expropriation suit [Barangay San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor, G.R. No. 138869, June 20, 2000; Bardillion v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, April 30, 2003] The issuance of a writ of possession becomes ministerial upon the (1) filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance, and (2) upon deposit made by the government of the amount equivalent to 15% of the fair market value of the property sought to be expropriated per current tax declaration. [Biglang-Awa v. Judge Bacalla, G.R. Nos. 139927-139936, November 22, 2000; Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, April 30, 2003]
Scope and Limitations
All Private Property capable of ownership may be expropriated, except money and choses in action. Even services may be subject to eminent domain. [Republic v. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620]
The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State or by its authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights. Hence, strict construction will be made against the agency exercising the power. [Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation v. Municipality of Pasig, G.R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005]
Necessity
The foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public character. Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose which private property should be expropriated. [Lagcao v. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004]
When the power is exercised by the legislature, the question of necessity is generally a political question. [Municipality of Meycauyan, Bulacan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 640] The RTC has the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for it. [Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, April 30, 2003]
Private Property
Private property already 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 349]
Taking
The exercise of the power of eminent does not always result in the taking or appropriation of title to the expropriated property; it may only result in the imposition of a burden upon the owner of the condemned property, without loss of title or possession. [National Power Corporation v. Gutierrez, 193 SCRA 1]
Requisites for a valid taking:
(1) The expropriator must enter a private property
(2) Entry must be for more than a momentary period
(3) Entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
(4) Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected
Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property. [Republic v. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336]
Due Process
The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard. In the case of Belen v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court declared two Presidential Decrees unconstitutional for violating due process because they did not provide for any form of hearing or procedure by which the propriety of the expropriation or the reasonableness of the compensation.
―Taking‖ via eminent domain vs. ―taking‖ under social justice clause
Agrarian Reform (Art. XIII, Sec. 4): This provision is an exercise of the police power of the State through eminent domain (Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform) as it is a means to regulate private property.
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the constitution. But in carrying out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation on the use of the land, but the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the beneficiary. [Sta. Rosa Realty & Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112526, October 12, 2001]
2. Expansive Concept of ―Public Use‖
DefinitionThe idea that "public use" means "use by the public" has been discarded. At present, whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. [Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs. Reyes, 123 SCRA 220]
That only a few benefit from the expropriation does not diminish its public-use character, inasmuch as pubic use now includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage [Filstream International vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716]
―Public use‖ is the general concept of meeting public need or public exigency. It is not confined to actual use by the public in its traditional sense. The
10
0
idea that ―public use‖ is strictly limited to clearcases of ―use by the public‖ has been abandoned. The term ―public use‖ has now been held to be synonymous with ―public interest‖, ―public benefit‘, ―public welfare‖ and ―public convenience‘. [Reyes v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 147511, January 20, 2003]
The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by Iglesia ni Cristo members than most others could well be true, but such peculiar advantage still remains merely incidental and secondary in nature. That only few would benefit from the expropriation of the property does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of public use [Manosca v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412]
3. Just Compensation
DefinitionIt is the just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation.
Full and fair equivalent of the property taken; it is the fair market value of the property. It is settled that the market value of the property is ―that the sum of money which a person, desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner, willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor‖ [Province of Tayabas vs. Perez (1938)]
Determination
BASIS: Fair Market Value
Price fixed by a buyer desirous but not compelled to buy and a seller willing but not compelled to sell. Must include consequential damages (damages to other interest of the owner attributable to the expropriation) and deduct consequential benefits (increase of value of other interests attributable to new use of the former property).
CHOICE OF PROPERTY TO BE EXPROPRIATED IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW AS TO REASONABLENESS: Under Section 2, Article IV of the Philippine Constitution, the Republic of the Philippines can take private property upon payment of just compensation. However, private property to be taken cannot be chosen arbitrarily and capriciously, as the landowner is entitled to due process. The Department of Public Highways originally established the extension in Cuneta Avenue, and it is assumed that they made extensive studies regarding it. The change from Cuneta Avenue to Fernando Rein-Del Pan Streets cannot be justified on the ground of social impact, as the properties to be affected along Cuneta Avenue are mostly motels. [De Knecht vs. Bautista (1980)]
The Presidential Decrees merely serve as a guide or a factor for the courts in determining amount of just compensation (which should be the fair and full
value of the property at time of taking). The courts have the power and authority to determine just compensation, independent of what the decrees state, and thus may appoint commissioners to help in determining just compensation. [EPZA vs. Dulay, 148 SCRA 305]
While commissioners are to be appointed by the court for the determination of just compensation, the latter is not bound by the commissioners‘ findings. [Republic v. Santos, 141 SCRA 30; Republic (MECS) v. IAC, 185 SCRA 572]
The court may substitute its own estimate of the value of the property only for valid reasons: (a) the commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them; (b) they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence; or (c) where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive. [National Power Corporation v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 156093, February 2, 2007]
Non-payment of just compensation in an expropriation proceeding does not entitle the private landowners to recover possession of the expropriated lots, but only to demand payment of the fair market value of the property. [Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002; Reyes v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 147511, Janaury 29, 2003] The Republic was ordered to pay just compensation twice: first, in the expropriation and then, in the action for recovery of possession but it never did. 57 years have lapsed since the expropriation case was terminated but the Republic never paid the owners. The court construed the failure to pay as a deliberate refusal on the part of the Republic. When the government fails to pay just compensation within five years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property. [Republic of the Philippines v. Vicente Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005]
Effect of Delay
Just compensation means not only the correct amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also payment within a reasonable time from its taking [Eslaban v. De Onorio, G.R. No. 146062, June 28, 2001]
The filing of the case generally coincides with the taking. When the filing of the case coincides with the taking, and the value of the property has increased because of the use to which the expropriator has put it, the value is that of the time of the earlier taking. Otherwise the owner would gain undeserved profit. But if the value increased independently of what the expropriator did, then the value is that of the later filing of the case. Also, between the time payment is due and the actual payment, legal interest (6%) accrues. [NAPOCOR v. CA (1996)]