Constitutional Law II At t y.

G a l e o n
!

Date: Dec. 5, 2016 Good written constitution

1. Broad - not only the entire government, but covers all
CONS TITUTION things, able to anticipate the future; not like a history
book
- a body of rules and maxims in accordance with which 2. Brief - must confine itself to basic principles and
the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised policies for the governance of the state
[Cooley] 3. Definite - provisions should be clear to prevent
- written instrument enacted by direct action of the people ambiguity which could result in confusion and
by which the fundamental powers of the government are divisiveness among the people
established, limited and defined, and by which those
powers are distributed among the several departments Essential Parts of Good Written Constitution:
for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the
1. Constitution of Liberty series of prescriptions
body politic [Malcolm]
setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of
the citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of
Primary Purpose: government as a means of securing the enjoyment of
- prescribe the permanent framework of a system of those rights (e.g. Art. 3)
government, to assign to the several departments their 2. Constitution of Government series of provisions
respective powers and duties, and to establish certain outlining the organization of the government,
first principles on which the government is founded enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules
- described a system of government. It lays down the relative to its administration, and defining the electorate
foundation of the government; it lays down certain (e.g. Art.s 6-9)
principles upon which the government obeys. It also 3. Constitution of Sovereignty outlines the process
distributes or allocates to several departments the for amendments or revisions; pointing out the mode or
powers of the state. procedure in accordance with which formal changes in
the fundamental law may be brought about (e.g. Art
17)
Classifications
1. Written or Unwritten

Interpretation or Construction of the Constitution

Written - one whose precepts are embodied in a
single instrument or a set of documents 1. Verba Legis the words must be given their ordinary
meaning
Unwritten - not entirely unwritten; consists of rules
which have not been integrated into a single, 2. Ratio Legis et anima when there is doubt or
concrete form but are scattered in various source; ambiguity in the interpretation, it should be interpreted
with the intention of the framers
Example: UK, Australia, Israel, etc.
3. Ut Maais Valeat Adam Pereat constitution to be
interpreted as a whole
2. Enacted (conventional) or Evolved (cumulative)
4. Self-Executing as much as possible, we should
Enacted - one which is formally struck or adapted interpret as self-executing except when
off at a definite time and place following a
conscious or deliberate effort taken by a
All laws of the congress must conform with the mandates
constituent body or ruler
the constitution.
Example: In the past the constitution of Japan
Constitution is the fundamental law of the land
was imposed by the US after the war. An
enacted one is formerly made in a definite time
and place. Powers the State may exercise which are not expressly
Evolved - one which is a product of time; result of granted by the Constitution; independent of the constitution
political evolution, not inaugurated at any specific 1. Police Power - as the power of the state to regulate
time but changing by accretion rather than by any properties, liberty and rights of the citizens for the
systematic method promotion of the general welfare
2. Eminent Domain - refers to the power of the state to
take away private properties for public purpose upon
3. Rigid or Flexible
payment of just compensation
Rigid - one that can be amended only by a formal
and usually difficult process 3. Power of Taxation - power of the state to demand
Example: 1987 constitution an enacted,
written and rigid constitution (thus you can Similarities on the Powers
amend by following strict procedures under art 1. INHERENT:

17).
- regarded to be inherent in the state - in the sense
ADVANTAGE: (1) Difficult to amend; (2) has the that they may be exercised by the state without
capacity to withstand capricious changes being conferred by the constitution
DISADVANTAGE: When there is a need to
change the constitution, then the constitution
Limitations of the Powers of the State:
would rather impede progress.
Police Power - Article 3, Section 1 - right, liberty;
Flexible - one that can be changed by ordinary
legislation Eminent domain Article 3, Section 9 - private
property must have just compensation;
Taxation - Article 6, Section 8 - exempt from
- Normally, an unwritten is an evolved constitution taxation;

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 1
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

2. INDISPENSABLE:

- these powers are not only necessary, but are Is it possible that a beneficial property be taken by the
indispensable - in a sense that without these powers of police power?

powers, the state may not function effectively General Rule: Properties must be disposed or destroyed
Police Power: state cannot enact criminal laws because they are noxious or hazardous
or revised penal code EXCEPT: when police power using as a tool of
Eminent domain: state may not be able to eminent domain or taxation in order to take beneficial
construct roads property
Taxation: where state cannot collect taxes;
cannot provide free education or basic
healthcare POLICE P OWER
3. INTERVENE PERSONAL RIGHTS:
- is an inherent power of the State which promotes the
- the means or methods by which the state can welfare of society by restraining and regulating the use
effectively intervene personal rights of liberty and property.
Police Power: - inherent - can be exercised without the constitution
Eminent domain: taking of private property - Regarded to be the:
Taxation: where state cannot collect taxes; - most pervasive,
cannot provide free education or basic
healthcare
- least limitable and
- most demanding of them all
4. PRIMARILY VESTED IN CONGRESS:

- all of them are primarily lodged or vested in the

congress; but may be delegated What serves as the basis for exercising police power?

Salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the

5. PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION:

people is the supreme law of the land

- the exercise thereof presupposes payment of just
compensation Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas a person must
use his own property so as not to injure another
Example: you cannot set your house on fire, if in the
Distinctions on the powers process, you will also damage your neighbors, but it
(1) Police power involves both liberty and property is a different thing if you are living in an desolate
Taxation and Eminent Domain affects only property island inhabited by you alone
rights Example: you own your own karaoke unit, you can
(2) Police and taxation power exercised only by the sing your heart out, but you cannot do it in the
government middle of the night because it would disturb your
Eminent Domain may be exercised by private neighbors these examples show why the state
entities upon delegation should limit ones rights if it would prejudice others
(3) Police Power Property taken has to be destroyed for right
it is regarded as noxious or hazardous
Eminent property is wholesome and must be
devoted for a public use or purpose
Scope/Characteristics
(4) Taxation the protection given and/or public 1. Most pervasive, least limitable and most demanding
improvements instituted by government for the taxes of them all the powers

paid - Why? Because while the other two involved only

Eminent Domain full and fair equivalent of the property rights, this one involves property rights and
property taken liberty of individual. Also it covers all human activity
Police Power power entails payment of just (from womb to tomb, like we have laws dealing with
compensation but would be intangible; consists that abortion for example, all in the name of police power.
altruistic feeling that you have contributed to the public There also laws in the disposition of ones remains,
good under the laws of succession, and laws dealing with
the burial, laws dealing with marriage, contracts,
etc.). so police power therefore is wider in scope than
Eminent
Police Power Taxation the other two powers.
Domain

regulates both
As to regulation liberty and regulates property rights only 2. Cannot be bargained away

property - Cannot be bargained away with through the medium

of a treaty or contract
government and Echoing vs Hernandez: There was a law that was
As to who may only the only the
some private
exercise government government enacted in the past (retail trade nationalization law)
entities
prohibiting aliens from engaging in a retail trade
destroyed business. Echiong was convicted, a Chinese, and
because it is supposedly violated the retail trade nationalization
As to the property
noxious or
- wholesome
taken - taken for a public use or purpose law. Gabaligya gihapon siyag ngohiong. Echoing
intended for
noxious purpose appealed his conviction saying that RTN law was in
violation of the treaty entered into by the Philippines
intangible and China (Treaty of amity). The SC said that our
altruistic feeling full and fair protection and RTN law was not in conflict of the treaty of amity
As to that the person equivalent of the public between Phil and China, but if such would be in
compensation has contributed to property improvements for
the general expropriated the taxes paid conflict, Phils laws should prevail (enacted through
welfare police power). But now, our SC has shifted and is

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 2
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

saying that Phil should now, as a rule, comply with

its treaty obligations) Oposa vs Facturan: our SC cancelled or revoked
the concessions granted for the cutting of lumber. It
__ Bank v. Commissioner of internal revenue: was argued that such concessions constitute as
enjoined the state to strictly comply with its treaty property rights. The SC said that such could be
obligations and SC even enjoined he govt to make revoked again in the name of police power.
changes in our law independently of the
constitution to ensure that we would comply to our 3. Dynamic

contractual obligations, BUT the fact remains that - Not static; changes with time and along with the
there is truly conflict between Treaty and our local
society; and must move with the moving society it is
laws, then our local laws should prevail in the name
supposed to regulate
of police power.
Example: in the past, the operation of vital utilities is
performed or undertaken by the state, but at
- Since it cannot be bargained away through the present, there is now a move to privatize the
medium of a treaty, them much more, it cannot be operation of public utilities, like electric plants
bargained away through the medium of a domestic Example: that is why NPC is now privatized, as well
contract
as PNB
Example: in the past during time of atty. Gravador
Ortigas v. CA: Hermoso bought a parcel of land and atty. Torregoza there is no such thing a cyber
from Ortigas and in the contract of sale there was a crime law, but in my time, there is already a cyber
stipulation that the property subject matter of such crime law (it changes with time)
sale could only be utilized for residential purposes,
but it was placed to Matay who constructed a
commercial building thereon. But Matay defended 4. Utilize the Power of Taxation as an implement
his action by invoking a zoning ordinance that - May utilize the Power of Taxation as its tool or as an
reclassified the land from residential to commercial. implement thereof
But then Ortigas argued that such resolution could
not have a retroactive effect so as to impel the Example: Sin tax law is enacted not only pursuant to
obligation on the contract that was entered into the power of taxation, but also pursuant to the police
prior to the passage or enactment of the ordinance. power of the state. More importantly that is pursuant
The ruling of the SC said that the police power of to the police power of the state using as a tool or an
that ordinance is superior compared to the contract implement thereof the power of taxation
that was entered years before its enactment. In - it imposes a higher tax, in the hopes of
other words, the exercise of police power my even
dissuading the people from smoking or from
violate or change or modify or alter obligations
drinking alcohol which could be bad for the
contracted through the medium of contract.
health

MMDA vs Garin: confiscation of drivers license. Carlos super drug: where the SC justified such
Garin said that he had property rights over his
imposition or giving of discounts under police
drivers license and that it was granted to him by
power using power of taxation as a tool or an
the state. Such grant took effect through the nature
implement in the exercise thereof
of a contract. SC said that the granting of DL is
nothing but a privilege and the same can be
suspended, revoked or confiscated by the state, all Luke v. Araneta: there was a law that was enacted
in the name of police power, although at that time that imposing special tax on sugar and that was
MMDA had no such authority to confiscate the DL imposed for the rehabilitation for the sugar industry.
absent any law authorizing or enforcing it to do the That imposition was question but the SC said that
same. Thus, police power may even impair the such implementation was valid because that
obligations in a contract, notwithstanding the imposition was enacted pursuant to the police
provisions under sec 10 article 3 that no law under power of the state to rehabilitate the sugar industry
the obligation of a contract shall be passed by using the power of taxation as an implement
thereof.
Chavez v. Romulo: involves the revocation of the
permit to carry firearms a regulation which was 5. Utilize the Power of Eminent Domain as an implement

enacted by the state canceling permits of persons - May utilize the Power of Eminent Domain as its tool
to carry firearms outside their residences. Chavez or as an implement thereof
questioned the validity of this law, contending that
he had vested rights or property rights to carry Carlos super drug v. Dswd: the SC said that there
firearms outside his residence. But SC said that
could be taking of beneficial properties like profits
what he has is only a permit to carry firearms,
all in the name of police power using the other
nothing but a privilege like the Drivers license, thus
power, that is the power of eminent domain.
it could be revoked or suspended by the state in
the name of police power
CARP (comprehensive agrarian reform programs):
where the state could take private properties,
agricultural lands to be distributed to farmer
Stone v. Mississippi: there was a grant of franchise beneficiaries. So, the extent of the law on CARP of
in favor of few persons for a consideration for them distributing land to the landless, there is eminent
to operate lottery for a period of 25 long years, but domain, to the extent that private lands would be
after the years, that was cancelled by the state. taken away for the purpose of giving it to landless
That cancellation was questioned before the court. farmers who needs those lands for a living. BUT to
The US SC decreed that such franchise could be the extent that the CARP would prescribe
cancelled, all in the name of police power.

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 3
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

limitations or retention of ownership then there is Non-impairment of contracts or vested rights clauses
regulation of property and liberty in the name of will have to yield to the superior and legitimate exercise
police power by the State of the police power [Ortigas & Co. v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000]
Again, what are the essential characteristics of police
power? Pervasive, less limitable, demanding, it cannot be Thus, despite the retroactive effect of PD 957
bargained away with through the medium of a treaty or (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective
contract, dynamic, it may utilize other powers as a tool or Decree), there is no violation of the non-impairment
an implement thereof. clause, because the decree is a valid exercise of the
police power, and police power prevails over contracts
Again, where police power uses any of the two other [PNB v. Office of the President, 255 SCRA 5]
powers, there may be taking of beneficial properties.
Philippine press institute v. Comelec: There was an As to the constitutional right of every citizen to select a
attempt on the part of the state through the sol-gen profession or course of study subject to fair, reasonable
to justify comelec resolution 2772 (?) as a valid and equitable admission and academic requirements,
exercise of police power. The resolution is directing their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the
that publishers should provide a free print space. police power of the State to safeguard health, morals,
When it was questioned, sol-gen wanted to justify its peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare
resolution by invoking the police power of the state, of the people. This regulation assumes particular
but it was not further elaborated by the sol-gen. that pertinence in the field of medicine, to protect the public
is why as to the question, probably it was correct, from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and
because the exercise of police power utilizes as a ignorance [Professional Regulation Commission v. De
tool thereof the power of taxation and power of Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004].
eminent domain, that such exercise may involve
taking of beneficial properties. Only in this case, it The right to bear arms is merely a statutory privilege.
was not elaborated any further by the sol-gen. The license to carry a firearm is neither a property or a
Which is why it was declared as invalid, because SC property right. Neither does it create a vested right. A
said that the resolution because it would amount to permit to carry a firearm outside ones residence may be
taking of private property without payment of just revoked at any time. Even if it were a property right, it
compensation. cannot be considered as absolute as to be beyond the
reach of the police power [Chavez v. Romulo, 431 SCRA
Telecommunications and Broadcast Authorities of the 534].
Phils. v. Comelec: which was the validity of the law
sec. 92 of BP 881 mandating the registration that A license to operate a motor vehicle is not a property
would provide free air time to the candidates. It was right, but a privilege granted by the State, which may be
said to be invalid, because it was contended that it suspended or revoked by the State in the exercise of its
would amount to taking of private property without police power, in the interest of public safety and welfare,
payment of just compensation. The SC sustained subject to the procedural due process requirements
the validity of sec. 92 BP 881 as a valid exercise of [Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Garin,
Police Power. G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005].

Why the difference? How can you reconcile these 2 R.A. 9257, otherwise known as the Expanded Senior
cases? Citizens Act of 2003, is a legitimate exercise of police
It because what was involved in the PPI was a tangible power. Administrative Order No. 177 issued by the
object (print space), while in the other one was Department of Health, providing that the 20% discount
intangible (air space/air time), but far more important it privilege of senior citizens shall not be limited to the
because what was involved in the 2nd case was a purchase of unbranded generic medicine but shall
franchise, a franchise to operate a telecommunications extend to both prescription and non-prescription
business. Recall that under sec 17 art 12 the grant of medicine, whether branded or generic, is valid. When
any such franchise is subject to a condition that it can conditions so demand, as determined by the legislature,
be modified, altered, repealed, and suspended by the property rights must bow to the primacy of police power
state BUT you dont need a legitimate franchise to be because property rights, though sheltered by the due
engaged in a publishing business. That is how to process clause, must yield to the general welfare
distinguish the two cases. [Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWD, etal., G.R. No.
166494, June 29, 2007].
Again, underscore the fact that as construed in the case of
Small land owners of the Philippines v. Executive of Who can exercise Police Power?

Agriculture the exercise of the state to distribute land to 1. Congress; the Legislature - inherent and primarily
the landless under the CARP is justified under police power lodge in the congress; given the discretion whether to
using as an implement thereof the power of eminent act or not and remedies of it
domain. Take note of that case again of Ortigas v. CA
2. President, LGUs, Private Bodies - must have delegation
where SC said that the enactment of the zoning ordinance
by congress
is that, not pursuant to eminent domain but pursuant to
police power, because zoning ordinance would not involve
taking of property it merely involves reclassification of the The Police power of the state is primarily lodged in
use of the classification of property from residential to congress, so much so, that congress is given a
commercial. discretion whether or not to act on a given problem of
situation.
Example: in a problem of prostitution, if
Police power legislation is applicable not only to future
contracts, but equally to those already in existence. congress act on it, then it is well and good, BUT
if congress will not act on it, congress cannot

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 4
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

be compelled by mandamus so as to act on While it is said that police power is broad in scope and it
that problem. Because again, the exercise of practically covers every human activity from womb to
police power is primarily lodge in congress and tomb, however there are still other aspects of human
this is addressed to the sound discretion of activity which may not be included into by the state
congress Example: right to privacy the exercise of police
power necessitates the existence of a lawful
If congress is to act on a situation, then the choice on subject, but can the state enact a law prohibiting us
the remedy that is to be pursued is to be left to the from singing while taking a bath inside the confines
sound discretion of congress of our bathroom? NO, because that activity does not
Example: it is opined or suggested that affect the others, it is not imbued with public
smoking cigarettes could cause lung cancer, interest, congress has no business to deal with a
congress has the option on whether or not to person who wants to sing inside his bathroom. But it
enact a law that would altogether banish is a different thing if you live in a glass house where
smoking or would just impose tax in the rates to everything can be seen through. That is why there
the people buying cigarettes. If congress would are laws prohibiting the state from gathering data,
pursue the first remedy, that is to ban altogether pertaining to a person, such as that you think that
the sale and disposition of cigarettes, then you private data is gathered by the state you can
generally that cannot be questioned. actually file an application for a writ of habeas data
Conversely when congress has just decided to
impose higher tax in the sale of cigarettes, then As ___ as police power may be, fortunately for us, we
that could not also be questioned. have the freedom to think, free to think that you are
handsome, no law can prohibit you from thinking that.
You may think that you are superman, the state cannot
Who can exercise Eminent Domain?
regulate that and cannot prohibit you form thinking that,
Ascertainment of Facts serve as basis for exercise but it is a different thing if you will act as superman
of this power is also left to the judicious or sound (acting it out). Again, it is a different thing if you practice
discretion of congress what you believe in.
Example: congress chooses to enact a law
prohibiting the sale of cigars on the ground that
The state can actually regulate your profession. The
it could cause lung cancer then that should be
case where passers from Fatima college were
respected especially if such law is enacted with
prohibited from taking their oath, and the SC sustained
a semblance of truth that cigar smoking is bad
that decision of the PRC because the practice of the
for the health/ could cause lung cancer.
medical profession can be regulated by the state. SC
said that the health of the citizens should not be
What is important is that there is a semblance of truth entrusted to incompetent physicians, likewise in the bar.
to the remedy pursued by congress San Diego v. De Guzman: regulation on NMAT (the
Jacobson v. Massachusetts: it was decide by US
medical field) was sustained as valid on the basis of
SC, where Jacobson was convicted for refused to Police Power.
be vaccinated for small pox, because according to
him, he wanted to prove to the court, that small pox
In like manner employment may also be regulated by
vaccination is not really that effective or that it can
the state, all in the name of police power.
cause some kind of complications, but the US SC
JMM case: regulation was sustained valid because
did not allow him to do that, according to the US SC
the ascertainment of facts attendant to the exercise it was geared to the protection of or migrant
of police power is left to the sound discretion of workers, our entertainers abroad. So that is why
congress. Such that where the action of the decision police power can regulate the exercise of
of congress supported by semblance of truth is profession. But we need to underscore that fact that
required, then that can be justified. But it is different the exercise of police power necessitates among
if the action or the remedy pursued by congress has others the existence of a lawful subject, and activity
no truth at all, in that situation, it can be regarded as of a thing that is imbued with public interest, absent
invalid. which, then that cannot be regulated by the state
even in the name of police power.
Example: Congress would enact a law mandating
that bald people would be vaccinated, because Another important criterion or valid exercise of police
baldness is contagious. Would it be declared as power necessitates the employment of reasonable or
valid? With that kind of ascertainment of fact? NO, lawful means.
because such action has no basis. But where an Example: the exercise of police power must
action of congress is supported by a semblance of conform to the requirement on due process and
truth, then generally then it is open for judicial equal protection (enshrined in sec 1 of art 3)
scrutiny.
Inot(?) v. Intermediate appellate court: involves a law
Valid Exercise (Limitations):
authorizing the outright confiscation of carabaos that
1. Lawful subject interests of the public generally, as were transported from one province to another, it was
distinguished from those of a particular class, require questioned by Inot who said that such law was not valid
the exercise of police power because the confiscation was without the benefit of trial.
Indeed the law was decreed as invalid because SC said
2. Lawful means the means employed are reasonably
that the confiscation did not use lawful means (as it was
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and
without the benefit of trial). It was liked to a bill of
not unduly oppressive upon individuals
attainder, one which imposes or inflicts punishment
without the benefit of a trial

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 5
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

City of Manila v. Baguio: an ordinance prohibiting motels Cabrerra v. ___: demolition of the fishpond of Cabrerra
in an specific area. city council of manila said that the w/out the court order. It was argued that it was denied
law was lawful, but it was decreed as invalid by the SC due process, but the SC disagreed. Sc noted that the
because the means employed thereby were not lawful, fishpond of cabrerra was a nuisance per se. Thus, it
the means were confiscatory. The options given to the could be taken in the name of police power. There was
owners of the establishments amounted to a taking of an exception in this case pertaining to the requirement of
property without payment of just compensation, it is not due process because the property of Cabrerra was
enough that there is a lawful existence of a lawful classified as noxious and hazardous.
subject, it is not enough that the purpose of the
enactment of the law is noble, what is required is that the Pollution adjudication board v. CA: there was a ___
methods used thereby should be lawful, so that the disease order (?cant hear it?) prohibiting from using the
exercise of police power maybe sustained as valid. water in the lake, there was an order prior notice and
hearing but it was valid because it was by of exception
Villaviscencio v. Lukban: the mayor of manila rounded up since of the provision in sec 7 PD 934 that allows the
some hundreds of prostitutes and kicked them out of PAB to issue exparte temporary restraining order even
manila to davao. The purpose of the mayor was plain before the matter could be heard. There will be a hearing
and obvious, it was to solve the problem on prostitution, after the issuance of the TRO.
no doubt that it was noble, there was a lawful subject in
such situation. But the method employed was unjust. SC Another additional requirement of the valid exercise of
said that prostitutes also have rights like ours, they police power , but if this power is exercised by local
cannot be shipped from one place to another. So in this government units, such exercise therefore must be
case lead substance to the preposition that indeed, authorized by law, after all, police power is primarily
police power necessitates employment of lawful lodged in congress. It can only be exercised by, say,
methods LGUs if there is proper delegation by congress in favor
of the LGUs. In the present, we have the local
SJS v. DSWD: Issue here was the validity of sec. 38 of government code which allowed LGUs to exercise the
RA 9165 requiring, that a person could run for public delegated police power of the state. Then if this is to be
office especially for congress, that one has to undergo a exercise by the LGUs, the exercise thereof must be
mandatory drug test. The purpose of the law was valid, limited in application within the territorial jurisdiction of
but SC said that the method employed was unlawful the LGU concerned (ex. within the boundaries).
because requirements to run for congress are set forth in
art 6 sec 3. SC said that the provision under that sec 3 of City of Manila v. ____: SC enumerated the requirements
art 6 could not be amended by a simple resolution. for a valid exercise of a delegated police power by LGUs
(1) It should be compliant with the constitution or the law
Office of the Solicitor General v. ____: where the solgen (2) It must not be oppressive
filed a case against the ayalas for asking parking fees (3) It must not be discriminatory
from customers. Solgen argued that in the national
(4) It must not be unreasonable
building code requires mall owners to give a space as a
(5) It must only regulate and not altogether prohibit
parking area. so it was argued by the solgen that as
business
much as that was a requirement under the code, then
the use thereof by the consumers or by the customers of (6) It must be general application
the mall should be provided for free. But the SC (7) Must be consistent with public policy
disagreed, SC said that it would not be allowed because
such would be unjust and confiscatory, because it was
already unfair that the mall owners should allocate a Date: Dec. 9, 2016
space for parking area, so in that context there is already
a restriction for the use of that area, such as it would be EMINENT D OMAIN
if that area would be used for free by others that easily
DEFINITION

City Government of Quezon v. ____: here was an - also known as the POWER OF EXPROPRIATION
ordinance enacted by the city council of quezon to the - inherent power of the State that need not be granted
end that private owners or owners of private cemeteries even by the fundamental law
should allocate a space for ____ . the purpose of the law - The power of the state to take private property for public
was noble, but it was said to be confiscatory, because use upon payment of just compensation. It is a coercive
there is taking of property without payment of just power
compensation
- Before the state can exercise this power, it must first try
to negotiate with the property owner for a voluntary sale
So, the exercise of police power to valid:
of such property. If the owner agrees, there is no need of
Necessitates the existence of a lawful subject to exercise the power of eminent domain.
Pertaining to an activity imbued with public interest
Requires or necessitates the employment of lawful Private property shall not be taken for public use
means or lawful methods without just compensation, merely imposes a limit on
the governments exercise of this power and provides a
measure of protection to the individuals right to property
EXCEPTIONS:
Police power must be compliant with these for equal
Eminent domain should be the last on the priority; the
process and equal protection among others. There has
government should exhaust all means provided by law
to be prior hearing. However, such rule has some
before resorting to expropriation. [Cases: Lagcao v.
exceptions.
Judge Labra, City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar]

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 6
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

Sec 9, Art III, Constitution Can be subject for expropriation:

Real Property (land, Building) or

Private property shall not be taken for public use without
Personal Property (cars, computer, books)
just compensation.
Intangible Property (can be felt by the senses) or
Intangible property (cannot be felt by the senses;
ownership of a company)
SEC 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. Lands for
Properties owned by the church, even though they
socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order:
are exempted from payment of real property tax.
1) government lands;
Services, similar to Republic v. PLDT case.
2) alienable lands of the public domain;
Private property already devoted to public use:
3) unregistered or abandoned or idle lands; - Can be expropriated if directly done by
4) lands within the declared Areas for Priority congress.
Development (APD), Zonal Improvement Program - Cannot be expropriated by a delegate of
(ZIP) sites, Slum Improvement and Resettlement
congress acting under general grant of
(SIR) sites which have not yet been acquired;
authority (e.g. Local Government Code) but,
5) BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired; and can be expropriated if congress passes a
6) privately-owned lands specific law for such specific purpose.
Cannot be subject for expropriation:

Money
Police Power v. Eminent Domain Ones right to collect the debt of his debtor.
Police power is power of the state to promote public
welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty
and property, while If the private property already devoted for public use
Eminent domain is the inherent right of the state to (like private cemetery), it may be expropriated by the
condemn private property to public use upon payment powers congress itself. Private property already
of just compensation. devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a
delegate of legislature acting under a general grant of
authority [City of Manila v. Chinese Community, 40 Phil
Who can exercise Eminent Domain?
349]
1. Congress;
2. President ** Service may be expropriated by the state All private
3. Administrative Bodies** property capable of ownership may be expropriated,
4. Local Government Unites** except money and choses in action. Even services
5. Private enterprises performing public services** may be subject to eminent domain [Republic v. PLDT,
26 SCRA 620]
EXCEPT: Money; Chose in action (Collectibles)
** There must be valid delegation from the Congress
i.e. the right to bring an action to recover debt,
money or thing
Requirements for Eminent Domain

1. Necessity of taking
2. What is taken is a private property 2. Taking in the strict constitutional sense
3. It must be in strict constitutional sense - Taking deprivation of beneficial use and
4. Property taken must be for public use enjoyment of his property.
5. There should be payment of Just Compensation
6. Observance of Due process Requisites for taking: [Republic v. Castellvi]

1. expropriator must enter a private property

1. Necessity of the taking 2. entry must be for more than a momentary period
- Taking must be impelled by necessity 3. entry must be under the warrant of legal authority
- If power of eminent domain is exercised directly by 4. entry is for public use
congress, it cannot be subject to judicial scrutiny or 5. the owner is deprived of enjoying his property
review *If taking is under police power, it is not
EXCEPT: When it is in grave abuse of compensable
discretion amounting to lack or excess,
judiciary may stop the taking through their
Actual physical dispossession is not required, it is
power of Judicial Review
sufficient if the owner is deprived of the beneficial
enjoyment of the property or if he is burdened. (e.g.
When the power is delegated by congress, the transmission lines)
Supreme Court adapted that the courts can review
such necessity of the taking. [City of Manila v. Chinese
Community, 40 Phil 349] Police Power Eminent Domain

the prejudice suffered by the individual the individual suffers more than his
property owner is shared in common aliquot part of the damages, i.e. a
2. Private Property with the rest of the community special injury above that sustained by
- Property - anything that may come in the commerce the rest of the community

of man

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 7
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

EXCEPTION:
Moreover, RA 7279 mandates that the rights of small-
In US v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, the US Supreme property owners must be respected
Court held that there was taking of the property of
Causby, which is near an airport, because he cannot MCIAA vs Lozada: Abandonment by the State of the
construct a high rise building on such property due to public use of the property entitles the property owner to
the danger of flying and landing airplanes. Causby file a case for recovery of the expropriated property but
was allowed to recover just compensation should return the just compensation received with legal
interest from his default. If the State uses such property
In People v. Fajardo, 104 Phil 44, the SC held that for another public purpose, the property owner can file
there was taking of the property of Fajardo, which was an injunction against State and recover such
near the national highway, because the municipality expropriated property. The State may then later institute
p ro h i b i t e d h i m t h ro u g h a n o rd i n a n c e f ro m another expropriation case for such same property for
constructing any building that obstructs the view of the new public use [See MCIAA vs Lozada]
the public plaza from the national highway. Fajardo
was allowed to recover just compensation
Date: Dec. 12, 2016
However, not all taking of private property is
compensable. This is called Damnum Absque 5. Just Compensation
Injuria (loss without injury). This happens when - Is fair and full equivalent payment for the loss
the taking is pursuant to the Police Power or to the
sustained, which is the measure of the indemnity, not
principle of destruction by necessity under Art. 432
whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating
of the Civil Code. In destruction by necessity, the
agency. It is not market value per se
aggrieved property owner can demand payment
- it is a sum of money which a person desirous but not
from those who benefited and not from the State.
compelled to sell and another person willing but not
If the burden is shared equally by the members of
compelled to buy would agree on as price certain for
the community, it is not considered taking under
the property.
Eminent Domain. Thus, there is no payment of just
compensation. It is also Damnum Absque Injuria.
However, if there is one person who suffered more, Sec 9, Art III, Constitution
it is otherwise.
Private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation.
In Richards v. Washington Tunnel, 233 U.S. 546,
the US Supreme Court held the there was taking on - Clearly mandates that there should be payment of just
the house of Richards, which was near a compensation whenever a private property is taken for
government tunnel, because of the smoke from the public use or public purpose.
tunnel that goes into Richards house as a result of
an exhaust fan which was installed in the tunnel.
Although other members of the community are also Art 435, Civil Code
burdened by the smoke, it was Richards who No person shall be deprive of his property except by
suffered the most. Richards was allowed to recover competent authority and for public purpose and always
just compensation upon payment of just compensation

4. Public Use So, the payment of just compensation is not only

- is whatever may be beneficially employed for the mandated under the constitution in like manner is also
general welfare, including both direct or indirect required under Article 435 of the Civil Code
benefit or advantage to the public
- Public use meeting public need or exigency Form of Compensation: To be paid in form of money;
- means that the converted property is directly cash/check
available to the general public as a matter of right or EXCEPT: Agrarian Cases need not in form
redounds to their indirect advantage or benefit. of money; may take in the form of LBP funds
bonds or treasury bonds to be redeemed and
Synonymous with public welfare, public interest, issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines
public health, and public safety. - in the implementation of the Agrarian
Still public use even if it is not for free and even if Reform Law, the payment of just
not everyone can avail or make use of the property. compensation may take in the form of
Res communes subject to direct enjoyment by LBP Funds or funds to be redeem and
any and all members of the public indiscriminately issued by the Land Bank of the
(e.g. roads, bridges) Philippines.
Not necessary everyone will benefit it is enough that
it will trickle down. Who is entitled?
- One thing for sure is, the property owner.
Lagcao v. Labra and City of Mandaluyong v. Francisco:
the SC held that if the public use of the Eminent Domain
is for resettlement or socialized housing, the State must
strictly comply with the provisions of RA 7279 wherein
private property is the last in order in the priority of the
acquisition of lands and that the Power of Eminent
Domain must be resorted to as a last recourse.

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 8
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

AGAIN that is not also accurate. Because what

If the State expropriates a parcel of land but then there is
happened in the case of TIRSO BANAAG was that AMS
an improvement there on like a building, and that building
was also leasing the parcels of land owned by Tirso
is owned by another person because that person happens
Banaag then the lands were expropriated by the
to have a lease involving the land.
government for the implementation of CARP and then
there was a dispute as between Tirso Banaag on one
To whom shall the payment for the building go? Should it go hand and AMS on the other hand, as to who owned
to the land owner or should it go to the lessee? really the crops that were growing in the properties.
Because Tirso Banaag contented that the lease contract
- Well, of course, the land owner would get the
that they entered into with AMS had already expired and
payment for the land but how about the building? under the lease contract according to Tirso Banaag
Should the payment therefore be tendered to the land there was an obligation on the part of AMS to remove
owner? Or to the lessee? any and all improvements that it may have introduce on
- In our jurisdiction the term owner is given a broader the property otherwise such would become the
meaning (it could include also the lessee of a properties of the land owner. That was the argument of
particular property) Tirso Banaag. But AMS countered that there was no
such stipulation towards that end. And the Adjudicator
Land Bank vs AMS: at a glance, the case as quoted for the Agrarian reform program resolve such issue of
therein it would readily appear that a lessee of an ownership. The Adjudicator ruled that AMS remain to be
agricultural land is not entitled to the payment of the the owner of the crops that were planted on the lands
improvements that he may introduce thereon. There was owned by Tirso Banaag and as such AMS should be
this parcel of land situated in Davao it used to be owned paid just compensation for the ?? and bananas that it
by (Lavco)?? And then eventually was owned by Toto. planted on the properties of Tirso Banaag. And Banaag
Then, these parcels of land were lease by AMS and of course filed an appeal before the SC and the SC
when Toto eventually became the owner of the property faulted the Adjudicator of Agrarian Reform for resolving
AMS renewed the lease with Toto and the lease contract such issue of ownership. According to our SC, the
was annotated at the back of the titles or certificates of Agrarian Adjudicator had no authority to resolve any
title covering the property. The respective lease contract such dispute because such issue will call upon the
is filed and it was renewed by Toto and AMS but unlike in application of the Civil Code provisions. Again, the
the past the renewed contract of lease will no longer Adjudicator had no competence and authority to rule
annotated at the back of the certificates of title and fast upon. In other words, the SC ruled there the adjudicator
forward the parcels of land that were lease by AMS were had no jurisdiction to resolve any such issue as regards
eventually taken in the concept of Agrarian reform and in ownership of the crops that were growing in the
the Land Bank of the Philippines paid for the value not properties of Banaag. The SC did not say that AMS is not
just of the land but also of the value of the crops or entitled to be paid of just compensation what it said was
growing crops thereon but the problem was the payment that the claim of AMS should be resolve by the regular
not only for the land but also for the crops were given to courts by applying the provisions on lease or provisions
the land owner or the registered owner which was Toto. under the Civil Code. Then, again the SC also ruled that
So, the owner of the crops AMS demanded for the if at all AMS is entitled to the payment of just
payment saying that it was the owner of the crops which compensation then it is a matter between the landowner
was actually expropriated by the government and in that and AMS itself to the exclusion of Land Bank. After all,
case our SC said that LBP could not be faulted for Land Bank had already paid the just compensation not
paying the just compensation including that of the only for the land but also for the crops introduce thereon.
growing crops on the lands to TOTO because in the first Summing it all up. The SC actually said that the lessee
place the contracts of lease were not annotated at the of an agricultural land may still be entitled to the
back of the title. So, LBP therefore had no knowledge payment of just compensation but any such action must
about the contracts entered into by Toto and AMS on the be directed against the landowner to whom the payment
other hand more than that according to the SC there is for the land and for the growing crops on the arbitral
nothing in the comprehensive Agrarian reform law which land should be paid pursuant to the CARP. So, Justice
provides that the States should pay also to the Cruz quotation in the book is not really accurate.
agricultural lessee what the CARP provides is that the
payment of the land and for the growing crops should be
given to the land owner but in that case our SC If the government would take away your property without
emphasizes that if at all AMS is entitled to the payment however filing the necessary condemnation or
for the crops growing on the lands that were expropriation case. Can you file a case against the
expropriated by the State then the right of action of AMS government?
should not be against LBP but as against Toto because it
was to whom the payment is made. Our SC, did not - Remember the principle that The State cannot be sued
actually say that AMS the agricultural lessee is not without its consent Because the rule is we cannot
entitled payment for the crops that it introduces on the have a right against the authority which makes the laws
properties owned by Toto. What the SC said was that the on which our rights depends.
claim for just compensation should be file by AMS not
against LBP but against Toto the land owner of the Delos Santos v. IAC: which ruled where the State its
property and any such claim should be decided on the consent because State immunity from suit according to
basis of the civil code provision on lessee and not on the our SC cannot be invoke to defeat or to trample upon
provisions of the comprehensive agrarian reform the rights of private citizens
program.
Where will you file a case?
Bana-ag vs AMS Farming Corp: it would appear that a - Direct recourse is allowed before the courts of law.
portion of the decision that was quoted therein lessee You file a case directly in the regular courts
is not entitled to be paid just compensation for the demanding payment of just compensation, you
crops that it introduces on the agricultural lands but need not present your claim first before the COA.

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 9
! o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

Notwithstanding the provision under the PD 327 as amount of the advantage is greater than the
amended by PD 1445 amount of the damage then disregards all together
this variables pertaining to the damage and the
Spouses Campos v. MPC: where SC ruled that the benefits.
claim for the payment of just compensation will not
prescribe. Spouses filed the case after 26 long years Eminent Domain may be exercise by the congress
then SC said it was perfectly alright. Notwithstanding the and by proper delegation of authority it can only be
provision under Section 3(i) of RA 6395 (the charter of exercise by the office of the President, LGUs, public
the MPC) providing that the money claims against MPC corporations, quasi-public corporations.
should be filed within the period of 5 years from the time
of the making. Because such provision of the charter of
MPC would only govern actions for damages.
Who should determine just compensation?
Ipsa v. Dulay: SC said that the just compensation
Hon. Vicente v. Luis: what happened here was that the should be determined by the courts of law. It should
City of Pasig entered into a portion of property owned by not be fixed by the President. It should not be fixed
Luis and then the property owner did not object to the by the congress. So the rule now is: It is the court of
taking because there was an agreement that the law which should determine the just compensation
property owner would paying just compensation but after for the property to be expropriated.
a period of 8 years no payment of just compensation
was given because the government of Pasig, the
- We do have a law RA 6971, which expanded the
jurisdiction of the MTC. Such that if the action
appraisal committee of the City of Pasig and the
involves title 2 or possession of real property like
landowners could not agree on the price for the property
lands then title thereon would be vested on the MTC
that was taken. So, what the property owner did was to
if the assess value of the property does not exceed
file a case not for just compensation but for recovery of
Php. 20, 000. Conversely if the property exceeds
their parcel of land. They said Well, our property was not
Php 20, 000 then any question or any case involving
paid for. So it is only proper that it should be return to us.
title 2 or possession thereof should be vested with
That was of course the claim of the property owner. In
the higher court and that is the RTC.
that case our SC DENIED the relief prayed for by the
property owners saying that the property owners were
already in estoppel because they already agreed to the Example: If the property to be expropriated by
taking of the property. So, in that case our SC said that the State has an assessed value of 18,000.
the remedy of the owners would only be for the payment Where the case should be filed? Amount is less
of just compensation but what was applied in that case than 20,000. The case should be filed with the
was the principle on estoppel. Property owner is not RTC, Notwithstanding the assessed value of the
permitted to change his mind by asking for the recovery property. Because it not acquiring title 2 or title
of his property. over the property but taking the property for a
public purpose. So as such the expropriation
case is regarded to be an action in capable of
Cour t not bound to follow RAR (repor t and
pecuniary destination. So jurisdiction over the
recommendation) commissions
same is vested with the RTC and not with MTC.
1. Illegal principle
2. Disregard rule of preponderance of evidence
To simplify the rule: An expropriation case should be
3. Exclusively high or exclusively low filed always with the RTC regardless of the assessed
value of the property affected thereby.
How to compute if the taken is not exactly the entire Brgy. San Roque, Talisay v. Heirs of Francisco
property but only a portion thereof? Pastor: SC ruled, that jurisdiction over expropriation
- The amount corresponding to the damages should cases is vested with the RTC regardless of the value
be added to the amount corresponding to the FMV of the property affected thereby.
of the portion that was actually utilize for road
purposes. (The amount of damages + The Under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court, if the
corresponding amount to the Fair Market Value of expropriator deposits to the court an amount
the property) corresponding to the assessed value of the property as
indicated in the tax declaration then the court may
What if the owner did not just suffer damages but also already issue a writ of possession allowing the
benefits? expropriator to utilize the property or to use the property
- Deduct the amount of benefit from the amount of even if the case is yet to be decided by a trial court but
damages. Then, the difference will be added up to that could only happened to be if the expropriator can
the Fair Market Value of the property affected by deposit to the court an amount corresponding to the
the expropriation. assessed value of the property.

What would happen if the amount of the benefit If the expropriator is an LGU, the amount to be
exceeds the amount of damages? deposited in the court is only 15% of the assessed value
- Just disregard all together all these variables. thereof. Because this is the provision under Section 19
Meaning just disregard the amounts under RA 7160 or the LGC.
corresponding to the damages and benefits. - New law, RA 8974, which provides that if the
Because the property owner should not be made purpose of the expropriation is to implement a
to suffer more than what he already suffered. TN. National government infrastructure project like
In expropriation is enforceable taking of ones electrification done by MPC what is required before
property in the first place the property owner does the court could issue a writ of possession is
not want to part with his property. So, where the payment not just deposit but PAYMENT of the

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 1
! 0 o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

amount corresponding to the BIR Zonal evaluation 1. There is no question with regards to the valuation
of the property. of the property. The property owner agreed with
the valuation of the property as only there was a
MPC v.CO: SC upheld the validity of RA 8974. dispute regarding the necessity of taking.
Provisions of RA 8974 will only apply if the purpose 2. In Agrarian Cases because the constitution of the
of expropriation is for the implementation of the Board is left to the sound discretion of the parties.
national government infrastructure project. Under So when the parties decided not to constitute a
the Rules of Court, the Court of Law may already Board then the Special Agrarian Court RTC acting
issue a writ of possession once the required deposit as such or Special Agrarian Court may not or
of payment is done by the expropriator. cannot constitute a Board

NPC v. Pobre: Supreme Court ruled that an If the Board has already come up with the valuation of
expropriator in eminent domain case or cases is not the property, they should submit it to the trial court. Is
allowed to unilaterally withdraw the expropriation the court duty bound to accept such report and
complaint. It is because the expropriator may recommendation?
already be allowed to enter in the property even - NO! As what was ruled in the Case of NPC v.
before the case can be decided by the trial court. DELA CRUZ, there are instances in which the
That is the reason in the ruling of NPC v Pobre that Court may disregard the reports and the
the court ruled that the eminent domain cases, the recommendation of the Board.
expropriator has no right to withdraw or just move
the expropriation complaint because after all 1. When the Board applies illegal principles in the
damage may have been already caused to the appreciation of evidence, inadmissible evidence,
property. or when the Board has clearly disregarded the
rule of preponderance of evidence even if the
Stages in Expropriation Cases
evidences submitted by the parties would prove
1. The necessity or propriety of taking that the value is really high but the Board would
insist that it should be given a lower valuation, then
- If the expropriator has already made the required
that should not be allowed.
deposit of payment and the Court determined that
the taking of property is for public purpose or
necessity then the court will issue the order of 2. When the amount of valuation fixed by the Board is
expropriation. But that is not already the end of the either excessively high or excessively low. When
case. That only completes the first stage on which that happens the Court may recommend back the
the court determines that there is a need on the same matter to the Board or on its discretion may
part of the expropriator to take away a private constitute another Board consist of different
property members.

2. The payment of just compensation Assume that the Board has submitted a valuation report
- After the Court will issue an order of expropriation, to the Court and the Court already would want to fix the
the Court will now determine the value of the just amount of just compensation. What would be the
compensation to be adjudged to the private reckoning point in computing the just
property owner. For that purpose, the Court would compensation?
normally constitute a Board of Commissioners. - In the case of REPUBLIC v. CASTELLVI, the
- *The Board of Commissioners - composed of a Republic would have wanted that the valuation
representative of the Court normally the Vice Clerk should be had as of 1947 and the Court said that it
of the Court, person to be designated by the should start at the date of the filing of the
expropriator and the person designated by the complaint in the 1959. But in the case of
property owner. ESLABAN v. DE ONORIO of just compensation
should start at the date of taking. This obviously
preceded the date at the time of the filing of the
NPC vs. Dela Cruz: the primary purpose of the complaint.
Board of Commissioners is to aid the Court in fixing
the amount of just compensation.
How? Under the Rules of Court, there should Reckoning Point of Market Value of Property

be a hearing to be conducted by the Board Whichever comes first. Just compensation should
and the parties should be allowed to present be computed as of the date of the taking of the
evidences regarding the valuation of the property or the date of the filing of the complaint
property. Failing of that as in the case of NPC whichever comes first.
vs. Dela Cruz, would be a denial of
p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s . M o re t h a n Heirs of Sangkay vs NPC: The NPC entered into the
conducting ocular inspections to the property,
property of Sangkay or Heirs of Sangkay without
the Board should conduct hearings and
their consent and knowledge because what NPC
allowing the parties to present evidence to
did was to construct a tunnel without the knowledge
prove their contentions regarding the valuation
of the Heirs of Sangkay and when the latter
of the property. Otherwise, there would be a
discovered, they filed a complaint for the payment of
denial of due process.
just compensation, it was termed as reversed
condemnation proceedings. It is because normally
Is there any instances wherein the Court may not it should be the State first that would file an
constitute a Board?
expropriation complaint but in that case it was the
Sec. 5 of 1997 Rules of Court Procedure property owner who files a case for the payment of
EXCEPTIONS: just compensation. In that case, NPC argued that

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 1
! 1 o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

the payment of just compensation should be 6%. It is because Court may award payment of
computed at the date they entered into the property interest that the property owner cannot demand for
surreptitiously and the property owner wanted that it the payment of back rentals. The payment for
should be computed at the date of the filing of the interest would take the place for the payment of
complaint because the value would be much higher. back rentals because the property owner cannot
After all, Rule 7 is very clear that at the time of the demand for the payment of back rentals the moment
taking or at the time of the filing whichever comes the expropriator entered into the property.
first. In here according to NPC, taking preceded the
filing of the complaint. The SC ruled that the Court may award actual damages as in the case of
contention of the Heirs of Sangkay will be taken. Eusebio v. Luis and attorneys fees.
Because taking refers to under Rules 67 for the
purpose of determining the amount for the just
compensation is the taking which comprise the Title to the property.

requirements set forth in the case of Republic v. Title does not pass until after payment
Castellvi. One of the requirements is that such entry
must be a warrant or color of title but in the Case of
the Heirs of Sangkay, the entry was done Let us assume that there is an expropriation case and the
surreptitiously without the knowledge and case was decided by the Court and the Court directed the
acquiescence of the property owner. So the rule that payment of just compensation to the property owner. When
the valuation of the property should be at the date of should be the title of the property be passed on or
taking or filing of the complaint presupposes that when will it be transferred to the expropriator? Is it upon
such taking complies with the requirements set forth the payment of the zonal value of the property as
in the case of Republic v. Castellvi. mandated by RA 8974 or is it at the deposit of the required
amount under Sec. 2 Rule 67 corresponding to the
assessed value of the property or should it happen once
EXCEPTION of the Reckoning Point of Market Value
the decision of the Court attains finality?
EXCEPTION: Local Government Unit. Valuation
should be computed at the time of the taking of the Salem Investment: SC ruled that ownership of the
property property would only be transferred from the property
owner to the expropriator as long as there was already a
City of Cebu v. Dedamo: The filing of the complaint full payment for the just compensation as adjudged
preceded the actual possession of the property by the Court. Such that without the full payment of just
because the City of Cebu entered into the property compensation the registration of the property would
pursuant to the writ of possession but the SC ruled remain in the name of the property owner.
that the valuation of the just compensation should
be at the date as of the actual taking. It is because Minueza: SC ruled that the property owner can still
there is a provision under Sec. 19 of RA 7160 of the mortgage the property or even dispose his property
Local Government Code which provides that the by sale because it is only upon the payment of the full
valuation of the property taken or expropriated by amount of just compensation that the title will be passed
the LGU should be reckoned as of the date of actual to the expropriator.
possession. In this case also, our SC ruled that it is
a substantive provision and it should prevail over the - Thus, the owner of land subject to expropriation may
rules of Court. still dispose of the same before payment of just
compensation [Republic v. Salem Investment
Entitlement of owner to interest.
Corporation, G.R. No. 137569, June 23, 2000].
As per BSP Circular No. 799, interest for forbearance of
money shall be reduced to 6%. EXCEPTION:

EXCEPT: in Agrarian Reform Cases.

- ONLY, because in CARP, even if the farmer
Should the Court awards interest? And if so, how much
should be awarded as interest? Should it be 6% as ruled in beneficiary has not yet fully paid the just
the case of Castellvi and Eusebio v. Luis? Or should be compensation for the property then he is
12% in NHA v. Reyes? already issued with the Certificate of Land
Award.
- Article 2209 of the Civil Code provides that the
payment of interest should be 6% per annum. If the loan
is in forbearance of money then the interest should be There is an expropriation case, the case was decided by
12% per annum. the Court and the Court ordered the expropriator to pay a
- In the case of NHA v. REYES, the court imposed 12% as certain amount of money for and as just compensation but
interest because it is by way of penalty. SC said that notwithstanding the finality of the decision of the trial court,
normally what is awarded is 6% because it is not a loan the expropriator has failed to pay the amount of just
or a forbearance of money. compensation. Can the property owner recover his
property?
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Apo Fruits && LBP v. Eusebio v. Luis: There was no actual expropriation
Ester Rivera: SC declared that the payment of proceeding and here the situation is that the decision
interest to be paid on top of the just compensation was already rendered by the Court, the Court directed
should be computed at 12% per annum. In those already the payment of just compensation and the
recent cases SC ordained that in any payment of decision of the trial Court had already attained finality.
just compensation is a key to in forbearance of Yet notwithstanding the finality of the decision the
money. However, our Central Bank issued Circular expropriator has eagerly paid the just compensation
No. 799 series of 2013 which provided that interest as adjudged by the Court.
for forbearance of money is reduced from 12% to

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 1
! 2 o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

Can the property owner demand or claim for the recovery November 20, 2016. Again, within 5 years from finality
of his property? Why qualified yes?
of the decision your recourse if you are the aggrieved
- Right of landowner in case of non-payment of just property owner is to demand payment for just
compensation. As a rule, non-payment of just compensation as adjudged by the Court by filing a
compensation in an expropriation proceeding does motion for the issuance of writ of execution pursuant to
not entitle the private landowners to recover Sec. 6 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. You do that within 5
possession of the expropriated lots, but only to years and if there was no payment that has been
demand payment of the fair market value of the made after the lapse of 5 years then you may now
property within 5 years. [Reyes v. National Housing want to recover your property pursuant to the ruling in
Authority] the case of REPUBLIC v. VICENTE LIM. TAKE NOTE
that the case of REPUBLIC v. VICENTE LIM allows the
recovery of the property by the property owner on the
Reyes v. NHA: SC cited the case of Baldebiza(?) v. ground of non-payment of just compensation.
Republic, SC ruled that when there is no payment for just
compensation notwithstanding the rendition of
judgement by the Court, the only remedy of the unpaid
property owner is to demand the payment for the
unpaid balance of the just compensation. Recovery was
not allowed in the case of Baldebiza and Reyes v. NHA. Non-utilization thereof for the public purpose for which it
was expropriated

Republic v. Vicente Lim: SC allowed recovery. It was then

held that where the government fails to pav iust Expropriator paid the property in full within 5 years. Here,
compensation within five years from the finality of the after the decision attains finality on November 21, 2016 the
judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners expropriator paid the just compensation as adjudged by
concerned shall have the right to recover possession of the Court. So in this situation, the property owner cannot
their property. recover his property on the ground of non-payment of
just compensation because payment was made on
How can we reconcile the case of Reyes vis--vis the case November 22, 2016. Can he recover his property if years
of Lim?
after 2016, say 10 years thereafter 2026 the property was
- The case of Lim suggests that when there is no no longer utilize for the purpose for which it was
payment of just compensation within 5 years expropriated? Assume that the property was expropriated
reckoned from the finality of the decision, then the for the construction of a road. The road was constructed in
property owner may demand for the recovery of his 2017 but in 2026 the government decided to just
property. abandoned the road that it found another road for the
- But WITHIN that 5-year period, the only remedy of purpose. The property was no longer utilize for the purpose
the unpaid property owner is to demand payment for it was expropriated. Can the property owner recover his
just compensation. Within the 5-year period, apply property on the ground of non-utilization thereof for the
the ruling in the case of Reyes but after the lapse of purpose which it was expropriated?
the 5-year period, you then apply the ruling in the
case of Lim. MCIA vs CA: Involving the property of Chongbian which
the SC ruled and cited the case of Ferry v. Municipality
of Cabanatuan said that where the acquisition of the
What should be the reckoning point in computing this 5- property is done in fee simple then recovery is not
year period?
allowed.
The 5-year period should be reckoned instead from the
decision attained finality. In cases like this, the Ferry v. Municipality of Cabantuan: If the property is
decision of Court would attain finality after the period acquired with no conditions attached then the property
of 15 days from the receipt of the parties of copies of owner cannot recover his property. It is only when such
such decision. And if no appeal is found by any of the taking has a condition that if the property would not be
parties within 15 days from such receipt then the utilized for the public purpose then the property owner
decision would be final and executory after the lapse would be allowed to recover. Absent of such condition,
of 15 days. as a rule, recovery is not allowed. This ruling was
reiterated in the case of MCIA v. CA involving the case of
Chongbian.
Expropriation complaint is filed in Feb. 14, Decision was
rendered on November 1, Copies of the November 1
decision was furnished to the expropriator and it was MCIA v. Lozada: SC came up with another ruling wherein
received by the lawyer of the expropriator on November 5 it allowed the recovery of expropriated property on the
and the copy was furnished to and received by the ground of non-utilization thereof for the public purpose
property owner or the lawyer of the property owner on for which it was expropriated. But TAKE NOTE, that the
November 5. case of Chongbian and the case of Lozada ousted
from the same decision but the SC came up with
- Should the 5-year period reckon on the filling of the different rulings. In the case of Chongbian, the SC
complaint on Feb. 14, 2016? NO. reviewing the decision in expropriation case found no
- Should it reckon on November 1, 2016 the date of the condition attendant to the taking of the property. SC said
rendition or decision judgment? NO. that there is nothing in the decision which indicate that
- Should it be on November 5 the date that the copy of the there was a reservation with respect to the right of
decision were furnished to and received by the lawyers recovery of property in case of non-utilization for the
of the parties? NO. public purpose in which it was expropriated. But reading
the same decision in the case of Lozada, the SC have a
change of heart. That it would appear that in the body of
In this situation, the decision attains its finality on the decision, the trial court granted or allowed the
November 20, 2016. So the 5-year period enunciated in expropriation on the supposition that Lahug airport
the case of Vicente Lim should be reckoned on

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 1
! 3 o f !1 4
Constitutional Law II At t y. G a l e o n
!

would continue to be in operation. SC said that if Lahug 6. Observance of Due Process

airport would not be in operation then it would be proper - The defendant must be given an opportunity to be
for the property owner to recover its properties. But even heard. In Belenv. Court of Appeals, supra., the
without such pronouncements our SC in the case of Supreme Court declared PDs 1670 and 1669
Lozada revisited its ruling in the case of Ferry. In doing unconstitutional for violating the due process clause
such, SC in the case of Lozada agree that every because the decrees do not provide for any form of
expropriation case has this built-in condition that the hearing or procedure by which the petitioners can
property expropriated thereby should be utilize for the question the propriety of the expropriation or the
very purpose for it was expropriated as stated in the reasonableness of the compensation to be paid for
complaint. Such that if the property is no longer utilize for the property. [See also Filstream International, Inc. v.
the very purpose for which it was expropriated as stated Court of Appeals]
in the complaint then in that situation, recovery by the
property by the property owner should be allowed. To
simplify, the ruling in the case of Lozada, the rule as it is
now is every expropriation case has this built-in
condition that the property should be devoted for the
very same purpose for which it was expropriated as
stated clearly or expressly in the complaint. Such that if
the property is no longer devoted for the same purpose
then recovery may be allowed with or absent of any
express condition granting such right to the property
owner.

Example: If your property is expropriated by the state for

the purposes of constructing a road thereon if then
subsequently the state abandon such road you may now
recover your property even without the decision stating
that you have such right because that condition is
already built-in that it should be devoted for road
purposes. Such that even if the state would want to
utilize your property no longer as a road but for a public
plaza according to the SC in the case of Lozada
recovery is still allowed and if the State really wants to
utilize the property for another public purpose then it has
to constitute another expropriation proceedings.
Because the property should be devoted for the very
purpose it was expropriated as stated in the complaint. If
it will be used for another purpose, then there is need to
expropriate the property but this time around for the
other purpose.

Let us assume from the previous example that the property

was expropriated for road expansion but the decision was
granted on November 1, 2016, it became final and
executory on November 20,2016 and on November 22,
2016 the expropriator paid in full the just compensation as
adjudicated by the Court but even before the lapse of 5
years reckoned upon the period of November 20 or even
after 2 years the government decided not to make use of
the property as what was the purpose for which it was
expropriated. Can the property owner recover his property?
Must the property owner still wait for the lapse of 5 years
reckoned from the finality of decision as enunciated in the
case of Lim before he can file a case for recovery?

- NO. It is because the 5-year period enunciated in the

case of Republic v. Vicente Lim would only govern if the
ground of recovery is non-payment of just compensation
but if your ground for the recovery is non-utilization of the
property for the public purpose of which it was
expropriated then you dont have to wait for 5 years to
file the said action. It is enough that there was a showing
or you can establish that your property was no longer
utilize for the very purpose for which it was expropriated.
So again, the 5-year period enunciated in the case of
Vicente Lim would only govern in a situation where the
ground of recovery is non-payment or non-full payment
of just compensation. Such would be wanting in
application if your ground for the recovery is non
utilization of the property for the purpose it was
expropriated in the first place.

SUAN St ay pos iti ve, Work Hard, and Make it Happen. Page 1
! 4 o f !1 4