Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. La Orden de Benedic

    Uploaded by

    Alfel Adrias
    The government filed an expropriation case against La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas to acquire a portion of their land to extend Azcarraga Street and ease traffic congestion. La Orden filed a motion to dismiss arguing the land was already dedicated to public use as a school and the expropriation was not necessary. The trial court dismissed the case without hearing evidence, finding no extreme necessity. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal, finding the necessity of the expropriation was a question of fact that required presenting evidence. It remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. La Orden de Benedic

    Uploaded by

    Alfel Adrias
    58 views1 page
    The government filed an expropriation case against La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas to acquire a portion of their land to extend Azcarraga Street and ease traffic congestion. La Orden filed a motion to dismiss arguing the land was already dedicated to public use as a school and the expropriation was not necessary. The trial court dismissed the case without hearing evidence, finding no extreme necessity. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal, finding the necessity of the expropriation was a question of fact that required presenting evidence. It remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Original Title

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. La Orden de Benedic

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The government filed an expropriation case against La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas to acquire a portion of their land to extend Azcarraga Street and ease traffic congestion. La Orden filed a motion to dismiss arguing the land was already dedicated to public use as a school and the expropriation was not necessary. The trial court dismissed the case without hearing evidence, finding no extreme necessity. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal, finding the necessity of the expropriation was a question of fact that required presenting evidence. It remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    58 views1 page

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. La Orden de Benedic

    Uploaded by

    Alfel Adrias
    The government filed an expropriation case against La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas to acquire a portion of their land to extend Azcarraga Street and ease traffic congestion. La Orden filed a motion to dismiss arguing the land was already dedicated to public use as a school and the expropriation was not necessary. The trial court dismissed the case without hearing evidence, finding no extreme necessity. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal, finding the necessity of the expropriation was a question of fact that required presenting evidence. It remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LA ORDEN DE PP.

    BENEDICTINOS DE FILIPINAS
    To ease and solve the daily traffic congestion on Legarda Street, the Government drew plans to extend Azcarraga street from its
    junction with Mendiola street, up to the Sta. Mesa Rotonda, Sampaloc, Manila. To carry out this plan it offered to buy a portion of
    approximately 6,000 square meters of a bigger parcel belonging to La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, a domestic religious
    corporation that owns the San Beda College, a private educational institution situated on Mendiola street. Not having been able to
    reach an agreement on the matter with the owner, the Government instituted the present expropriation proceedings.
    On May 27, 1957 the trial court, upon application of the Government — hereinafter referred to as appellant — issued an order fixing the
    provisional value of the property in question at P270,000.00 and authorizing appellant to take immediate possession thereof upon
    depositing said amount. The deposit having been made with the City Treasurer of Manila, the trial court issued the corresponding order
    directing the Sheriff of Manila to place appellant in possession of the property aforesaid.
    On June 8, 1957, as directed by the Rules of Court, the herein appellee, in lieu of an answer, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
    based on the following grounds:
    I. That the property sought to be expropriated is already dedicated to public use and therefore is not subject to expropriation.
    II. That there is no necessity for the proposed expropriation.
    III. That the proposed Azcarraga Extension could pass through a different site which would entail less expense to the
    Government and which would not necessitate the expropriation of a property dedicated to education.
    IV. That the present action filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is discriminatory.
    V. That the herein plaintiff does not count with sufficient funds to push through its project of constructing the proposed
    Azcarraga Extension and to allow the plaintiff to expropriate defendant's property at this time would be only to needlessly
    deprive the latter of the use of its property.".
    The government filed a written opposition to the motion to dismiss (Record on Appeal, pp. 30-37) while appellee filed a reply thereto
    (Id., pp. 38-48). On July 29, 1957, without receiving evidence upon the questions of fact arising from the complaint, the motion to
    dismiss and the opposition thereto filed, the trial court issued the appealed order dismissing the case.
    The appealed order shows that the trial court limited itself to deciding the point of whether or not the expropriation of the property in
    question is necessary (Rec. on Ap., p. 50) and, having arrived at the conclusion that such expropriation was not of extreme necessity,
    dismissed the proceedings.
    It is to be observed that paragraph IV of the complaint expressly alleges that appellant needs, among other properties, the portion of
    appellee's property in question for the purpose of constructing the Azcarraga street extension, and that paragraph VII of the same
    complaint expressly alleges that, in accordance with Section 64(b) of the Revised Administrative Code, the President of the Philippines
    had authorized the acquisition, thru condemnation proceedings, of the aforesaid parcel of land belonging to appellee, as evidenced by
    the third indorsement dated May 15, 1957 of the Executive Secretary, Office of the President of the Philippines, a copy of which was
    attached to the complaint as Annex "C" and made an integral part thereof. In denial of these allegations appellee's motion to dismiss
    alleged that "there is no necessity for the proposed expropriation". Thus, the question of fact decisive of the whole case arose.
    It is the rule in this jurisdiction that private property may be expropriated for public use and upon payment of just compensation; that
    condemnation of private property is justified only if it is for the public good and there is a genuine necessity therefor of a public
    character. Consequently, the courts have the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to
    determine whether or not there is a genuine necessity therefor (City of Manila vs. Chinese Community, 40 Phil. 349; Manila Railroad
    Company vs. Hacienda Benito, Inc., 37 O.G. 1957).
    Upon the other hand, it does not need extended argument to show that whether or not the proposed opening of the Azcarraga
    extension is a necessity in order to relieve the daily congestion of traffic on Legarda St., is a question of fact dependent not only upon
    the facts of which the trial court very liberally took judicial notice but also up on other factors that do not appear of record and must,
    therefore, be established by means of evidence. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the parties should have been given an
    opportunity to present their respective evidence upon these factors and others that might be of direct or indirect help in determining
    the vital question of fact involved, namely, the need to open the extension of Azcarraga street to ease and solve the traffic congestion
    on Legarda street.
    WHEREFORE, the appealed order of dismissal is set aside and the present case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in
    accordance with this decision. Without costs.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy