EMINENT DOMAIN Cases: Manila cannot appropriate it for public use.

The
city of Manila can only expropriate private
CITY OF MANILA v CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA,
property.
G.R. NO.14355, 40 PHIL 349, OCT. 31, 1919

Facts It is a well-known fact that cemeteries may be

Petitioner (City of Manila) filed a petition public or private. Where a cemetery is open to
praying that certain lands be expropriated for the public, it is a public use and no part of the
the purpose of constructing a public ground can be taken for other public uses
improvement namely, the extension of Rizal under a general authority. And this immunity
Avenue, Manila and claiming that such extends to the unimproved and unoccupied
expropriation was necessary.
parts which are held in good faith for future
Herein defendants, on the other hand, alleged
use. The cemetery in question seems to have
(a) that no necessity existed for said
expropriation and (b) that the land in question been established under governmental
was a cemetery, which had been used as such authority.
for many years, and was covered with
sepulchers and monuments, and that the same It is alleged, and not denied, that the cemetery
should not be converted into a street for public in question may be used by the general
purposes. community of Chinese, which fact, in the
general acceptation of the definition of a public
Issue cemetery, would make the cemetery in
Whether or not petitioner may expropriate the question public property. If that is true, then, of
subject lands. course, the petition of the plaintiff must be
denied, because the city of Manila has no
Held
authority or right under the law to expropriate
In the present case there are two conditions
imposed upon the authority conceded to the public property.
City of Manila: First, the land must be private;
and, second, the purpose must be public. If the Even granting that a necessity exists for the
court, upon trial, finds that neither of these opening of the street in question, the record
conditions exists or that either one of them contains no proof of the necessity of opening
fails, certainly it cannot be contended that the the same through the cemetery. To disturb the
right is being exercised in accordance with law. mortal remains of those endeared to us in life
sometimes becomes the sad duty of the living;
The record does not show conclusively that the but, except in cases of necessity, or f or
plaintiff has definitely decided that there exists laudable purposes, the sanctity of the grave,
a necessity for the appropriation of the the last resting place of our f friends, should be
particular land described in the complaint.
maintained, and the preventative aid of the
Exhibits 4, 5, 7, and E clearly indicate that the
courts should be invoked for that object. The
municipal board believed at one time that other
land might be used for the proposed record shows that adjoining and adjacent lands
improvement, thereby avoiding the necessity of have been offered to the city free of charge,
disturbing the quiet resting place of the dead. which will answer every purpose of the plaintiff.

Aside from insisting that there exists no Republic vs PLDT, G.R. No. L-18841, January
necessity for the alleged improvement, the 27, 1969
defendants further contend that the street in
question should not be opened through the DOCTRINE: The Republic may, in the
cemetery. One of the defendants alleges that exercise of the sovereign power of eminent
said cemetery is ‘public property. If that domain, require the telephone company to
allegation is true, then, of course, the city of permit interconnection of the government
telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the crippling or seriously hampering the
needs of the government service may require, operations of said Bureau. The Bureau of
subject to the payment of just compensation to Telecommunications was created in
be determined by the court. Normally, of pursuance of a state policy reorganizing
course, the power of eminent domain results. the government offices “to meet the
in the taking or appropriation of title to, and exigencies attendant upon the
possession of, the expropriated property; but establishment of the free and independent
no cogent reason appears why the said power Government of the Republic of the
may not be availed of to impose only a burden Philippines, and for the purpose of
upon the owner of condemned property, promoting simplicity, -economy and
without loss of title and possession. It is efficiency in its operation” (Section 1,
unquestionable that real property may, Republic Act No. 51) and the
through expropriation, be subjected to an determination of state-policy is not vested
easement of right of way. The use of the in the Commission (Utilities Com. v.
PLDT’s lines and services to allow Bartonville Bus Line, 290 111 574; 124 N.
interservice connection between both E. 373).
telephone systems is not much different. In -
either case private property is subjected to a The Public Service Commission, under the
burden for public use and benefit. If, under law, has no authority to pass upon
section 6, Article XIII, of the Constitution, the actions for the taking of private property
State may; in the interest of national welfare, under the sovereign right of eminent
transfer utilities to public ownership upon domain. Furthermore, while the
payment of just compensation, there is no defendant telephone company is a
reason why the State may not require a public public utility corporation whose
utility to render services in the general franchise, equipment and other
interest, provided just compensation is paid properties are under the jurisdiction,
therefor. Ultimately, the beneficiary of the supervision and control of the Public
interconnecting service would be the users of Service Commission (Sec. 13, Public
both telephone systems, so that the Service Act), yet the plaintiff’s
condemnation would be for public use. telecommunications network is a public
service owned by the Republic and
operated by an instrumentality of the
The Bureau of Telecommunications, under
National Government, hence exempt,
section 78 (b) of Executive Order No. 94, under Section 14 of the Public Service
may operate and maintain wire telephone Act, from such jurisdiction, supervision
or radio telephone communications and control.
throughout the Philippines by utilizing
existing facilities in cities, towns, and
provinces under such terms and conditions FACTS:
or arrangement with present owners or
operators as may be agreed upon to the The plaintiff, Republic of the Philippines, is a
satisfaction of all concerned; but there is political entity exercising governmental powers
nothing in this section that would exclude through its branches and instrumentalities, one
resort to condemnation proceedings where of which is the Bureau of
unreasonable or unjust terms and Telecommunications. The defendant,
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
conditions are exacted, to the extent of
(PLDT for short), is a public service corporation
holding a legislative franchise, to install, judgment; (1) commanding the PLDT to
operate and maintain a telephone system execute a contract with plaintiff, through the
throughout the Philippines. BOT, for the use of the facilities of defendant’s
telephone system throughout the Philippines
under such terms and conditions as the court
BOT soon after its creation set up its own might consider reasonable, and; (2) for a writ of
Government Telephone System (GTS) utilizing preliminary injunction against the defendant
its own appropriation and equipment and by company to restrain the severance of the
renting the trunk lines of the PLDT to enable existing telephone connections and/or restore
government offices to call private parties. The those severed.
Bureau has extended its services to the
general public. Through these trunk lines, a After trial, the lower court rendered judgment
Government Telephone System (GTS) that it could not compel the PLDT to enter into
subscriber could make a call to a PLDT an agreement with the Bureau because the
subscriber in the same way that the latter could parties were not in agreement. Both parties
make a call to the former. appealed.
BOT entered into an agreement with RCA
Communications (an American Co. party
not in interest of the case), Inc. for a joint ISSUE:
telephone service whereby the BOT would
convey radio-telephone overseas call Whether or not interconnection of Government
received by RCA to and from local Telephone System and PLDT can be subject
residents. for expropriation.

PLDT complained that BOT violated conditions

since BOT had used the trunk lines not only HELD:
for government offices but even to serve
private persons or the general public in
Yes. The Republic of the Philippines through
competition with the business of PLDT.
Bureau of Telecommunications may in the
PLDT sever the telephone connections of
exercise of the sovereign power of eminent
BOT resulting to isolation of the Philippines
domain, require the Telephone Company to
on telephone services from the rest of the
permit interconnection of the Government
world except the US.
Telephone System and that of the PLDT, as
the needs of the government service may
The BOT had proposed that both enter into an required, subject to the payment of just
interconnecting agreement, with the compensation to be determined by the court.
government paying (on a call basis) for all calls
passing through the interconnecting facilities
The Republic’s cause of action is predicated
from the GTS to the PLDT. 18 The PLDT replied
upon the radio telephonic isolation of the BOT
that it was willing to enter into an agreement on
facilities from the outside world if the
overseas telephone service to Europe and
severance of interconnection were to be
Asian countries provided that the BOT would
carried out by the PLDT, thereby preventing
submit to the jurisdiction and regulations of the
the BOT from properly discharging its
Public Service Commission and in
functions, to the prejudice of the general public.
consideration sharing of the gross revenues.
The case should be for the compulsory
The proposals were not accepted by either
rendering of interconnection of services by the
party.
telephone company upon such terms and
conditions as the court may determine to be
The plaintiff commenced suit against the just.
defendant, praying in its complaint for
Since the lower court should have proceeded PLDT’s right to just compensation for the
to treat the case as one of condemnation of services rendered to the GTS and its users is
such services independently of contract and herein recognized and preserved. To uphold
proceeded to determine the just and
PLDT’s contention is to subordinate the
reasonable compensation for the same,
instead of dismissing the petition. needs of the general public to the right of the
PLDT to deprive profit from the future
expansion of its services under its non
Under Section 79 of EO 94 paragraph (b) exclusive franchise.

To investigate, consolidate, negotiate for, The acceptance by the defendant of the

operate and maintain wire-telephone or radio payment of rentals, despite its knowledge that
telephone communication service throughout the plaintiff had extended the use of the trunk
the Philippines by utilizing such existing lines to commercial purposes, continuously
facilities in cities, towns, and provinces as since 1948, implies assent by the defendant to
may be found feasible and under such terms such extended use. Since this relationship has
and conditions or arrangements with the been maintained for a long time and the
present owners or operators thereof as may public has patronized both telephone systems,
be agreed upon to the satisfaction of all and their interconnection is to the public
concerned. convenience, it is too late for the defendant to
claim misuse of its facilities, and it is not now
Under Section 6 Article XIII 1935 at liberty to unilaterally sever the physical
Constitution “Conservation and Utilization of connection of the trunk lines.
Natural Resources.”
The State may, in the exercise of national There is high authority for the position that,
welfare and defense, establish and operate when such physical connection has been
industries and means of transportation and voluntarily made, under a fair and workable
communication, and upon payment of just arrangement and guaranteed by contract and
compensation, transfer to public ownership, the continuous line has come to be patronized
utilities and other private enterprises to be and established as a great public
operated by the government. convenience, such connection shall not in
breach of the agreement be severed by one of
the parties. In that case, the public is held to
Charter of PLDT expressly provides that have such an interest in the arrangement that
Section 14. its rights must receive due consideration.

The rights therein granted shall not be “Such physical connection cannot be
exclusive, and the rights and power to grant required as of right, but if such connection is
to any corporation, association or person voluntarily made by contract, as is here
other than the grantee franchise for the alleged to be the case, so that the public
telephone or electrical transmission of acquires an interest in its continuance, the act
message or signals shall not be impaired or of the parties in making such connection is
affected by the granting of this franchise. equivalent to a declaration of a purpose to
waive the primary right of independence, and
it imposes upon the property such a public Hence, this petition challenging the orders of
status that it may not be disregarded” respondent Judge and assailing the
constitutionality of Pres. Decree No. 1224, as
amended.
“Where private property is by the consent of
the owner invested with a public interest or Petitioners Argue
privilege for the benefit of the public, the
owner can no longer deal with it as private Petitioners contend that “socialized housing” as
defined in Pres. Decree No. 1224, as
property only, but must hold it subject to the amended, for the purpose of condemnation
right of the public in the exercise of that proceedings is not “public use” since it will
public interest or privilege conferred for their benefit only “a handful of people, bereft of
benefit.” public character.”

LORENZO SUMULONG and EMILIA

VIDANES-BALAOING, petitioners, vs.
HON. BUENAVENTURA GUERRERO and ISSUE:
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Whether or not the “public use” requirement in
respondents. G.R. No. L-48685 •
expropriation cases must benefit the public in
September 30, 1987 general.
FACTS: RULING:
On December 5, 1977 the National Housing NO. Indeed, the exercise of the power of
Authority (NIIA) filed a complaint for eminent domain is subject to certain limitations
expropriation of parcels of land covering imposed by the constitution, to wit:
approximately twenty five (25) hectares, (in
Antipolo, Rizal) including the lots of petitioners Private property shall not be taken for public
Lorenzo Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes- use without just compensation (Art. IV, Sec. 9);
Balaoing with an area of 6,667 square meters
and 3,333 square meters respectively. The Nevertheless, a clear case of constitutional
land sought to be expropriated were valued by infirmity has to be established for this Court to
the NHA at one peso (P1.00) per square meter nullify legislative or executive measures
adopting the market value fixed by the adopted to implement specific constitutional
provincial assessor in accordance with provisions aimed at promoting the general
presidential decrees prescribing the valuation welfare.
of property in expropriation proceedings.
“Socialized housing” is defined as, “the
Together with the complaint was a motion for construction of dwelling units for the middle
immediate possession of the properties. and lower class members of our society,
including the construction of the supporting
RTC Ruling infrastructure and other facilities” (Pres. Decree
No. 1224, par. 1).
On January 17, 1978, respondent Judge
issued a writ of possession on the parcels of The “public use” requirement for the exercise
land. of the power of eminent domain is a flexible
and evolving concept influenced by changing
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on conditions. In this jurisdiction, the statutory and
the ground that they had been deprived of the judicial trend has been summarized as follows:
possession of their property without due
process of law. This was however, denied.
The taking to be valid must be for public use. by all but only by those who satisfy prescribed
There was a time when it was felt that a literal qualifications. A beginning has to be made, for
meaning should be attached to such a it is not possible to provide housing for are who
requirement. Whatever project is undertaken need it, all at once.
must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case
of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is In the light of the foregoing, this Court is
not allowable. It is not anymore. As long as the satisfied that “socialized housing” fans within
purpose of the taking is public, then the power the confines of “public use”. It is, particularly
of eminent domain comes into play. important to draw attention to paragraph (d) of
Pres. Dec. No. 1224 which opportunities
As just noted, the constitution in at least two inextricably linked with low-cost housing, or
cases, to remove any doubt, determines what slum clearance, relocation and resettlement, or
is public use. One is the expropriation of lands slum improvement emphasize the public
to be subdivided into small lots for resale at purpose of the project.
cost to individuals. The other is in the transfer,
through the exercise of this power, of utilities In the case at bar, the use to which it is
and other private enterprise to the government. proposed to put the subject parcels of land
It is accurate to state then that at present meets the requisites of “public use”. The lands
whatever may be beneficially employed for the in question are being expropriated by the NHA
general welfare satisfies the requirement of for the expansion of Bagong Nayon Housing
public use [Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, Project to provide housing facilities to low-
G.R. Nos. 60549, 60553-60555 October 26, salaried government employees. The acute
1983, 125 SCRA 220 (1983) at 234-5 quoting shortage of housing units in the country is of
E. FERNANDO, THE CONSTITUTION OF public knowledge. Official data indicate that
THE PHILIPPINES 523-4, (2nd ed., 1977) more than one third of the households
Emphasis supplied]. nationwide do not own their dwelling places. A
significant number live in dwellings of
The term “public use” has acquired a more unacceptable standards, such as shanties,
comprehensive coverage. natural shelters, and structures intended for
commercial, industrial, or agricultural purposes.
To the literal import of the term signifying strict Of these unacceptable dwelling units, more
use or employment by the public has been than one third is located within the National
added the broader notion of indirect public Capital Region (NCR) alone which lies
benefit or advantage. proximate to and is expected to be the most
benefited by the housing project involved in the
Specifically, urban renewal or redevelopment case at bar [See, National Census and
and the construction of low-cost housing is Statistics Office, 1980 Census of Population
recognized as a public purpose, not only and Housing].
because of the expanded concept of public use
but also because of specific provisions in the Petitioners Contend
Constitution. The 1973 Constitution made it
incumbent upon the State to establish, Petitioners further contend that Pres. Decree
maintain and ensure adequate social services 1224, as amended, would allow the taking of
including housing [Art. 11, sec. 7]. “any private land” regardless of the size and no
matter how small the area of the land to be
Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in expropriated. Petitioners claim that “there are
housing is a matter of state concern since it vast areas of lands in Mayamot, Cupang, and
directly and significantly affects public health, San Isidro, Antipolo, Rizal hundred of hectares
safety, the environment and in sum, the of which are owned by a few landowners only.
general welfare. The public character of
housing measures does not change because ISSUE:
units in housing projects cannot be occupied
Whether or not the propriety of the exercise of issuing the writ of possession on the basis of
the power of eminent domain is determined by the market value appearing therein are
the area of the land to be expropriated. annulled for having been issued in excess of
jurisdiction. Let this case be remanded to the
court of origin for further proceedings to
RULING: determine the compensation the petitioners
are entitled to be paid. No costs.
NO. In J.M. Tuason Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure
Administration [G. R. No. L-21064, February SO ORDERED.
18, 1970, 31 SCRA 413 (1970) at 428] this
Court earlier ruled that expropriation is not
confined to landed estates. This Court, quoting
the dissenting opinion of Justice J.B.L. Reyes
in Republic vs. Baylosis, [96 Phil. 461 (1955)],
held that:

The propriety of exercising the power of

eminent domain under Article XIII, section 4 of
our Constitution cannot be determined on a
purely quantitative or area basis. Not only does
the constitutional provision speak of lands
instead of landed estates, but I see no cogent
reason why the government, in its quest for
social justice and peace, should exclusively
devote attention to conflicts of large
proportions, involving a considerable number
of individuals, and eschew small controversies
and wait until they grow into a major problem
before taking remedial action.

The State acting through the NHA is vested

with broad discretion to designate the particular
property/properties to be taken for socialized
housing purposes and how much thereof may
be expropriated. Absent a clear showing of
fraud, bad faith, or gross abuse of discretion,
which petitioners herein failed to demonstrate,
the Court will give due weight to and leave
undisturbed the NHA’s choice and the size of
the site for the project. The property owner
may not interpose objections merely because
in their judgment some other property would
have been more suitable, or just as suitable,
for the purpose. The right to the use,
enjoyment and disposal of private property is
tempered by and has to yield to the demands
of the common good.

WHEREFORE, the Orders of the lower court

dated January 17, 1978 and June 28, 1978