree 260, declaring the land to be a national
historical landmark.
- The resolution was, on 6 January 1986, approved by the Minister of Education, Culture
and Sports (MECS).
- Later, the opinion of the Secretary of Justice was asked on the legality of the measure.
- In his opinion 133, Series of 1987, the Secretary of Justice replied in the affirmative.
OSG: Accordingly, on 29 May 1989, the Republic, through the office of the Solicitor-General,
instituted a complaint for expropriation before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig for and in behalf
of the NHI.
- At the same time, the Republic filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an order to
permit it to take immediate possession of the property.
PETITIONER: The motion was opposed by the Manoscas. After a hearing, the trial court issued,
on 3 August 1989, an order fixing the provisional market (P54,120.00) and assessed
(P16,236.00) values of the property and authorizing the Republic to take over the property once
the required sum would have been deposited with the Municipal Treasurer of Taguig, Metro
Manila. The Manoscas 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.
RTC: The trial court issued its denial of said motion to dismiss. The Manoscas moved for
reconsideration thereafter but were denied.
CA: The Manoscas then lodged a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals.
On 15 January 1992, the appellate court dismissed the petition/A motion for the reconsideration
of the decision was denied by the appellate court on 23 July 1992.
SC: The Manoscas filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
SC: All considered, the Court finds the assailed decision to be in accord with law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No costs.
Issue: Whether the setting up of the marker in commemoration of Felix Manalo, the founder of
the religious sect Iglesia ni Cristo, constitutes “public use.”
Held:
YES IT IS FOR PUBLIC USE
- The term "public use," not having been otherwise defined by the constitution, must be
considered in its general concept of meeting a public need or a public exigency.
- The validity of the exercise of the power of eminent domain for traditional purposes is
beyond question; it is not at all to be said, however, that public use should thereby be
restricted to such traditional uses.
- The idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has long
been discarded.
- The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive
contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to
commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo.
- The attempt to give some religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration,
for what should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual consequences
that might follow from, the exercise of the power.
- The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the Iglesia ni
Cristo than by most others could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still remains
to be merely incidental and secondary in nature. Indeed, that only a few would actually
benefit from the expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the essence and
character of public use.
EMINENT DOMAIN
- Eminent domain, also often referred to as expropriation and, with less frequency, as
condemnation, is, like police power and taxation, an inherent power of sovereignty. It
need not be clothed with any constitutional gear to exist; instead, provisions in our
Constitution on the subject are meant more to regulate, rather than to grant, the exercise
of the power.
- Eminent domain is generally so described as "the highest and most exact idea of
property remaining in the government" that may be acquired for some public purpose
through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State. It is a right to take or
reassert dominion over property within the state for public use or to meet a public
exigency.
- It is said to be an essential part of governance even in its most primitive form and thus
inseparable from sovereignty.
- The only direct constitutional qualification is that "private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation." This prescription is intended to provide a
safeguard against possible abuse and so to protect as well the individual against whose
property the power is sought to be enforced.

Manosca v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manosca v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Manosca v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HISTORICAL PURPOSE = PUBLIC USE

Manosca vs. Court of Appeals

You might also like