A. Police Power Until Non Impairment Clause

8/9/2019 A. Police Power Until Non Impairment Clause

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-police-power-until-non-impairment-clause 1/84

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IIRM 410 - CONSOLIDATED DIGESTS

\

- POLICE POWER -

WHO EXERCISES POLICE POWER?

GR No. 130239, April 15, 2005MMDA !. GARIN

"ACTS# Respondent Garin was issued a traffic violation receipt (TVR) and

his driver’s license was confiscated for parking illegally. Garinwrote to then MMD !hair"an #rospero $reta re%uesting thereturn of his license and e&pressed his preference for his case to'e filed in !ourt. ithout an i""ediate reply fro" the chair"anGarin filed for a preli"inary in*unction assailing a"ong others that+ec , (f) of R -/0 violates the constitutional prohi'ition againstundue delegation of legislative authority allowing MMD to fi&and i"pose unspecified and unli"ited fines and penalties. RT!rule in his favor directing MMD to return his license and for theauthority to desist fro" confiscating driver’s license without firstgiving the driver the opportunity to 'e heard in an appropriateproceeding. Thus this petition.

ISSUE# $1 +ec ,(f) of R -/0 which authori2es MMD toconfiscate and suspend or revoke driver’s license in the enforce"entof traffic rules and regulations constitutional3

$ELD# The MMD is not vested with police power. 4t was concluded that

MMD is not a local govern"ent unit of a pu'lic corporationendowed with legislative power and it has no power to enactordinances for the welfare of the co""unity.

#olice power as an inherent attri'ute of sovereignty is the power vested in the legislature to "ake ordain esta'lish all "anner of wholeso"e and reasona'le laws statutes and ordinances either with penalties of without not repugnant to the constitution as theyshall *udge to 'e for good and welfare of the co""onwealth andfor su'*ects of the sa"e.

There is no provision in R -/0 that e"powers MMD or itscouncil to 5enact ordinance approve resolutions and appropriatefunds for the general welfare of the inha'itants of Metro Manila.6 4tis an agency created for the purpose of laying down policies andcoordinating with the various national govern"ent agencies#eople’s $rgani2ations 1G$s and private sector for the efficientand e&peditious delivery of services. ll its functions aread"inistrative in nature.

LAWS

GR. No. L-3%429 &'() 30, 19%%*ALACUIT !. C"I

"ACTS# $rdinance 1o. 708 was passed 'y the Municipal 9oard of the !ity

of 9utuan on pril /: :7 which penali2es 5any person group of persons entity or corporation engaged in the 'usiness of sellingad"ission tickets to any "ovie or other pu'lic e&hi'itions ga"escontests or other perfor"ances to re%uire children 'etween seven(-) and twelve (:/) years of age to pay full pay"ent for ticketsintended for adults 'ut should charge only one;half of the saidticket.6

The petitioners !arlos 9alacuit <a"'erto Tan and +ergio =u!arcel are "anagers of the Maya and Dalisay Theaters the!rown Theater and the Dia"ond Theater respectively. ggrieved'y the effect of the said ordinance they filed a co"plaint 'eforethe !ourt of >irst 4nstance of gusan del 1orte and 9utuan !ityon ?une @8 :7 praying that the su'*ect ordinance 'e declared

unconstitutional and therefore void and unenforcea'le. +u'se%uently the respondent court rendered its decision

declaring $rdinance 1o. 708 as constitutional and valid#etitioners filed a "otion for reconsideration of the decision of therespondent court 'ut was later on denied.

ISSUE# $1 $rdinance 1o. 708 is unconstitutional and an invalide&ercise of police power.

$ELD# ()s to the %uestion of the su'*ect ordinance 'eing a valid

e&ercise of police power the sa"e "ust 'e resolved in thenegative. hile it is true that a 'usiness "ay 'e regulated it ise%ually true that such regulation "ust 'e within the 'ounds ofreason that is the regulatory ordinance "ust 'e reasona'le andits provisions cannot 'e oppressive a"ounting to an ar'itraryinterference with the 'usiness or calling su'*ect of regulation. lawful 'usiness or calling "ay not under the guise of regulation'e unreasona'ly interfered with even 'y the e&ercise of policepower.

police "easure for the regulation of the conduct contro

and operation of a 'usiness should not encroach upon thelegiti"ate and lawful e&ercise 'y the citi2ens of their propertyrights.

right of the owner to fi& a price at which his property shal

'e sold or used is an inherent attri'ute of the property itself andas such within the protection of the due process clause. Aencethe proprietors of a theater have a right to "anage their property

in their own way to fi& what prices of ad"ission they think "osfor their own advantage and that any person who did not approvecould stay away.

The e&ercise of police power 'y the local govern"ent is validunless it contravenes the funda"ental law of the land or an act othe legislature or unless it is against pu'lic policy or isunreasona'le oppressive partial discri"inating or in derogationof a co""on right.

$rdinance 1o. 708 clearly invades the personal and propertyrights of petitioners for even if e could assu"e that on its facethe interference was reasona'le fro" the foregoingconsiderations it has 'een fully shown that it is an unwarrantedand unlawful curtail"ent of the property and personal rights ociti2ens. >or 'eing unreasona'le and an undue restraint of tradeit cannot under the guise of e&ercising police power 'e upheld as

valid. ABRB>$RB the decision of the trial court in +pecial !ivil !ase1o. /@- is here'y RBVBR+BD and +BT +4DB and a new

*udg"ent is here'y rendered declaring $rdinance 1o. 708unconstitutional and therefore null and void. This decision isi""ediately e&ecutory.

14+ SCRA 323 G.R. No. L-+3419 1% D) 19%+LOANO /S. MARTINE

"ACTS# "otion to %uash the charge against the petitioners for violation of the9# // was "ade contending that no offense was co""itted as thestatute is unconstitutional. +uch "otion was denied 'y the RT!. Thepetitioners thus elevate the case to the +upre"e !ourt for relief. The+olicitor General co""ented that it was pre"ature for the accused to

elevate to the +upre"e !ourt the orders denying their "otions to%uash. Aowever the +upre"e !ourt finds it *ustifia'le to intervene fothe review of lower courtCs denial of a "otion to %uash.

ISSUE# $1 9# // is constitutional as it is a proper e&ercise of policepower of the +tate.

$ELD# The enact"ent of 9# // a valid e&ercise of the police power and

is not repugnant to the constitutional inhi'ition againsi"prison"ent for de't.

The offense punished 'y 9# // is the act of "aking and issuing aworthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its

UNI/ERSIT O" SAN CARLOS ROOM 4101




presentation for pay"ent. 4t is not the non;pay"ent of ano'ligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a de'tor to pay his de't.

The law punishes the act not as an offense against property 'utan offense against pu'lic order. The thrust of the law is to prohi'itunder pain of penal sanctions the "aking of worthless checksand putting the" in circulation. n act "ay not 'e considered 'ysociety as inherently wrong hence not "alu" in se 'ut 'ecauseof the har" that it inflicts on the co""unity it can 'e outlawedand cri"inally punished as "alu" prohi'itu". The state can do

this in the e&ercise of its police power.

GR. No. %%2+5 D)))r 21, 19%9DEL ROSARIO !. *ENGON

"ACTS# This is a class suit filed 'y the officers of the #hilippine Medical

ssociation the national organi2ation of "edical doctors in the#hilippines on 'ehalf of their professional 'rethren who are of kindred persuasion wherein the +upre"e !ourt is asked todeclare as unconstitutional hence null and void so"e provisionsof the Generics ct of : (Repu'lic ct 1o. 77-,) and of thei"ple"enting d"inistrative $rder 1o. 7/ issued pursuantthereto.

The said law re%uires the use of generic ter"inology or generic

na"es in writing prescriptions 'y "edical dental and veterinarydoctors. Govern"ent health agencies and their personnel as wellas other govern"ent agencies are likewise o'liged to use genericna"es 5in all transactions related to purchasing prescri'ingdispensing and ad"inistering of drugs and "edicines6. !ertainpenalties are i"posed for violation of the said provisions of thelaw.

ISSUE# $1 the Generics ct of : and its i"ple"enting

d"inistrative $rder 1o. 7/ are unconstitutional.

$ELD# The !ourt has 'een una'le to find any constitutional infir"ity in

the Generics ct. 4t on the contrary i"ple"ents the constitutional"andate for the +tate Eto protect and pro"ote the right to healthof the peopleE and Eto "ake essential goods health and other

social services availa'le to all the people at affordablecost" (+ection :, rt. 44 and +ection :: rt. F444 :-!onstitution).

There is no "erit in the petitionersC theory that the Generics cti"pairs the o'ligation of contract 'etween a physician and hispatient for no contract ever results fro" a consultation 'etweenpatient and physician. doctor "ay take in or refuse a patient

*ust as the patient "ay take or refuse the doctorCs advice or prescription. s aptly o'served 'y the pu'lic respondent nodoctor has ever filed an action for 'reach of contract against apatient who refused to take prescri'ed "edication undergosurgery or follow a reco""ended course treat"ent 'y his doctor ( p. ,@ Rollo). 4n any event no private contract 'etween doctor and patient "ay 'e allowed to override the power of the +tate toenact laws that are reasona'ly necessary to secure the healthsafety good order co"fort or general welfare of the co""unity.This power can neither 'e a'dicated nor 'argained away. llcontractual and property rights are held su'*ect to its fair e&ercise.

152 SCRA 30 G.R. No. %1+4 31 &'l 19%TA*LARIN /S. &UDGE GUTIERRE

"ACTS# The petitioners sought to en*oin the +ecretary of Bducation

!ulture and +ports the 9oard of Medical Bducation and the!enter for Bducational Measure"ent fro" enforcing +ection , (a)and (f) of Repu'lic ct 1o. /@/ as a"ended and MB!+ $rder 1o. ,/ series of :, dated /@ ugust :, and fro" re%uiringthe taking and passing of the 1MT as a condition for securing

certificates of eligi'ility for ad"ission fro" proceeding withaccepting applications for taking the 1MT and fro"ad"inistering the 1MT as scheduled on /7 pril :- and in thefuture. The trial court denied said petition on /8 pril :-. The1MT was conducted and ad"inistered as previously scheduled.

Repu'lic ct /@/ as a"ended 'y Repu'lic cts 1os. 0//0 and,07 known as the EMedical ct of :,E defines its 'asico'*ectives in the following "anner

E+B!T4$1 :. $'*ectives. H This ct provides for and

shall govern (a) the standardi2ation and regulation of "edical educationI (') the e&a"ination for registrationof physiciansI and (c) the supervision control andregulation of the practice of "edicine in the#hilippines.E

The statute a"ong other things created a 9oard of Medical Bducation. 4ts functions as specified in +ection, of the statute include the following

E(a) To deter"ine and prescri'e re%uire"ents for ad"ission into a recogni2ed college of "edicineI

& & &(f) To accept applications for certification for ad"ission to a

"edical school and keep a register of those issued saidcertificateI and to collect fro" said applicants the a"ount o

twenty;five pesos each which shall accrue to the operating fund othe 9oard of Medical BducationI6

+ection - prescri'es certain "ini"u" re%uire"ents for applicantsto "edical schools

Ed"ission re%uire"ents. H The "edical college "ayad"it any student who has not 'een convicted 'y anycourt of co"petent *urisdiction of any offense involving"oral turpitude and who presents (a) a record of co"pletion of a 'achelorCs degree in science or artsI (')a certificate of eligi'ility for entrance to a "edical schoolfro" the 9oard of Medical BducationI (c) a certificate of good "oral character issued 'y two for"er professorsin the college of li'eral artsI and (d) 'irth certificate.1othing in this act shall 'e construed to inhi'it any

college of "edicine fro" esta'lishing in addition to thepreceding other entrance re%uire"ents that "ay 'edee"ed ad"issi'le.6

MB!+ $rder 1o. ,/ s. :, issued 'y the then Minister oBducation !ulture and +ports and dated /@ ugust :,esta'lished a unifor" ad"ission test called the 1ational Medica

d"ission Test (1MT) as an additional re%uire"ent for issuanceof a certificate of eligi'ility for ad"ission into "edical schools ofthe #hilippines 'eginning with the school year :7;:-. This$rder goes on to state that E/. The 1MT an aptitude test isconsidered as an instru"ent toward upgrading the selection oapplicants for ad"ission into the "edical schools and itscalculated to i"prove the %uality of "edical education in thecountry. The cutoff score for the successful applicants 'ased onthe scores on the 1MT shall 'e deter"ined every year 'y the

9oard of Medical Bducation after consultation with the ssociationof #hilippine Medical !olleges. The 1MT rating of eachapplicant together with the other ad"ission re%uire"ents aspresently called for under e&isting rules shall serve as a 'asis fothe issuance of the prescri'ed certificate of eligi'ility foad"ission into the "edical colleges.

ISSUE# $1 +ection , (a) and (f) of Repu'lic ct 1o. /@/ asa"ended and MB!+ $rder 1o. ,/ s. :, are constitutional.

$ELD# =es. e conclude that prescri'ing the 1MT and re%uiringcertain "ini"u" scores therein as a condition for ad"ission to "edicaschools in the #hilippines do not constitute an unconstitutiona





i"position. The police power it is co""onplace learning is the pervasive

and non;waiva'le power and authority of the sovereign to secureand pro"ote all the i"portant interests and needs H in a wordthe pu'lic order H of the general co""unity. n i"portantco"ponent of that pu'lic order is the health and physical safetyand well 'eing of the population the securing of which no one candeny is a legiti"ate o'*ective of govern"ental effort andregulation. #erhaps the only issue that needs so"e considerationis whether there is so"e reasona'le relation 'etween the

prescri'ing of passing the 1MT as a condition for ad"ission to"edical school on the one hand and the securing of the healthand safety of the general co""unity on the other hand. This%uestion is perhaps "ost usefully approached 'y recalling thatthe regulation of the practice of "edicine in all its 'ranches haslong 'een recogni2ed as a reasona'le "ethod of protecting thehealth and safety of the pu'lic.

MB!+ $rder 1o. ,/ s. :, articulates the rationale of regulationof this type the i"prove"ent of the professional and technical%uality of the graduates of "edical schools 'y upgrading the%uality of those ad"itted to the student 'ody of the "edicalschools. That upgrading is sought 'y selectivity in the process of ad"ission selectivity consisting a"ong other things of li"itingad"ission to those who e&hi'it in the re%uired degree the aptitudefor "edical studies and eventually for "edical practice. The needto "aintain and the difficulties of "aintaining high standards in

our professional schools in general and "edical schools inparticular in the current stage of our social and econo"icdevelop"ent are widely known. e 'elieve that the govern"entis entitled to prescri'e an ad"ission test like the 1MT as a"eans for achieving its stated o'*ective of Eupgrading theselection of applicants into JourK "edical schoolsE and of Ei"provJingK the %uality of "edical education in the country. eare entitled to hold that the 1MT is reasona'ly related to thesecuring of the ulti"ate end of legislation and regulation in thisarea. That end it is useful to recall is the protection of the pu'licfro" the potentially deadly effects of inco"petence and ignorancein those who would undertake to treat our 'odies and "inds for disease or trau"a.

ABRB>$RB the #etition for !ertiorari is D4+M4++BD and the$rder of the respondent trial court denying the petition for a writ of preli"inary in*unction is >>4RMBD. !osts against petitioners.

GR No. 1++494, &'() 29, 200CARLOS SU6ERDRUG COR6. !. DSWD, ET. AL

"ACTS# #etitioners 'elonging to do"estic corporations and proprietors

operating drugstores in the #hilippines are praying for preli"inaryin*unction assailing the constitutionality of +ection 0(a) of Repu'lic

ct (R..) 1o. /,- otherwise known as the 5B&panded +enior !iti2ens ct of /[email protected] $n >e'ruary /7 /880 R.. 1o. /,-a"ending R.. 1o. -0@/ was signed into law 'y #resident GloriaMacapagal;rroyo and it 'eca"e effective on March /: /880.+ection 0(a) of the ct states

+B!. 0. Privileges for the Senior Citizens. L Thesenior citi2ens shall 'e entitled to the following

(a) the grant of twenty percent (/8) discount fro"all esta'lish"ents relative to the utili2ation of services in hotels and si"ilar lodging esta'lish"entsrestaurants and recreation centers and purchase of "edicines in all esta'lish"ents for the e&clusive useor en*oy"ent of senior citi2ens including funeral and'urial services for the death of senior citi2ensI

The esta'lish"ent "ay clai" the discounts granted under 78 (f)(g) and (h) as :8; <)<':io( 'ased on the net cost of the goodssold or services rendered Provided That the cost of the discountshall 'e allowed as deduction fro" gross inco"e for the sa"e

ta&a'le year that the discount is granted. Provided, further, Thathe total a"ount of the clai"ed ta& deduction net of value addedta& if applica'le shall 'e included in their gross sales receipts forta& purposes and shall 'e su'*ect to proper docu"entation and tothe provisions of the 1ational 4nternal Revenue !ode asa"ended.

The D+D on May /880 approved and adopted the4"ple"enting Rules and Regulations of R 1o. /-, Rule V4

rticle which contains the proviso that the i"ple"entation of theta& deduction shall 'e su'*ect to the Revenue Regulations to 'e

issued 'y the 94R and approved 'y the D$>. ith the new lawthe Drug +tores ssociation of the #hilippines wanted aclarification of the "eaning of ta& deduction. The D$> clarifiedthat under a :8; <)<':io( sche"e the :8; <)<':io( o(<i!o'(:! was su'tracted fro" 1et +ales together with othedeductions which are considered as operating e&penses 'eforethe Ta& Due was co"puted 'ased on the 1et Ta&a'le 4nco"e. $nthe other hand under a :8; r)<i: sche"e the a"ount odiscounts which is the :8; r)<i: ite" was deducted directly fro"the ta& due a"ount.

The D$A issued an d"inistrative $rder that the twenty percendiscount shall include 'oth prescription and non;prescription"edicines whether 'randed or generic. 4t stated that suchdiscount would 'e provided in the purchase of "edicines fro" alesta'lish"ents supplying "edicines for the e&clusive use of thesenior citi2ens.

Drug store owners assail the law with the contention that grantingthe discount would result to loss of profit and capital especiallythat such law failed to provide a sche"e to *ustly co"pensate thediscount.

ISSUE# $1 +ection 0(a) of the B&panded +enior !iti2ens ct isunconstitutional or not violative of rticle @ +ection of the !onstitutionwhich provides that private property shall not 'e taken for pu'lic usewithout *ust co"pensation and the e%ual protection clause of rticle @+ection :.

$ELD# The per"anent reduction in their total revenues is a forced

su'sidy corresponding to the taking of private property for pu'licuse or 'enefit. This constitutes co"pensa'le taking for which

petitioners would ordinarily 'eco"e entitled to a *usco"pensation. ?ust co"pensation is defined as the full and faie%uivalent of the property taken fro" its owner 'y thee&propriator. The "easure is not the taker’s gain 'ut the owner’sloss. The word ='!: is used to intensify the "eaning of the wordop)(!8:io( and to convey the idea that the e%uivalent to 'erendered for the property to 'e taken shall 'e real su'stantial fuland a"ple.

The law grants a twenty percent discount to senior citi2ens fo"edical and dental services and diagnostic and la'oratory feesad"ission fees charged 'y theaters concert halls circusescarnivals and other si"ilar places of culture leisure anda"use"entI fares for do"estic land air and sea travelI utili2ationof services in hotels and si"ilar lodging esta'lish"entsrestaurants and recreation centersI and purchases of "edicinesfor the e&clusive use or en*oy"ent of senior citi2ens. s a for" orei"'urse"ent the law provides that 'usiness esta'lish"entse&tending the twenty percent discount to senior citi2ens "ayclai" the discount as a ta& deduction.

The law is a legiti"ate e&ercise of police power which si"ilar tothe power of e"inent do"ain has general welfare for its o'*ect.#olice power is not capa'le of an e&act definition 'ut has 'eenpurposely veiled in general ter"s to underscore itsco"prehensiveness to "eet all e&igencies and provide enoughroo" for an efficient and fle&i'le response to conditions andcircu"stances thus assuring the greatest 'enefits.

ccordingly i

has 'een descri'ed as 5the "ost essential insistent and the leasli"ita'le of powers e&tending as it does to all the great pu'licneeds.6 4t is 5JtKhe power vested in the legislature 'y the





constitution to "ake ordain and esta'lish all "anner of wholeso"e and reasona'le laws statutes and ordinances either with penalties or without not repugnant to the constitution asthey shall *udge to 'e for the good and welfare of theco""onwealth and of the su'*ects of the sa"e.6

ZONING & REGULATORY ORDINANCES

20 SCRA %49 G.R. No.L-24+93 31 &'l 19+

ERMITA-MALATE $OTEL AND MOTEL O6ERATORS ASSO. /S.MAOR O" MANILA

"ACTS##etitioners Br"ita;Malate Aotel and Motel $perators ssociation withone of its "e"'ers Aotel del Mar 4nc. and Go !hiu the president andgeneral "anager of the second petitioner filed a petition for prohi'itionagainst $rdinance 1o. 0-78 against the respondent Mayor of the !ityof Manila who was sued in his capacity as such charged with thegeneral power and duty to enforce ordinances of the !ity of Manila andto give the necessary orders for the e&ecution and enforce"ent of such ordinances. 4t was alleged that the petitioner non;stockcorporation is dedicated to the pro"otion and protection of the interestof its eighteen "e"'ers operating hotels and "otels characteri2ed aslegiti"ate 'usinesses duly licensed 'y 'oth national and cityauthorities and regularly paying ta&es. 4t was alleged that on ?une :@

:7@ the Municipal 9oard of the !ity of Manila enacted $rdinance 1o.0-78 approved on ?une :0 :7@ 'y the then acting !ity Mayor Vice;Mayor Aer"inio storga. fter which the alleged grievances againstthe ordinance were set forth in detail. There was the assertion of its'eing 'eyond the powers of the Municipal 9oard of the !ity of Manilato enact insofar as it regulate "otels on the ground that in the revisedcharter of the !ity of Manila or in any other law no reference is "adeto "otels. it also 'eing provided that the pre"ises and facilities of suchhotels "otels and lodging houses would 'e open for inspection either 'y the !ity Mayor or the !hief of #olice or their duly authori2edrepresentatives. The lower court on ?uly 7 :7@ issued a writ of preli"inary in*unction ordering respondent Mayor to refrain fro"enforcing said $rdinance 1o. 0-78 fro" and after ?uly :7@.

ISSUE# hether or 1ot $rdinance 1o. 0-78 of the !ity of Manila isunconstitutional therefore null and void.

$ELD# decent regard for constitutional doctrines of a funda"ental

character ought to have ad"onished the lower court against sucha sweeping conde"nation of the challenged ordinance. 4ts (the<ower court’s) decision cannot 'e allowed to stand consistentlywith what has 'een the accepted standards of constitutionalad*udication in 'oth procedural and su'stantive aspects.

#ri"arily what calls for a reversal of such a decision is thea'sence of any evidence to offset the presu"ption of validity thatattaches to a challenged statute or ordinance. s was e&pressedcategorically 'y ?ustice Malcol" EThe presu"ption is all in favor of validity & & & . The action of the elected representatives of thepeople cannot 'e lightly set aside. The councilors "ust in thevery nature of things 'e fa"iliar with the necessities of their particular "unicipality and with all the facts and circu"stances

which surround the su'*ect and necessitate action. The locallegislative 'ody 'y enacting the ordinance has in effect givennotice that the regulations are essential to the well 'eing of thepeople & & & . The ?udiciary should not lightly set aside legislativeaction when there is not a clear invasion of personal or propertyrights under the guise of police regulation.

4t ad"its of no dou't therefore that there 'eing a presu"ption of validity the necessity for evidence to re'ut it is unavoida'leunless the statute or ordinance is void on its face which is not thecase here. The principle has 'een nowhere 'etter e&pressed thanin the leading case of $CGor"an N =oung v. Aartford >ire4nsurance !o. where the "erican +upre"e !ourt through?ustice 9randeis tersely and succinctly su""ed up the "atter

thus The statute here %uestioned deals with a su'*ect clearlywithin the scope of the police power. e are asked to declare itvoid on the ground that the specific "ethod of regulationprescri'ed is unreasona'le and hence deprives the plaintiff of dueprocess of law. s underlying %uestions of fact "ay condition theconstitutionality of legislation of this character the resu"ption oconstitutionality "ust prevail in the a'sence of so"e factuafoundation of record for overthrowing the statute.E 1o such factuafoundation 'eing laid in the present case the lower court decidingthe "atter on the pleadings and the stipulation of facts the

presu"ption of validity "ust prevail and the *udg"ent against theordinance set aside.

123 SCRA 5+9 719%3CRU !. 6ARAS

"ACTS##etitioners were night clu' operators in 9ocaue 9ulacan who filed on1ove"'er , :-, two cases for prohi'ition with preli"inaryin*unction. They contended that the enforce"ent of Municipa$rdinance no. 0 an ordinance prohi'iting the operation of nightclu'sca'arets and dance halls in that "unicipality or the renewal olicenses to operate the" should 'e stopped as the "unicipal has nopower to prohi'it a lawful 'usiness and that such ordinance is violativeto their right to due process and the e%ual protection of the law as thelicense previously given to petitioners was in effect withdrawn without

*udicial hearing. The lower court upheld the validity of the ordinance inthe na"e of police power and dis"issed the petition. Aence thispetition for certiorari.

ISSUE# $1 a "unicipal corporation 9ocaue 9ulacan represented'y respondents can prohi'it the e&ercise of a lawful trade theoperation of night clu's and the pursuit of a lawful occupation suchclu's e"ploying hostesses

$ELD#+upre"e !ourt states that reliance on the police power is insufficientto *ustify the enact"ent of the assailed ordinance. 4t is to 'e noted thathe "unicipal council shall enact such ordinances and "ake suchregulations not repugnant to law as "ay 'e necessary to carry intoeffect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it 'y lawand such as shall see" ())!!8r 8(< prop)r :o proi<) >or :?)?)8l:? 8(< !8>):, proo:) :?) pro!p)ri:, ipro) :?) or8l!p)8), @oo< or<)r, o>or:, 8(< o()(i)() o> :?) '(iip8li:8(< :?) i(?8i:8(:! :?)r)o> and for the protection of propertytherein. Aowever it is only valid unless i: o(:r8)()! :?)>'(<8)(:8l l8 of the #hilippine 4slands or an ct of the #hilippine<egislature or '(l)!! i: i! 8@8i(!: p'li poli, or i!'(r)8!o(8l), oppr)!!i), p8r:i8l, <i!rii(8:i(@, or i( <)ro@8:io(o> oo( ri@?:.

"unicipal corporation therefore cannot prohi'it the operation onightclu's. 1ightclu's "ay 'e regulated 'ut not prevented fro"carrying on their 'usiness. R @ as originally enactedgranted "unicipalities the power to regulate the esta'lish"ent"aintenance and operation of nightclu's and the like. hile it is truethat on ,O/:O,0 the law was a"ended 'y R - wOc purported to give"unicipalities the power not only to regulate 'ut likewise to prohi'it theoperation of nightclu's the fact is that the title of the law re"ained the

sa"e so that the power granted to "unicipalities re"ains that oregulation not prohi'ition. To construe the a"endatory act as granting"unicipal corporations the power to prohi'it the operation of nightclu'swould 'e to construe it in a way that it violatesthe constitutional provision that Eevery 'ill shall e"'race only onesu'*ect which shall 'e e&pressed in the title thereof.E Moreover therecently;enacted <G! (9# @@-) speaks si"ply of the power to regulatethe esta'lish"ent and operation of 'illiard pools theatricaperfor"ances circuses and other for"s of entertain"ent.!ertiorari granted.

120 SCRA 5+% 719%3/ELASCO /S. /ILLEGAS


http://www.shvoong.com/tags/municipalities/



http://www.shvoong.com/tags/constitutional/







"ACTS#$rdinance 1o. 070 was enacted for a two;fold purpose. (:) To ena'lethe !ity of Manila to collect a fee for operating "assage clinicseparately fro" those operating 'ar'er shops and (/) To preventi""orality which "ight pro'a'ly arise fro" the construction of separate roo"s. Aowever petitioner argues that such ordinancea"ounts to a deprivation of property of petitioners;appellants of their "eans of livelihood without due process of law.

ISSUE# $1 the ordinance was unconstitutional.$ELD#!onsidering the two;fold purpose of the ordinance it is clear that suchlaw is a police power "easure. This !ourt has 'een "ost li'eral insustaining ordinances 'ased on the general welfare clause.ABRB>$RB the appealed order of the lower court is affir"ed.

234 SCRA 255 71994MAGTA&AS /S. 6RCE 6RO6ERTIES

"ACTS# $n :/ #G!$R decided to e&pand its operation in !agayan

de $ro !ity and to this end leased a portion of a 'uilding'elonging to #ryce #roperties. Ppon announce"ent of theopening of the casino several organi2ation in the said area

o'*ected including !agayan de $ro’s sangguniang panglungsodwho later enacted $rdinance no. @@,@. +uch ordinance wasentitled 1 $RD411!B #R$A494T41G TAB 4++P1!B $>9P+41B++ #BRM4T 1D !1!B<<41G BF4+T41G 9P+41B++#BRM4T T$ 1= B+T9<4+AMB1T >$R TAB P+41G 1D

<<$41G T$ 9B P+BD 4T+ #RBM4+B+ $R #$RT4$1TABRB$> >$R TAB $#BRT4$1 $> !+41$. <ess than a"onth fro" the passage of such ordinance the sangguniangpanglusod of !agayan de $ro adopted a sterner ordinance no.@@-,;@ which was an 1 $RD411!B #R$A494T41G TAB$#BRT4$1 $> !+41$ 1D #R$V4D41G #B1<T= >$RV4$<T4$1 TABRB>$RB.

#ryce assailed the ordinances 'efore the !ourt of ppeals whereit was *oined 'y #G!$R as intervener and supple"entalpetitioner. Their challenge succeeded. $n March @: :@ the!ourt of ppeals declared the ordinances invalid and issued the

writ prayed for to prohi'it their enforce"ent.

Reconsideration of this decision was denied on ?uly :@ :@.!agayan de $ro !ityand its "ayor are now 'efore the court in this petition for review.

ISSUES#1. $1 the ordinances enacted 'y the sangguniang panglusod of

!agayan de $ro are valid.2. $1 the <ocal Govern"ent !ode should prevail over and a'ove

an e&isting statute (in this case #D:7)

$ELD# >irst it should 'e noted that the "orality of ga"'ling is not a

*usticia'le issue. Ga"'ling is not illegal per se. hile it isgenerally considered ini"ical to the interests of the people thereis nothing in the !onstitution categorically proscri'ing or penali2ing ga"'ling or for that "atter even "entioning it at all. 4nthe e&ercise of its own discretion the legislature "ay prohi'itga"'ling altogether or allow it without li"itation or it "ay prohi'itso"e for"s of ga"'ling and allow others for whatever reasons it"ay consider sufficient.

lthough it is true that local govern"ent units are authori2ed toprevent or suppress a"ong others Ega"'ling and other prohi'ited ga"es of chance it should 'e understood thato'viously this provision e&cludes ga"es of chance which are notprohi'ited 'ut are in fact per"itted 'y law. The apparent flaw inthe ordinances in %uestion is that they contravene #.D. :7 andthe pu'lic policy e"'odied therein insofar as they prevent#G!$R fro" e&ercising the power conferred on it to operate acasino in !agayan de $ro !ity.

$n the assu"ption of a conflict 'etween #.D. :7 and the !odethe proper action is not to uphold one and annul the other 'ut togive effect to 'oth 'y har"oni2ing the" if possi'le. This ispossi'le in the case 'efore us. The proper resolution of thepro'le" at hand is to hold that under the <ocal Govern"ent!ode local govern"ent units "ay (and indeed "ust) prevent andsuppress all kinds of ga"'ling within their territories e&cept onlythose allowed 'y statutes like #.D. :7.

<astly, The rationale of the re%uire"ent that the ordinances

should not contravene a statute is o'vious. Municipagovern"ents are only agents of the national govern"ent. <ocacouncils e&ercise only delegated legislative powers conferred onthe" 'y !ongress as the national law"aking 'ody. The delegatecannot 'e superior to the principal or e&ercise powers higher thanthose of the latter. 4t is a heresy to suggest that the locagovern"ent units can undo the acts of !ongress fro" which theyhave derived their power in the first place and negate 'y "ereordinance the "andate of the statute.

ABRB>$RB the petition is DB14BD and the challengeddecision of the respondent !ourt of ppeals is >>4RMBD withcosts against the petitioners.

GR No. 110249, A'@'!: 2, 199AL"REDOI TANO !. GO/. SAL/ADOR 6. SOCRATES

"ACTS# :, Dec :/ +angguniang #anlungsod of #uerto #rincesa !ity

enacted $rdinance 1o. :,;/ which 'anned the ship"ent of allive fish and lo'ster outside the city fro" :@;:.

// ?an :@ cting Mayor <ucero issued $ffice $rder 1o. /@. 4tauthori2ed officers to inspect cargoes containing live fish andlo'ster that are shipped out of #uerto #rincesa. The purpose othe inspection is to check if the shipper had the re%uired "ayor’sper"it issued 'y their office.

: >e'ruary :@ +angguniang #anlalawigan of #alawanenacted Resolution 1o. @@ which prohi'ited the catchinggathering possession etc. of live "arine coral dwelling a%uaticorganis"s for a period of , yrs.

he respondents i"ple"ented the ordinances depriving all thefisher"en "arine "erchants and shippers of the entire province

of their only "eans of livelihood. The petitioners directly invoked the original *urisdiction of the +!

arguing as follows:. 4t deprived the" of due process of law their livelihood and

unduly restricted the" fro" the practice of their tradeviolating +ection / rticle F44 and +ections / and - of the:- !onstitution.

/. $ffice $rder 1o. /@ contained no regulation nor conditionunder which the Mayor’s per"it could 'e granted or deniedie. Mayor had a'solute authority in issuing the per"it.

@. The $rdinance took away the right of the fisher"en to earntheir livelihood in lawful ways.

The respondents contended that it was a valid e&ercise of the#rovincial Govern"ent’s power under the general welfare clause(+ec. :7 of the <G!). The $rdinance they argued only covered

live "arine coral dwelling a%uatic organis"s and e&cluded thosenot dwelling in the coral reefs and that it shall only last for , yearsThe court "ust also distinguish 'etween catching live fish andselling it live and those who have no intention at all of selling ilive.

ISSUE# $1 the %uestioned ordinances enacted in the e&ercise opowers under the <G! relative to the protection and preservation othe environ"ent are a valid e&ercise of the police power of a "unicipacorporation.

$ELD# =es. <aws en*oy the presu"ption of constitutionality. +ection , (c) of the <G! e&plicitly "andates that the genera





welfare provisions of the <G! 5shall 'e li'erally interpreted to give"ore powers to the <GPs in accelerating econo"ic develop"entand upgrading the %uality of life for the people of the co""unity.

The <G! grants "unicipalities the power to grant fisheryprivileges in "unicipal waters and to i"pose rentals fees or charges for their use.

The sanggunians are directed to enact ordinances for the generalwelfare of the <GP and its inha'itants.

The centerpiece of the <G! is decentrali2ation. 4ndispensa'le to

this is devolution. $ne of these powers is the enforce"ent of fishery laws in "unicipal waters including the conservation of "angroves. The ter" 5"unicipal waters6 includes not onlystrea"s lakes and tidal waters within the "unicipality 'ut also"arine waters included 'etween two lines drawn perpendicularlyto the general coastline fro" points where the 'oundary lines of the "unicipality or city touch the sea at low tide and a third lineparallel with the general coastline and :, k" fro" it (+ec. :@: JrK<G!).

Two principal o'*ectives of the $rdinances1. Bsta'lish a 5closed season6 for the species of fish covered

therein for , years (This falls within the devolved power toenforce fishery laws in "unicipal waters)I

2. #rotect the coral in the "arine waters of the city and theprovince fro" further destruction due to illegal fishingactivities (this falls within the general welfare clause of the

<G! and the e&press "andate there to cities and provincesto protect the environ"ent and i"pose appropriate penaltiesfor acts which har" the environ"ent.

G.R. No. 11%12 April 12, 2005CIT O" MANILA !. $ON. 6ER"ECTO A.S. LAGUIO, &R.

"ACTS# #rivate respondent Malate Tourist Develop"ent !orporation

(MTD!) is a corporation engaged in the 'usiness of operatinghotels "otels hostels and lodging houses.

$n / ?une :@ MTD! filed a RTC Petition with the lower courtpraying that the Ordinance of the City of Manila 'e declaredinvalid and unconstitutional.

MTD! argued that the Ordinance erroneously and i"properly

included in its enu"eration of prohi'ited esta'lish"ents "otelsand inns such as MTD!Cs Victoria !ourt considering that thesewere not esta'lish"ents for Ea"use"entE or Eentertain"entE andthey were not Eservices or facilities for entertain"entE nor didthey use wo"en as Etools for entertain"entE and neither did theyEdistur' the co""unityE Eannoy the inha'itantsE or Eadverselyaffect the social and "oral welfare of the co""unity.E

The $rdinance ordered the re"oval of "otels inns "assageparlors 'eer houses nightclu's in the Br"ita;Malate area.

MTD! further advanced that the Ordinance was invalid andunconstitutional for the following reasons1. The !ity !ouncil has no power to prohi'it the operation of

"otels as +ection 0, (a) 0 (iv):/ of the <ocal Govern"ent!ode of :: (the !ode) grants to the !ity !ouncil only thepower to regulate the esta'lish"ent operation and"aintenance of hotels "otels inns pension houseslodging houses and other si"ilar esta'lish"ents

2. The $rdinance is void as it is violative of #residential Decree(#.D.) 1o. 0:@ which specifically declared portions of theBr"ita;Malate area as a co""ercial 2one with certainrestrictions

3. The Ordinance does not constitute a proper e&ercise of police power as the co"pulsory closure of the "otel'usiness has no reasona'le relation to the legiti"ate"unicipal interests sought to 'e protected

4. The Ordinance constitutes an ex post facto law 'y punishingthe operation of Victoria !ourt which was a legiti"ate'usiness prior to its enact"ent

5. The Ordinance violates MTD!Cs constitutional rights in that(a) it is confiscatory and constitutes an invasion of plaintiffCs

property rightsI (') the !ity !ouncil has no power to find asa fact that a particular thing is a nuisance per se nor does ihave the power to e&tra*udicially destroy itI and

6. The Ordinance constitutes a denial of e%ual protection undethe law as no reasona'le 'asis e&ists for prohi'iting theoperation of "otels and inns 'ut not pension houseshotels lodging houses or other si"ilar esta'lish"ents andfor prohi'iting said 'usiness in the Br"ita;Malate area 'unot outside of this area.

#etitioners !ity of Manila and <i" "aintained that the !ity

!ouncil had the power to Eprohi'it certain for"s of entertain"entin order to protect the social and "oral welfare of the co""unityas provided for in +ection 0, (a) 0 (vii) of the <ocal Govern"ent!ode.

#etitioners likewise asserted that the Ordinance was enacted 'ythe !ity !ouncil of Manila to protect the social and "oral welfareof the co""unity in con*unction with its police power.

Aon. <aguio decided in favor of the private respondents anddeclared the $rdinance null and void.

#etitioners filed an appeal with the lower court alleging that thefollowing errors were co""itted 'y the lower court in its ruling (:4t erred in concluding that the su'*ect ordinance is ultra vires ootherwise unfair unreasona'le and oppressive e&ercise of policepowerI (/) 4t erred in holding that the %uestioned Ordinancecontravenes #.D. 0@: which allows operators of all kinds oco""ercial esta'lish"ents e&cept those specified thereinI and(@) 4t erred in declaring the Ordinance void and unconstitutional.

#etitioners contend that the assailed Ordinance was enacted inthe e&ercise of the inherent and plenary power of the +tate andthe general welfare clause e&ercised 'y local govern"ent unitsprovided for in rt. @ +ec. : (kk) of the Revised !harter oManila and con*unctively +ection 0, (a) 0 (vii) of the !ode.@

They allege that the Ordinance is a valid e&ercise of police powerit does not contravene #.D. 0I and that it en*oys thepresu"ption of validity.

ISSUE# $1 the $rdinance of the !ity of Manila shows a valide&ercise of police power.

$ELD# 1o. The $rdinance was nullified 'arring the operation of "otelsand inns within the Br"ita;Malate area. The e&ercise of police power 'y the local govern"ent is valid

unless it contravenes the funda"ental law of the land or an act othe legislature or unless it is against pu'lic policy or isunreasona'le oppressive partial discri"inating or in derogationof a co""on right.

The Ordinance invades funda"ental personal and property rightsand i"pairs personal privileges.

4t is discri"inatory and unreasona'le in its operationI it is notsufficiently detailed and e&plicit that a'uses "ay attend theenforce"ent of its sanctions. nd not to 'e forgotten the !ity!ouncil under the !ode had no power to enact the Ordinance andis therefore ultra vires null and void.

#olice power legislation of such character deserves the fuendorse"ent of the *udiciary we reiterate our support for it. 9uinspite of its virtuous ai"s the enact"ent of the Ordinance hasno statutory or constitutional authority to stand on. <ocalegislative 'odies in this case the !ity !ouncil cannot prohi'ithe operation of the enu"erated esta'lish"ents under +ection :thereof or order their transfer or conversion without infringing theconstitutional guarantees of due process and e%ual protection olaws not even under the guise of police power.

G.R. No. L-24+0 D)))r 14, 199ORTIGAS B CO., LIMITED 6ARTNERS$I6 !. "EATI *AN ANDTRUST CO.

"ACTS# #laintiff is engaged in real estate 'usiness developing and selling

lots to the pu'lic particularly the Aighway Aills +u'division along

UNI/ERSIT O" SAN CARLOS ROOM 410+




BD+. $n March 0 :,/ plaintiff as vendor and ugusto#adilla and 1atividad ngeles as vendees entered into separateagree"ents of sale on install"ents over two parcels of land of the+u'division. $n ?uly : :7/ the said vendees transferred their rights and interests over the aforesaid lots in favor of one B""a!have2. Ppon co"pletion of pay"ent of the purchase price theplaintiff e&ecuted the corresponding deeds of sale in favor of B""a !have2. 9oth the agree"ents (of sale on install"ent) andthe deeds of sale contained the stipulations or restrictions that

:. The parcel of land shall 'e used e&clusively for residentialpurposes and she shall not 'e entitled to take or re"ovesoil stones or gravel fro" it or any other lots 'elonging tothe +eller.

/. ll 'uildings and other i"prove"ents (e&cept the fence)which "ay 'e constructed at any ti"e in said lot "ust 'e (a)of strong "aterials and properly painted (') provided with"odern sanitary installations connected either to the pu'licsewer or to an approved septic tank and (c) shall not 'e at adistance of less than two (/) "eters fro" its 'oundary lines.

Bventually said lots were 'ought 'y defendant. <ot , directly fro"!have2 and <ot 7 fro" Repu'lic >lour Mills 'y deed of e&changewith sa"e restrictions. #laintiff clai"s that restriction is for the'eautification of the su'division. Defendant clai"ed of theco""erciali2ation of western part of BD+. Defendant 'egan

constructing a co""ercial 'ank 'uilding. #laintiff de"and to stopit which forced hi" to file a case which was later dis"issedupholding police power. Motion for recon was denied hence theappeal.

ISSUE# $1 Resolution 1o. /- is a valid e&ercise of police power

$ELD# =es. Resolution is a valid e&ercise of police power. BD+ a "ain traffic artery which runs through several cities and

"unicipalities in the Metro Manila area supports an endlessstrea" of traffic and the resulting activity noise and pollution arehardly conducive to the health safety or welfare of the residentsin its route. Aealth safety peace good order and general welfareof the people in the locality are *ustifications for this. 4t should 'estressed that while non;i"pair"ent of contracts is constitutionallyguaranteed the rule is not a'solute since it has to 'e reconciled

with the legiti"ate e&ercise of police power.201 SCRA 136RESLE !. *EL-AIR /ILLAGE ASSOCIATION

"ACTS# co"plaint for specific perfor"ance was filed 'y respondent

against Teofilo N Rollo l"endras ('oth deceased and su'stituted'y petitioner) for violating a 9el;ir +u'division restriction that thesu'*ect house and lot shall 'e used only for residential and not for co""ercial purposes and for non;pay"ent of association dues to9V (respondent)

Deceased petitioners were the registered owners of the propertywhile #resley as lessee of the property is the owner and operator of 5Aot #an de +al +tore6 located in the sa"e address.

The RT! rendered decision in favor of respondent which wasaffir"ed 'y the !

Motion for reconsideration was denied hence this petition.

ISSUES#1. $1 the ruling of respondent ! is in accordance with a recent

consolidated decision of the +! which applies in the case at 'ar in favor of the petitioner

2. $1 the ruling of the ! ad*udging the petitioner solidarily lia'letogether with the l"endrases (deceased) to pay the allegedunpaid association dues is patently contrary to the evidence andfacts

3. $1 respondent court ad*udging petitioner solidarily lia'le to pay

attorney’s fees is without any legal or factual 'asis

ote! uring the pendency of the case #ith this Court, petitione$nedina %ox Presley died on &anuary ', ())(* She #as substituted byher t#o daughters as heirs, na+ely Olivia * Pizzaro and Consuelo *-acson*

$ELD# The issues raised in the instant petition have already 'een dealt

with in the consolidated cases decided 'y this !ourt pro"ulgated

on Dece"'er // : pparently when the respondent courpro"ulgated the %uestioned decision on 1ove"'er / : the+angalang case had not yet 'een decided 'y this !ourt etc.

pparently when the respondent court pro"ulgated the%uestioned decision on 1ove"'er / : the +angalang casehad not yet 'een decided 'y this !ourt.

The respondent court in the case at 'ar was not at all entirelywrong in upholding the Deed of Restrictions annotated in the titleof the petitioners. 4t held that the provisions of the Deed oRestrictions are in the nature of contractual o'ligations freelyentered into 'y the parties. Pndou'tedly they are valid and can'e enforced against the petitioner.

9ut they are like all contracts su'*ect to the overriding de"andsneeds and interests of the greater nu"'er as the +tate "aydeter"ine in the legiti"ate e&ercise of police power. $u

*urisdiction guarantees sanctity of contract and is said to 'e theClaw 'etween the contracting partiesC (!ivil !ode supra art::,) 'ut while it is so it cannot contravene Claw "orals goodcusto"s pu'lic order or pu'lic policy.C (supra art. :@87). 'oveall it cannot 'e raised as a deterrent to police power designedprecisely to pro"ote health safety peace and enhance theco""on good at the e&pense of contractual rights whenevenecessary.

ith respect to the de"and for pay"ent of association dues inthe su" of #@8@.,, the records reveal that this issue is now"oot and acade"ic.

The de"and for pay"ent of attorneyCs fees is now without legal ofactual 'asis.

#etition granted.

GR No!. 142359 B 1429%0, M8 25, 20046ASONG *AA*AS "ARMERS !. CA

"ACTS# <akeview Develop"ent !orporation (<D!) 'ought a parcel o

land issued it in the na"e of its successor the !redito siatic4ncorporated (!4) and su'se%uently su'divided it into twoparcels

<D!O!4 undertook to develop its -,;hectare property into aresidential and industrial estate

!4 e"'arked on the develop"ent of the housing pro*ect intothree phases and secured a locational clearance for the pro*ecfro" the Au"an +ettle"ents Regulatory !o""ission (A+R!

!4 decided to continue with the develop"ent of its Aakone

Aousing #ro*ect 'ut the pro*ect was sty"ied 'y a !o"plaint foDa"ages with #rayer for Te"porary Restraining $rder and#reli"inary 4n*unction

The plaintiffs alleged that they had reached an agree"ents withthe respondent that they would re"ain in peaceful possession otheir far"holdings 'ut notwithstanding such the defendanordered the 'ulldo2ing of the property

4n answer to the co"plaint !4 denied that it allowed the plaintiffsto possess and cultivate the landholding with fi&ed rentals

Meanwhile !4 and 7 of the :0 plaintiffs entered into aco"pro"ise agree"ent which eventually led to all of the otheplaintiffs entering into an agree"ent with !4





!4 was sty"ied anew when a #etition for !o"pulsory !overageunder Rep. ct 1o. 77,- otherwise known as the !o"prehensive

grarian Refor" <aw (!R<) was filed 'efore the DR 'yseventeen (:-) individuals who alleged that they are far"ers whohave occupied a parcel of pu'lic agricultural land ad*acent to#asong 9aya'as River

ccording to the petitioners the said illegal 'ulldo2ing activitieswould convert the land fro" agricultural to non;agricultural landthere'y depriving the "e"'ers of the #9>4 of their tenancy

rights over the property. >or this reason the petitioners prayedthat a te"porary restraining order 'e issued e&;parte to stop the'ulldo2ing of the property and that a preli"inary in*unction or astatus %uo order 'e later issued to en*oin the sa"e.

ISSUES#1. hether the property su'*ect of the suit is covered 'y Rep. ct

1o. 77,- the grarian Refor" <aw (!R<)I2. whether the DR9 had original and appellate *urisdiction over

the co"plaint of the petitioner #9>4 against the privaterespondentI

3. whether the petitioners;"e"'ers of the #9>4 have a cause of action against the private respondent for possession andcultivation of the property in suitI

4. whether the dis"issal 'y the RT! of the co"plaint in !ivil !ase1o. 9!V;-;:@ is a 'ar to the co"plaint of the petitioners;"e"'ers of the #9>4I and

5. whether the appellate court co""itted a reversi'le error indis"issing the petition for review in !;G.R. +# 1o. 0@7@.

$ELD# The contention of the petitioners has no "erit. Rep. ct 1o. 77,- took effect only on ?une :, :. 9ut long

'efore the law took effect the property su'*ect of the suit hadalready 'een reclassified and converted fro" agricultural to non;agricultural or residential land.

ith our finding that the property su'*ect of the suit was classifiedas residential land since :-7 the DR9 had no original andappellate *urisdiction over the property su'*ect of the action of thepetitioner #9>4 and its "e"'ers.

+ince the "e"'ers of the petitioner #9>4 were not the tenants

of the private respondent !4 the petitioners and its "e"'ershad no cause of action against the private respondent for possession of the landholding to "aintain possession thereof andfor da"ages.

hen the co"plaint was filed twenty;five (/,) of the thirty ;seven(@-) "e"'ers of the petitioners had already e&ecuted separatedeeds of %uitclai" in favor of the private respondent !4 over theportions of the landholding they respectively clai"ed after receiving fro" the private respondent !4 varied su"s of "oney.4n e&ecuting the said deeds the "e"'ers of the petitioner #9>4there'y waived their respective clai"s over the property. Aencethey have no right whatsoever to still re"ain in possession of thesa"e.

#etition denied.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES & REGULATIONS 12 SCRA 329, 19%4*AUTISTA !. &UNIO

"ACTS# This prohi'ition proceeding filed 'y petitioners spouses Mary

!oncepcion 9autista and Bnri%ue D. 9autista for 'eing allegedlyviolative of the due process and e%ual protection guarantees : of the !onstitution as it was provided in <$4 7 that the use private"otor vehicles with A and BA plates on week;ends and holidayswas 'anned fro" EJ:/88K a.". +aturday "orning to ,88 a.".Monday "orning or :88 a.". of the holiday to ,88 a.". of the

day after the holiday.E 4t was then alleged 'y petitioners that Ewhile the purpose for the

issuance of the <$4 7 is lauda'le to wit energy conservationthe provision 'anning the use of A and BA JvehiclesK is unfairdiscri"inatory Ja"ounting to anK ar'itrary classificationE and thusin contravention of the e%ual protection clause. , Moreover forthe" such <etter of 4nstruction is a denial of due process "orespecifically Eof their right to use and en*oy their private propertyand of their freedo" to travel and hold fa"ily gatherings reunionsand outings on week;ends and holidaysE inviting attention to the

fact that others not included in the 'an en*oying Eunrestrictedfreedo".E

ISSUE# hether or not the validity of an energy conservation "easure<etter of 4nstruction 1o. 7 issued on May @: :- Q the responseto the protracted oil crisis that dates 'ack to :-0 is constitutional

$ELD# CThe statute here %uestioned deals with a su'*ect clearly within

the scope of the police power. e are asked to declare it void onthe ground that the specific "ethod of regulation prescri'ed isunreasona'le and hence deprives the plaintiff of due process oflaw. s underlying %uestions of fact "ay condition theconstitutionality of legislation of this character the presu"ption oconstitutionality "ust prevail in the a'sence of so"e factuafoundation of record for overthrowing the statute.C

4t is true of course that there "ay 'e instances where a policepower "easure "ay 'ecause of its ar'itrary oppressive or un*uscharacter 'e held offensive to the due process clause andtherefore "ay when challenged in an appropriate legaproceeding 'e declared void on its face. This is not one of the".

4n the interplay 'etween such a funda"ental right and policepower especially so where the assailed govern"ental actiondeals with the use of oneCs property the latter is accorded "uchleeway. That is settled law. hat is "ore it is good law. Dueprocess therefore cannot 'e validly invoked.

Those adversely affected "ay under such circu"stances invokethe e%ual protection clause only if they can show that thegovern"ental act assailed far fro" 'eing inspired 'y theattain"ent of the co""on weal was pro"pted 'y the spirit ohostility or at the very least discri"ination that finds no support in

reason. 4t suffices then that the laws operate e%ually andunifor"ly on all persons under si"ilar circu"stances or that alpersons "ust 'e treated in the sa"e "anner the conditions no'eing different 'oth in the privileges conferred and the lia'ilitiesi"posed.

'sent therefore the alleged infringe"ent of constitutional rights"ore precisely the due process and e%ual protection guaranteesthis !ourt cannot ad*udge <etter of 4nstruction 1o. 7 as tainted'y unconstitutionality.

#etition dis"issed.

119 SCRA 59, 19%2TAICA* O6ERATORS O" METRO MANILA /S. *OT

"ACTS#

$n :8 $cto'er :-- the 9oard of Transportation (9T) issuedMe"orandu" !ircular --;0/ phasing out old and dilapidated ta&isrefusing registration to ta&i units within the 1ational !apitol Regionhaving year "odels over 7 years old. #ursuant to the a'ove 9$Tcircular the Director of the 9ureau of <and Transportation (9<T) issued4"ple"enting !ircular ,/ dated :, ugust :8 instructing theRegional Director the MV Registrars and other personnel of 9<T alwithin the 1ational !apital Region (1!R) to i"ple"ent said !ircularand for"ulating a schedule of phase;out of vehicles to 'e allowed andaccepted for registration as pu'lic conveyances. 4n accordancetherewith ca's of "odel :-: were phased;out in registration year:-I those of "odel :-/ in :-I those of "odel :-@ in :8I andthose of "odel :-0 in ::. $n /- ?anuary :: Ta&ica' $peratorsof Metro Manila 4nc. (T$MM4) including its "e"'ers ce

UNI/ERSIT O" SAN CARLOS ROOM 410%




Transportation !orporation and >elicisi"o !a'igao filed a petition withthe 9T (!ase 8;-,,@) seeking to nullify Me"orandu" !ircular --;0/or to stop its i"ple"entationI to allow the registration and operation in:: and su'se%uent years of ta&ica's of "odel :-0 as well asthose of earlier "odels which were phased;out provided that at theti"e of registration they are roadworthy and fit for operation. $n :7>e'ruary :: T$MM4 et. al. filed 'efore the 9T a 5Manifestation andPrgent Motion6 praying for an early hearing of their petition. The casewas heard on /8 >e'ruary ::. $n / 1ove"'er :: T$MM4 et.al. filed 'efore the sa"e 9oard a 5Manifestation and Prgent Motion to

Resolve or Decide Main #etition6 praying that the case 'e resolved or decided not later than :8 Dece"'er :: to ena'le the" in case of denial to avail of whatever re"edy they "ay have under the law for the protection of their interests 'efore their :-, "odel ca's arephased;out on : ?anuary :/. T$MM4 et. al. through its #residentallegedly "ade personal follow;ups of the case 'ut was later infor"edthat the records of the case could not 'e located. $n / Dece"'er :: T$MM4 et. al. instituted a petition for certiorari prohi'ition and"anda"us with preli"inary in*unction and te"porary restraining order with the +upre"e !ourt.ISSUE# $1 the i"ple"entation and enforce"ent of Me"orandu"!ircular --;0/ violates the petioner’s constitutional rights to (:) B%ualprotection of the lawI (/) +u'stantive due processI and (@) #rotectionagainst ar'itrary and unreasona'le classification and standard.

$ELD#

Regarding the and +u'stantive Due #rocess #residential Decree:8: grants to the 9oard of Transportation the power to fi& *ust andreasona'le standards classification regulations practices"easure"ents or service to 'e furnished i"posed o'servedand followed 'y operators of pu'lic utility "otor vehicles. Theoverriding consideration in the issuance of Me"orandu" !ircular --;0/ is the safety and co"fort of the riding pu'lic fro" thedangers posed 'y old and dilapidated ta&is. The +tate in thee&ercise of its police power can prescri'e regulations to pro"otethe health "orals peace good order safety and general welfareof the people. 4t can prohi'it all things hurtful to co"fort safetyand welfare of society. 4t "ay also regulate property rights. Thenecessities i"posed 'y pu'lic welfare "ay *ustify the e&ercise of govern"ental authority to regulate even if there'y certain groups"ay plausi'ly assert that their interests are disregarded.Dispensing with a pu'lic hearing prior to the issuance of the!irculars is not violative of procedural due process. #revious

notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of general rulesor regulations pro"ulgated to govern future conduct of a class or persons or enterprises unless the law provides otherwise. 4t isi"practical to su'*ect every ta&ica' to constant and recurringevaluation to deter"ine its road;worthiness not to speak of thefact that it can open the door to the adoption of "ultiplestandards possi'le collusion and even graft and corruption. reasona'le standard "ust 'e adopted to apply to all vehiclesaffected unifor"ly fairly and *ustly. The span of si& years suppliesthat reasona'le standard. The product of e&perience shows that'y that ti"e ta&is have fully depreciated their cost recovered anda fair return on invest"ent o'tained. They are also generallydilapidated and no longer fit for safe and co"forta'le service tothe pu'lic specially considering that they are in continuousoperation practically /0 hours everyday in three shifts of eighthours per shift. ith that standard of reasona'leness anda'sence of ar'itrariness the re%uire"ent of due process has'een "et. alleged that the !ircular in %uestion violates their rightto e%ual protection of the law 'ecause the sa"e is 'eing enforcedin Metro Manila only and is directed solely towards the ta&iindustry. t the outset it should 'e pointed out that i"ple"entationoutside Metro Manila is also envisioned in Me"orandu" !ircular 1o. --;0/. 4n fact the sa"e is also i"ple"ented in !e'u !ity.The 9oardCs reason for enforcing the !ircular initially in MetroManila is that ta&ica's in this city co"pared to those of other places are su'*ected to heavier traffic pressure and "oreconstant use. This is of co""on knowledge. !onsidering thattraffic conditions are not the sa"e in every city a su'stantialdistinction e&ists so that infringe"ent of the e%ual protectionclause can hardly 'e successfully clai"ed.

The overriding consideration is the safety and co"fort of theriding pu'lic fro" the dangers posed 'y old and dilapidated ta&isThe +tate in the e&ercise of its police power can prescri'eregulations to pro"ote the health "orals peace good ordersafety and general welfare of the people. 4t can prohi'it all thingshurtful to co"fort safety and welfare of society "ay also regulateproperty rights the language of !hief ?ustice Bnri%ue M. >ernandoEthe necessities i"posed 'y pu'lic welfare "ay *ustify thee&ercise of govern"ental authority to regulate even if there'ycertain groups "ay plausi'ly assert that their interests are

disregardedE.

GR No. 15%93, &'() %, 200+MIRASOL /S. D6W$

"ACTS# #etitioners filed 'efore the trial court a petition seeking the

declaration of nullity of Depart"ent $rder (D$) -0 D$ /:, andthe TR9 Regulations contravene R /888. #etitioners alsosought to declare Depart"ent $rder 1o. :/@ (D$ :/@) and

d"inistrative $rder 1o. : ($ :) unconstitutional. #reviously pursuant to its "andate under R.. /888 D#A

issued on ?une /, : Depart"ent $rder (D$) 1o. /:,declaring the Manila;!avite (!oastal Road) Toll B&pressway asli"ited access facilities. #ursuant to +ection / of Repu'lic ct 1o

/888 a li"ited access facility is defined as Ea highway or streetespecially designed for through traffic and over fro" or to whichowners or occupants of a'utting land or other persons have noright or ease"ent or only a li"ited right or ease"ent of accesslight air or view 'y reason of the fact that their property a'utsupon such li"ited access facility or for any other reasonMoreover petitioners prayed for the issuance of a te"poraryrestraining order andOor preli"inary in*unction to prevent theenforce"ent of the total 'an on "otorcycles along the entire'readth of 1orth and +outh <u2on B&pressways and the Manila;!avite (!oastal Road) Toll B&pressway under D$ /:,. $n ?uly: /88: the D#A acting thru the TR9 issued Depart"en$rder 1o. :/@ allowing "otorcycles with engine displace"ent of088 cu'ic centi"eters inside li"ited access facilities (toll ways)D$ :/@ as petitioner contends is violative of e%ual protectionclause of the constitution.

!onse%uently on March :8 /88@ the trial court issued theassailed decision dis"issing the petition 'ut declaring invalid D$:/@. #etitioners "oved for a reconsideration of the dis"issal oftheir petitionI 'ut it was denied 'y the trial court in its $rder dated?une :7 /88@.

ISSUE# ABTABR or not $ : 1D D$ :/@ RBP1!$1+T4TPT4$1<.

$ELD# Pnder B$ ,07 it is the D$T! not the D#A which has

authority to regulate restrict or prohi'it access to li"ited accessfacilities. Thus D$ -0 and D$ /:, are void 'ecause the D#Ahas no authority to declare certain e&pressways as li"ited accessfacilities. Pnder the law it is the D$T! which is authori2ed toad"inister and enforce all laws rules and regulations in the field

of transportation and to regulate related activities. +ince the D#A has no authority to regulate activities relative to

transportation the TR9 cannot derive its power fro" the D#Ato issue regulations governing li"ited access facilities. TheD#A cannot delegate a power or function which it does nopossess in the first place. +ince D$ -0 and D$ /:, are void ifollows that the rules i"ple"enting the" are likewise void. D#Ahas no authority to regulate li"ited access highways since B$,07 has devolved this function to the D$T!. Thus D$ :/@ is voidfor want of authority of the D#A to pro"ulgate it.

>urther"ore the assailed portion of $ : states that on li"itedaccess highways it is unlawful for any person or group of persons





to drive any 'icycle tricycle pedica' "otorcycle or any vehiclenot "otori2ed. #etitioners attacked this e&ercise of police power as 'aseless and unwarranted.The use of pu'lic highways 'y"otor vehicles is su'*ect to regulation as an e&ercise of the policepower of the state. The police power is far;reaching in scope andis the E"ost essential insistent and illi"ita'leE of all govern"entpowers. The tendency is to e&tend rather than to restrict the useof police power. The sole standard in "easuring its e&ercise isreasona'leness. hat is Ereasona'leE is not su'*ect to e&actdefinition or scientific for"ulation. 1o all;e"'racing test of

reasona'leness e&ists for its deter"ination rests upon hu"an *udg"ent applied to the facts and circu"stances of eachparticular case.

$ : does not i"pose unreasona'le restrictions. 4t "erelyoutlines several precautionary "easures to which toll way users"ust adhere. These rules were designed to ensure pu'lic safetyand the uninhi'ited flow of traffic within li"ited access facilities.They cover several su'*ects fro" what lanes should 'e used 'y acertain vehicle to "a&i"u" vehicle height. The prohi'ition of certain types of vehicles is 'ut one of these. 1one of these rulesviolates reason. The purpose of these rules and the logic 'ehindthe" are %uite evident. toll way is not an ordinary road. Thespecial purpose for which a toll way is constructed necessitatesthe i"position of guidelines in the "anner of its use andoperation. 4nevita'ly such rules will restrict certain rights. 9ut the"ere fact that certain rights are restricted does not invalidate the

rules. The D#A through the +olicitor General "aintains that the tollways were not designed to acco""odate "otorcycles and thattheir presence in the toll ways will co"pro"ise safety and trafficconsiderations. The D#A points out that the sa"e study thepetitioners rely on cites that the ina'ility of other drivers to detect"otorcycles is the predo"inant cause of accidents. rgua'lyprohi'iting the use of "otorcycles in toll ways "ay not 'e theE'estE "easure to ensure the safety and co"fort of those who plythe toll ways.

Aowever the "eans 'y which the govern"ent chooses to act isnot *udged in ter"s of what is E'estE rather on si"ply whether the act is reasona'le. The validity of a police power "easuredoes not depend upon the a'solute assurance that the purposedesired can in fact 'e pro'a'ly fully acco"plished or upon thecertainty that it will 'est serve the purpose intended. Reason not

scientific e&actitude is the "easure of the validity of thegovern"ental regulation. rgu"ents 'ased on what is E'estE areargu"ents reserved for the <egislature’s discussion. ?udicialintervention in such "atters will only 'e warranted if the assailedregulation is patently whi"sical. e do not find the situation inthis case to 'e so.

$ : is not oppressive. #etitioners are not 'eing deprived of their right to use the li"ited access facility. They are "erely 'eingre%uired *ust like the rest of the pu'lic to adhere to the rules onhow to use the facility. $ : does not infringe upon petitioners’right to travel 'ut "erely 'ars "otorcycles 'icycles tricyclespedica's and any non;"otori2ed vehicles as the "ode of traveling along li"ited access highways. +everal cheapaccessi'le and practical alternative "odes of transport are opento petitioners. There is nothing oppressive in 'eing re%uired totake a 'us or drive a car instead of one’s scooter 'icycle calesa

or "otorcycle upon using a toll way. #etitioners’ reliance on the studies they gathered is "isplaced.

#olice power does not rely upon the e&istence of definitive studiesto support its use. 4ndeed no re%uire"ent e&ists that the e&erciseof police power "ust first 'e conclusively *ustified 'y research.The yardstick has always 'een si"ply whether the govern"ent’sact is reasona'le and not oppressive. The use of EreasonE in thissense is si"ply "eant to guard against ar'itrary and capriciousgovern"ent action. +cientific certainty and conclusivenessthough desira'le "ay not 'e de"anded in every situation.$therwise no govern"ent will 'e a'le to act in situationsde"anding the e&ercise of its residual powers 'ecause it will 'etied up conducting studies.

police power "easure "ay 'e assailed upon proof that it undulyviolates constitutional li"itations like due process and e%uaprotection of the law. #etitioners’ atte"pt to seek redress fro" the"otorcycle 'an under the aegis of e%ual protection "ust fail#etitioners’ contention that $ : unreasona'ly singles ou"otorcycles is specious. To 'egin with classification 'y itself isnot prohi'ited.

classification can only 'e assailed if it is dee"ed invidious thais it is not 'ased on real or su'stantial differences. s e&plained

'y !hief ?ustice >ernando in .autista v* &uinio& & & To assure that the general welfare 'e pro"oted which isthe end of law a regulatory "easure "ay cut into the rights toli'erty and property. Those adversely affected "ay under suchcircu"stances invoked the e%ual protection clause only if theycan show that the govern"ental act assailed far fro" 'einginspired 'y the attain"ent of the co""on weal was pro"pted'y the spirit of hostility or at the very least discri"ination thafinds no support in reason. 4t suffices then that the laws operatee%ually and unifor"ly on all persons under si"ilacircu"stances or that all persons "ust 'e treated in the sa"e"anner the conditions not 'eing different 'oth in the privilegesconferred and the lia'ilities i"posed. >avoritis" and unduepreference cannot 'e allowed. >or the principle is that e%uaprotection and security shall 'e given to every person undercircu"stances which if not identical is analogous. 4f law 'elooked upon in ter"s of 'urden or charges those that fal

within a class should 'e treated in the sa"e fashion whateverestrictions cast on so"e in the group e%ually 'inding the rest.

The real and su'stantial differences e&ist 'etween a "otorcycleand other for"s of transport sufficient to *ustify its classificationa"ong those prohi'ited fro" plying the toll ways. "ongst altypes of "otori2ed transport it is o'vious even to a child that a"otorcycle is %uite different fro" a car a 'us or a truck. The "oso'vious and trou'ling difference would 'e that a two;wheeledvehicle is less sta'le and "ore easily overturned than a four;wheeled vehicle. classification 'ased on practical convenienceand co""on knowledge is not unconstitutional si"ply 'ecause i"ay lack purely theoretical or scientific unifor"ity.

#etitioners co"plain that the prohi'ition on the use of "otorcyclesin toll ways unduly deprive the" of their right to travel.

toll way is not an ordinary road. s a facility designed to

pro"ote the fastest access to certain destinations its useoperation and "aintenance re%uire close regulation. #u'licinterest and safety re%uire the i"position of certain restrictions ontoll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads. s a special kind ofroad it is 'ut reasona'le that not all for"s of transport could useit.

The right to travel does not "ean the right to choose any vehiclein traversing a toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to"ove fro" one place to another. #etitioners can traverse the tolway any ti"e they choose using private or pu'lic four;wheeledvehicles. #etitioners are not denied the right to "ove fro" #oint to #oint 9 along the toll way. #etitioners are free to access the tolway "uch as the rest of the pu'lic can. The "ode 'y whichpetitioners wish to travel pertains to the "anner of using the tolway a su'*ect that can 'e validly li"ited 'y regulation.

#etitioners the"selves ad"it that alternative routes are availa'leto the". Their co"plaint is that these routes are not the safesand "ost convenient. Bven if their clai" is true it hardly %ualifiesas an undue curtail"ent of their freedo" of "ove"ent and travelThe right to travel does not entitle a person to the 'est for" oftransport or to the "ost convenient route to his destination. Theo'structions found in nor"al streets which petitioners co"plain o(i.e. potholes "anholes construction 'arriers etc.) are nosuffered 'y the" alone. ::O@8O8

>inally petitioners assert that their possession of a driver’slicense fro" the <and Transportation $ffice (<T$) and the facthat their vehicles are registered with that office entitle the" touse all kinds of roads in the country. gain petitioners are





"istaken. There e&ists no a'solute right to drive. $n the contrarythis privilege is heavily regulated. $nly a %ualified group isallowed to drive "otor vehicles those who pass the testsad"inistered 'y the <T$. driver’s license issued 'y the <T$"erely allows one to drive a particular "ode of transport. 4t is nota license to drive or operate any for" of transportation on anytype of road. Vehicle registration in the <T$ on the other hand"erely signifies the roadworthiness of a vehicle. This does notpreclude the govern"ent fro" prescri'ing which roads areaccessi'le to certain vehicles.

Therefore the petition was partly granted. D$s -0 /:, and :/@of the D#A and the Revised Rules and Regulations on <i"ited

ccess >acilities of the Toll Regulatory 9oard were declared oi< $ : of the D$T! 8li<.

124 SCRA 494, 19%3ANGLO-"IL TRADING /S. LAARO

"ACTS#/@ contractors a"ong the" the #hilippine 4ntegrated #ort +ervices4nc. (#4#+4) nglo;>il Trading !orporation duana +tevedoring!orporation nda +tevedoring !orporation 9en #a2 #ort +ervice4nc. Manila +tevedoring and rrastre +ervices 4nc. ("e"'ers of the#hilippine ssociation of +tevedoring $perators and !ontractors 4nc.J#+$!K) co"peted at the +outh Aar'or for the perfor"ance of stevedoring work. The licenses of these contractors had long e&pired

when the #hilippine #orts uthority (## created 'y #residentialDecree ,8, J:: ?uly :-0K later superseded 'y #residential Decree,- J/@ Dece"'er :-K,) took over the control and "anage"ent of ports 'ut they continued to operate afterwards on the strength of te"porary per"its and hold;over authorities issued 'y ##. $n 0 May:-7 the 9oard of Directors of ## passed Resolution :8 approvingand adopting a set of policies on #ort d"inistration Manage"ent and$peration. The ## adopted as its own the 9ureau of !usto"s’ policyof placing on only one organi2ation the responsi'ility for the operationof arrastre and stevedoring services in one port. $n :: pril :8#resident >erdinand B. Marcos issued <etter of 4nstruction :88,;which a"ong other things directed ## to e&peditiously evaluate allrecogni2ed cargo handling contractors and port;related serviceoperators and to deter"ine the %ualified contractor or operator in order to ensure effective utili2ation of port facilities etc. This was followed 'ythe #resident’s "e"orandu" to !ol. Busta%uio +. 9aclig ?r. dated :

pril :8 directing su'"ission of a report on the integration of the

stevedoring operations in Manila +outh Aar'or and e"phasi2ing theneed for such integration as well as the strengthening of the ## inorder to re"edy the pro'le"s therein. $n / pril :8 the co""itteesu'"itted its report reco""ending the award of an e&clusive contractfor stevedoring services in the +outh Aar'or to $cean Ter"inal+ervices 4nc. ($T+4) after finding it the 'est %ualified a"ong thee&isting contractors. The ## su'"itted the co""ittee report to the#resident who on /0 May :8 approved the reco""endation toaward an e&clusive "anage"ent contract to $T+4. $n /- ?une :8## and $T+4 entered into a "anage"ent contract which provideda"ong others for a ,;year e&clusive operation 'y $T+4 of stevedoringservices in the +outh Aar'or renewa'le for another , years. The9oard of Directors of the ## gave its approval on /- ?une :8. $n/@ ?uly :8 #4#+4 instituted an action 'efore the !ourt of >irst4nstance (!>4) of Manila against ## and $T+4 for the nullification of the contract 'etween the two the annul"ent of the :8 of grossstevedoring revenue 'eing collected 'y ## and in*unction withpreli"inary in*unction. n e&;parte restraining order was issued. $n /:

ugust :8. with leave of court nglo;>il et al. filed their co"plaintin intervention. The "otion was granted and on // ugust :8 the!>4 issued another e&;parte restraining order in the case to include

nglo;>il et. al. under the 'enefits of such order. $n @8 ugust :8the ## filed an urgent "otion to lift the restraining orders 5in view of the long delay in the resolution of the in*unction incident and thecountervailing pu'lic interest involved.6 $n : +epte"'er :8 the !>4dissolved lifted and set aside the restraining orders without pre*udiceto the !ourt’s resolution on the propriety of issuing the writ of preli"inary in*unction prayed for. $n , +epte"'er :8 ## sent aletter to the General Manager of #4#+4 infor"ing hi" that due to thelifting of the te"porary restraining order it was withdrawing #4#+4’s

holdover authority to operate or provide stevedoring services at +outhAar'or effective - +epte"'er :8. nglo;>il et al. and #4#+4therefore filed the petitions for certiorari with preli"inary in*unctionalleging that the lifting of the restraining orders e&;parte 'y the !>4 wasclearly effected with grave a'use of discretion a"ounting to lack of

*urisdiction.

ISSUE# hether the issuance of a #er"it to $perate (#T$) dependedon the sound discretion and on the policies rules and regulationsi"ple"ented 'y the latter or whether the non;issuance thereof is an

unlawful deprivation of property rights.

$ELD#>ro" the viewpoint of procedure there was no grave a'use odiscretion or want of *urisdiction when the !>4 *udge lifted e&;parte thete"porary restraining order he had earlier issued also e&;parte+u'se%uent to the issuance of the %uestioned order the !>4 heard theparties on the application for a writ of preli"inary in*unction and afterhearing the parties’ evidence and argu"ents denied the application fothe writ. 4t is also not grave a'use of discretion when a court dissolvese&;parte a'use of discretion when a court dissolves e&;parte arestraining order also issued e&;parte. >urther the contention that dueprocess was violated resulting to a confiscatory effect on privateproperty is likewise without "erit. 4n the first place nglo;>il et. alwere operating "erely on 5hold;over6 per"its which were 'ased on## Me"orandu" $rder : (: ?anuary :--). ll hold;over per"its

were 'y nature te"porary and su'*ect to su'se%uent policy guidelinesas "ay 'e i"ple"ented 'y ##. +uch should have served as sufficiennotice that at any ti"e #4#+4’s and nglo;>il et.al.’s authorities "ay'e ter"inated. hether #4#+4 and nglo;>il et. al. would 'e issued a#er"it to $perate (#T$) depended on the sound discretion of ## andon the policies rules and regulations that the latter "ay i"ple"ent inaccordance with the statutory grant of power. The latter thereforecannot 'e said to have 'een deprived of property without due process'ecause in this respect what was given the" was not a property righ'ut a "ere privilege and they should have taken cogni2ance of the facthat since they have no vested right to operate in the +outh Aar'ortheir per"its can 'e withdrawn anyti"e the pu'lic welfare dee"s it'est to do so. Thus unless the case *ustifies it the *udiciary will nointerfere in purely ad"inistrative "atters. +uch discretionary powevested in the proper ad"inistrative 'ody in the a'sence oar'itrariness and grave a'use so as to go 'eyond the statutoryauthority is not su'*ect to the contrary *udg"ent or control of others. 4ngeneral courts have no supervisory power over the proceedings andactions of the ad"inistrative depart"ents of the govern"ent. This isparticularly true with respect to acts involving the e&ercise of *udg"enor discretion and to findings of fact.

G.R. NO. 14542 &UL 14, 20056$ILI66INE 6ORTS AUT$ORIT /S. CI6RES STE/EDORINGAND ARRASTRE INC. 7CISAI

"ACTS# #etitioner ## is a govt. entity created 'y virtue of #.D. no. ,-

and is tasked to i"ple"ent an integrated progra" for theplanning develop"ent financing and operation of ports and pordistricts in the country. Respondent !4+4 is a do"esticcorporation pri"arily engaged in stevedoring arrastre andporterage 'usiness including cargo handling and hauling servicesin 1egros $riental and Du"aguete and 9ais. +ince :-7 !4+had 'een granted per"its to operate the cargo handlingoperations in Du"aguete. 4n :: ## awarded an ;yeacontract to !4+4 to pursue its 'usiness endeavor. Ppon this ti"e## d"inistrative $rder 1o. 8@;8 took effect providing for theawarding of cargo handling services through pu'lic 'idding.

>ollowing the e&piration of its contract !4+4 was a'le tocontinue with its 'usiness 'y virtue of hold;over per"its given 'y##. During this ti"e another ad"inistrative order ## $ 1o8@;/888 took effect which a"ended ## $ no. 8@;8 e&presslyprovided that all contract for cargo handling services of "ore





than @ years shall 'e awarded through pu'lic 'idding. !4+4initiated an action for specific perfor"ance in*unction withapplication for preli"inary "andatory in*unction contending that##’s action was 4 derogation of their vested right over theoperation of cargo handling enterprise. The lower court granted!4+4’s prayer for a te"porary restraining order. ## filed a"otion for reconsideration which was granted 'y the trial courtsetting aside the in*unctive writ. !4+4 filed a petition for certiorari'efore the ! and the ! granted the petition ordering ## todesist fro" conducting the scheduled pu'lic 'idding for cargo

handling operations in the port of Du"aguete. Thus this instantappeal.

ISSUE# $1 !4+4 have ac%uired a vested right to the cargo handlingoperations at the Du"aguete #ort.

$ELD# +upre"e !ourt held that !4+4 have no vested rights to the cargo

handling operations 'ecause the continuance of their 'usinesswas due to hold over per"its given 'y ## and such "ay 'erevoked anyti"e 'y the granting authority. s held in the case of

nglo;>il Trading !orporation vs. <a2aro hold over per"its are"erely te"porary su'*ect to the policy and guidelines as "ay 'ei"ple"ented 'y the authority granting it. +tevedoring services arei"'ued with pu'lic interest and su'*ect to the state’s police powertherefore whatever proprietary right the !4+4 "ay have ac%uired

"ust necessarily give way to valid e&ercise of police power. ##'eing created for the purpose of pro"oting the growth of regionalport 'odies it is e"powered to "ake port regulations. ith this"andate the decision to 'id out cargo holding services isproperly within the province and discretion of ##. s for !4+4’sclai" that ## $ 1o. 8@;/888 violated the constitutionalprovision of non;i"pair"ent of contract suffice it to state that allcontracts are su'*ect to the overriding de"ands needs interestsof the greater nu"'er as the +tate "ay deter"ine in thelegiti"ate e&ercise of its police power. herefore #etition isgranted.

G.R. No. 1503+ &'() 9, 2004"RANCISCO C$A/E /S. $ON. AL*ERTO ROMULO ASEECUTI/E SECRETAR, 6N6 C$IE" $ERMOGENES E*DANE

"ACTS#

!have2 is a gun; owner who filed a petition for prohi'ition andin*unction seeking to en*oin the i"ple"entation of the 5 Guidelinesin the 4"ple"entation of the 9an on the !arying of >irear"s$utside of Residence6 issued 'y #1# !hief Aer"ogenesB'dane ?r. 4n ?anuary /88@ #res. rroyo delivered a speech'efore the "e"'ers of the #1# stressing the need for anationwide gun 'an in all pu'lic places to avert the rising cri"eincidents. +he directed #1# !hief B'dane to suspend theissuance of per"its to carry firear"s outside of residence(#T!>$R). Thus !hief B'dane issued the assailed Guidelines.!have2 contends that such guidelines was a derogation of hisconstitutional right to life and to protect life as he 'eing a law;a'iding licensed gun;owner is the only class su'*ect to thei"ple"entation while leaving the law;'reakers (kidnappers M4<>hold;uppers ro''ers etc.) untouched. #etitioner also averred thatownership and carrying of firear"s are constitutionally protected

property rights which cannot 'e taken away without due processof law.

ISSUES#1. $1 the citi2ens’ right to 'ear ar"s is a constitutional right2. $1 the revocation of the #T!>$R pursuant to the assailed

Guidelines is a violation of right to property3. $1 the issuance of said Guidelines is a valid e&ercise of #olice

power

$ELD#1. +! ruled that nowhere fond in our !onstitution is the provision on

'earing ar"s as a constitutional right. The right to 'ear ar"s

then is a "ere statutory privilege unlike in the "erican!onstitution which was the law invoked 'y petitioner. Right to'ear ar"s is a "ere statutory creation as was o'served 'y thelaws passed to regulate the use ac%uisition transfer i"portationof firear"sI it cannot 'e considered an inaliena'le or a'soluteright.

2. The 'ulk of *urisprudence is that a license authori2ing a person toen*oy a certain privilege is neither a property nor property right. license is "erely a privilege to do what otherwise would 'eunlawful and is not a contract 'etween the granting authority and

the person to who" it is grantedI neither is it property right nodoes it create a vested right. +uch license "ay 'e revokedanyti"e when the authority dee"s it fit to do so and suchrevocation does not deprive the holder of any property oi""unity.

3. The test to deter"ine the validity of police "easure thus The interests of the pu'lic generally as distinguished fro"

those of a particular class re%uire the e&ercise of the policepowerI and

The "eans e"ployed are reasona'ly necessary for theacco"plish"ent of the purpose and not unduly oppressiveupon individuals. 4t is apparent fro" the assailed Guidelinesthat the 'asis for its issuance was the need for peace andorder in the society. $wing to the proliferation of cri"esparticularly those co""itted 'y 1# which tends to distur'the peace of the co""unity #res. rroyo dee"ed it 'est to

i"pose a nationwide gun 'an. Pndenia'ly the "otivatingfactor in the issuance of guidelines is the interest of thepu'lic in general. +uch "eans of revocation is thus a valide&ercise of police power.

#etition is here'y dis"issed.





- EMINENT DOMAIN -

WHO EXERCISES THE POWER?

GR No 14355 O:. 31, 1919CIT O" MANILA /S. C$INESE COMMUNIT CEMETER

"ACTS#

The !ity of Manila in e&ercising the owner of B"inent Do"ainpresented a petition in the !ourt of >irst 4nstance of said !ityraying that certain lands descri'ed therein 'e e&propriated for thepurpose of constructing a pu'lic i"prove"ent na"ely thee&tension of Ri2al venue Manila. Aerein respondents contendthat there are other parcels of land offered for such i"prove"entproposed 'y the !ity at a lesser cost and that the chosen parcelof land 'y the !ity is a ce"etery where the dead loved ones of the !hinese co""unity were 'uried. Aerien respondents alsoaverred that the !ity of Manila will have to spend a great deala"ount of "oney in the relocation and re'uilding of sepulchresto"'stones and "onu"ents of those affected 'y thee&propriation should they pursue to use the !hinese !e"etery.The trial *udge Aon. Del Rosario decided that there was nonecessity for the e&propriation of the particular strip of land in%uestion. The !ity of Manila appealed contending that under thelaw it has the authority to e&propriate any land it "ay desire andneither the court not the land owners can in%uire into theadvisa'le purpose of the e&propriation or ask concerning thenecessities thereforeI and that the courts are "ere appraisers of the land involved.

4SSUE# May the courts in%uire into and hear proof upon the necessityof the e&propriation3

$ELD# +ection /0: of ct no. :8 provides that 5 the govt. of the #hil

islands or of any province or depart"ent thereof or of any"unicipality and any person or pu'lic or private corporationhaving 'y law the right to conde"n private property for pu'licuse shall e&ercise that right in the "anner prescri'ed under +ec./0/( a co"plaint in e&propriation proceeding shall 'e presentedIthat the co"plaint shall state with certainty the right of

conde"nation with a description of the property sought to 'econde"ned together with the interest of each defendantseparately.). +ection /0@ provides that if the court shall find upontrial that the right to e&propriate the land in %uestion e&ists it shallthen appoint co""issioners. Thus +ec. /0@ "eans that whenthe legislature conferred upon the courts the right to ascertainupon trial whether the right e&ists for the e&ercise of e"inentdo"ain it intended that the courts should in%uire into and hear proof upon :. whether the purpose for the e&ercise of the right of e"inent do"ain is pu'licI and /.whether the land is pu'lic or private. +upre"e !ourt also averred that the e&ercise of the rightof e"inent do"ain is necessary in derogation of private rightsand the rule in that case is that the authority "ust 'e strictlyconstrued. Therefore if there is no greatest necessity e&isting for an e&propriation it should not 'e "ade for such purposes until itis fully esta'lished that such necessity e&ist. 4n the present case

even granting that a necessity e&ist for the opening of Ri2al +t.through the ce"etery record shows that ad*oining and ad*acentlands have 'een offered to the city free of charge which willanswer every purpose of the !ity of Manila. The ce"etery thenstill 'eing under care and "aintenance of the living should 'espared fro" such e&propriation where there are other landsoffered for e&propriation at a "uch lesser e&pense to serve thesa"e purpose. The *udg"ent of the lower court is here'yaffir"ed.

2+% SCRA 3+% 7199MODA !. COURT O" A66EALS

"ACTS# $n ?uly /@ : the +angguniang 9ayan of the Municipality o

9unawan in gusan del +ur passed Resolution 1o. 0@;Euthori2ing the Municipal Mayor to 4nitiate the #etition foB&propriation of a $ne (:) Aectare #ortion of <ot 1o. 7:@;#ls;0

long the 1ational Aighway $wned 'y #ercival Moday for the+ite of 9unawan >ar"ers !enter and $ther Govern"ent +ports>acilities.E

4n due ti"e Resolution 1o. 0@; was approved 'y then

Municipal Mayor nuncio !. 9ustillo and trans"itted to the+angguniang #anlalawigan for its approval. $n +epte"'er ::: the +angguniang #anlalawigan disapproved saidResolution and returned it with the co""ent that Ee&propriation isunnecessary considering that there are still availa'le lots in9unawan for the esta'lish"ent of the govern"ent center.E

The Municipality of 9unawan herein pu'lic respondentsu'se%uently filed a petition for B"inent Do"ain againspetitioner #ercival Moday 'efore the RT! at #rosperidad gusandel +ur.

$n March 7 :: pu'lic respondent "unicipality filed a Motionto Take or Bnter Ppon the #ossession of +u'*ect Matter of This!ase stating that it had already deposited with the "unicipatreasurer the necessary a"ount in accordance with +ection /Rule 7- of the Revised Rules of !ourt and that it would 'e in thegovern"entCs 'est interest for pu'lic respondent to 'e allowed to

take possession of the property. Despite petitionersC opposition and after a hearing on the "erits

the RT! granted respondent "unicipalityCs "otion to takepossession of the land. #etitionersC "otion for recon was denied'y the trial court. #etitioners elevated the case in a petition forcertiorari alleging grave a'use of discretion on the part of the triacourt 'ut was dis"issed 'y appellate court. The ! held that thepu'lic purpose for the e&propriation is clear fro" Resolution 1o0@; and that since the +angguniang #anlalawigan of gusandel +ur did not declare Resolution 1o. 0@; invalid e&propriationof petitionersC property could proceed. Respondent appellate couralso denied petitionersC "otion for recon.

Meanwhile the Municipality of 9unawan had erected three'uildings on the su'*ect property / wooden structures and one"ade of concrete.

ISSUE# hether or not the "unicipality to e&ercise the right to e"inendo"ain since the +angguniang #anlalawigan disapproved Resolution1o. 0@;.

$ELD# $n Dece"'er :@ the !ourt issued a te"porary restraining

order en*oining and restraining pu'lic respondent ?udgeBvangeline =uipco fro" enforcing her and responden"unicipality fro" using and occupying all the 'uildingsconstructed and fro" further constructing any 'uilding on the landsu'*ect of this petition.

cting on petitionersC $"ni'us Motion for Bnforce"ent oRestraining $rder and for !onte"pt the !ourt issued aResolution on March :, :, citing incu"'ent "unicipal "ayo

nuncio !. 9ustillo for conte"pt ordering hi" to pay the fine andto de"olish the E'locktiendasE which were 'uilt in violation of therestraining order.

>or"er Mayor nuncio !. 9ustillo paid the fine and "anifestedthat he lost in the May :, election. The incu"'ent Mayo<eonardo 9arrios filed a Manifestation Motion to ResolveEPrgent Motion for 4""ediate Dissolution of the Te"poraryRestraining $rderE and Me"orandu" on ?une :: :7 for theMunicipality of 9unawan.

#etitioners contend that the ! erred in upholding the legality othe conde"nation proceedings initiated 'y the "unicipality

ccording to petitioners the e&propriation was politically





"otivated and Resolution 1o. 0@; was correctly disapproved 'ythe +angguniang #anlalawigan.

The ! declared that the +angguniang #anlalawiganCs reason for disapproving the resolution Ecould 'e 'aseless 'ecause it failedto point out which and where are those availa'le lots.CERespondent court also concluded that since the +angguniang#anlalawigan did not declare the "unicipal 'oardCs resolution asinvalid e&propriation of petitionersC property could proceed. The!ourt finds no "erit in the petition and affir"s the decision of the!.

B"inent do"ain the power which the Municipality of 9unawane&ercised in the instant case is a funda"ental +tate power that isinsepara'le fro" sovereignty. 4t is govern"entCs right toappropriate in the nature of a co"pulsory sale to the +tateprivate property for pu'lic use or purpose. 4nherently possessed'y the national legislature the power of e"inent do"ain "ay 'evalidly delegated to local govern"ents other pu'lic entities andpu'lic utilities. >or the taking of private property 'y thegovern"ent to 'e valid the taking "ust 'e for pu'lic use andthere "ust 'e *ust co"pensation.

The Municipality of 9unawanCs power to e&ercise the right of e"inent do"ain is not disputed as it is e&pressly provided for in9atas #a"'ansa 9lg. @@- the local Govern"ent !ode in force atthe ti"e e&propriation proceedings were initiated. +ection of said law states

+ec. . B"inent Do"ain. Q local govern"ent unit "aythrough its head and acting pursuant to a resolution of itssanggunian e&ercise the right of e"inent do"ain and instituteconde"nation proceedings for pu'lic use or purpose.

+ection :,@ of 9.#. 9lg. @@- provides+ec. :,@. +angguniang #anlalawigan Review. Q (:) ithinthirty days after receiving copies of approved ordinancesresolutions and e&ecutive orders pro"ulgated 'y the "unicipal"ayor the sangguniang panlalawigan shall e&a"ine thedocu"ents or trans"it the" to the provincial attorney or if there 'e none to the provincial fiscal who shall e&a"ine the"pro"ptly and infor" the sangguniang panlalawigan in writingof any defect or i"propriety which he "ay discover therein and"ake such co""ents or reco""endations as shall appear tohi" proper.

(/) 4f the sangguniang panlalawigan shall find that any "unicipal

ordinance resolution or e&ecutive order is 'eyond the power conferred upon the sangguniang 'ayan or the "ayor it shalldeclare such ordinance resolution or e&ecutive order invalid inwhole or in part entering its actions upon the "inutes andadvising the proper "unicipal authorities thereof. The effect of such an action shall 'e to annul the ordinance resolution or e&ecutive order in %uestion in whole or in part. The action of thesangguniang panlalawigan shall 'e final. &&& &&& &&& (B"phasissupplied.)

The +angguniang #anlalawiganCs disapproval of MunicipalResolution 1o. 0@; is an infir" action which does not render said resolution null and void. The law as e&pressed in +ection:,@ of 9.#. 9lg. @@- grants the +angguniang #anlalawigan thepower to declare a "unicipal resolution invalid on the sole groundthat it is 'eyond the power of the +angguniang 9ayan or theMayor to issue.

Thus the +angguniang #anlalawigan was without the authority todisapprove Municipal Resolution 1o. 0@; for the Municipality of 9unawan clearly has the power to e&ercise the right of e"inentdo"ain and its +angguniang 9ayan the capacity to pro"ulgatesaid resolution pursuant to the earlier;%uoted +ection of 9.#.9lg. @@-. #erforce it follows that Resolution 1o. 0@; is validand 'inding and could 'e used as lawful authority to petition for the conde"nation of petitionersC property.

s regards the accusation of political oppression it is alleged that#ercival Moday incurred the ire of then Mayor nuncio !. 9ustillowhen he refused to support the latterCs candidacy for "ayor inprevious elections. #etitioners clai" that then incu"'ent Mayor

!. 9ustillo used the e&propriation to retaliate 'y e&propriating theiland even if there were other properties 'elonging to the"unicipality and availa'le for the purpose. +pecifically theyallege that the "unicipality owns a vacant seven;hectare propertyad*acent to petitionersC land evidenced 'y a sketch plan.

The li"itations on the power of e"inent do"ain are that the use"ust 'e pu'lic co"pensation "ust 'e "ade and due process oflaw "ust 'e o'served. The +upre"e !ourt taking cogni2ance osuch issues as the ade%uacy of co"pensation necessity of thetaking and the pu'lic use character or the purpose of the taking

has ruled that the necessity of e&ercising e"inent do"ain "ust'e genuine and of a pu'lic character. Govern"ent "ay nocapriciously choose what private property should 'e taken.

fter a careful study of the records of the case however we findno evidentiary support for petitionersC allegations. The uncertifiedphotocopy of the sketch plan does not conclusively prove that the"unicipality does own vacant land ad*acent to petitionersproperty suited to the purpose of the e&propriation. 4n the%uestioned decision respondent appellate court si"ilarly held thathe pleadings and docu"ents on record have not pointed out anyof respondent "unicipalityCs Eother availa'le properties availa'lefor the sa"e purpose.E The accusations of political reprisal arelikewise unsupported 'y co"petent evidence. !onse%uently the!ourt holds that petitionersC de"and that the for"er "unicipa"ayor 'e personally lia'le for da"ages is without 'asis.

ABRB>$RB the instant petition is here'y DB14BD. The%uestioned Decision and Resolution of the !ourt of ppeals are >>4RMBD. The Te"porary Restraining $rder issued 'y the!ourt is <4>TBD.

GR No. 13+349, &8('8r 23, 200+MASII6 !. CIT O" 6ASIG

"ACTS# #etitioner <ourdes Dela #a2 Masikip is the registered owner of a

parcel of land with an area of 0,/: s%uare "eters located a#ag;sa !aniogan #asig !ity Metro Manila.

4n a letter dated ?anuary 7 :0 the then Municipality of #asignow !ity of #asig respondent notified petitioner of its intention toe&propriate a :,88 s%uare "eter portion of her property to 'eused for the Esports develop"ent and recreational activitiesE othe residents of 9arangay !aniogan. This was pursuant to$rdinance 1o. 0/ +eries of :@ enacted 'y the thenSangguniang .ayan of #asig.

gain on March /@ :0 respondent wrote another letter topetitioner 'ut this ti"e the purpose was allegedly Ein line with theprogra" of the Municipal Govern"ent to provide landopportunities to deserving poor sectors of our co""unity.E

$n May / :0 petitioner sent a reply to respondent stating thathe intended e&propriation of her property is unconstitutionalinvalid and oppressive as the area of her lot is neither sufficientnor suita'le to Eprovide land opportunities to deserving poosectors of our co""unity.E

4n its letter of Dece"'er /8 :0 respondent reiterated that thepurpose of the e&propriation of petitioner’s property is Eto providesports and recreational facilities to its poor residents.E

+u'se%uently on >e'ruary /: :, respondent filed with thetrial court a co"plaint for e&propriation docketed as +! 1o-@. Respondent prayed that the trial court after due notice andhearing issue an order for the conde"nation of the propertyI thaco""issioners 'e appointed for the purpose of deter"ining the

*ust co"pensationI and that *udg"ent 'e rendered 'ased on thereport of the co""issioners.

$n pril /, :, petitioner filed a Motion to Dis"iss and on May- :7 the trial court issued an $rder denying the Motion toDis"iss on the ground that :?)r) i! 8 @)('i() ())!!i: :o);propri8:) :?) prop)r: >or :?) !por:! 8(< r)r)8:io(88:ii:i)! o> :?) r)!i<)(:! o> 68!i@. s to the issue of *us





co"pensation the trial court held that the sa"e is to 'edeter"ined in accordance with the Revised Rules of !ourt.

#etitioner filed a "otion for recon 'ut it was denied 'y the trialcourt. >orthwith it appointed the !ity ssessor and !ity Treasurer of #asig !ity as co""issioners to ascertain the *ustco"pensation. This pro"pted petitioner to file with the !ourt of

ppeals a special civil action for certiorari . $n $cto'er @: :-the ppellate !ourt dis"issed the petition for lack of "erit.

#etitioner’s Motion for Recon was denied.

ISSUE# hat constitutes a genuine necessity for pu'lic use.

$ELD# here the taking 'y the +tate of private property is done for the

'enefit of a s"all co""unity which seeks to have its own sportsand recreational facility notwithstanding that there is such arecreational facility only a short distance away such taking cannot'e considered to 'e for pu'lic use. 4ts e&propriation is not valid. 4nthis case the !ourt defines what constitutes a genuine necessityfor pu'lic use.

4n the early case of /S v* Toribio this !ourt defined the power of e"inent do"ain as Ethe right of a govern"ent to take andappropriate private property to pu'lic use whenever the pu'lice&igency re%uires it which can 'e done only on condition of

providing a reasona'le co"pensation therefor.E 4t has also 'eendescri'ed as the power of the +tate or its instru"entalities to takeprivate property for pu'lic use and is insepara'le fro" sovereigntyand inherent in govern"ent.

The power of e"inent do"ain is lodged in the legislative 'ranchof the govern"ent. 4t delegates the e&ercise thereof to localgovern"ent units other pu'lic entities and pu'lic utilitycorporations su'*ect only to !onstitutional li"itations. <ocalgovern"ents have no inherent power of e"inent do"ain and "aye&ercise it only when e&pressly authori2ed 'y statute. +ection :of the <ocal Govern"ent !ode of :: (Repu'lic ct 1o. -:78)prescri'es the delegation 'y !ongress of the power of e"inentdo"ain to local govern"ent units and lays down the para"etersfor its e&ercise thus

E+B!. :. $+inent o+ain. L local govern"ent unit "aythrough its chief e&ecutive and acting pursuant to an ordinance

e&ercise the power of e"inent do"ain for pu'lic use purposeor welfare for the 'enefit of the poor and the landless uponpay"ent of *ust co"pensation pursuant to the provisions of the!onstitution and pertinent laws Provided, ho#ever That thepower of e"inent do"ain "ay not 'e e&ercised unless a validand definite offer has 'een previously "ade to the owner andsuch offer was not accepted Provided further That the localgovern"ent unit "ay i""ediately take possession of theproperty upon the filing of e&propriation proceedings and upon"aking a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteenpercent (:,) of the fair "arket value of the property 'ased onthe current ta& declaration of the property to 'e e&propriatedProvided finally That the a"ount to 'e paid for e&propriatedproperty shall 'e deter"ined 'y the proper court 'ased on thefair "arket value at the ti"e of the taking of the property.E

?udicial review of the e&ercise of e"inent do"ain is li"ited to the

following areas of concern (a) the ade%uacy of the co"pensation(') the necessity of the taking and (c) the pu'lic use character of the purpose of the taking.

The right to take private property for pu'lic purposes necessarilyoriginates fro" Ethe necessityE and the taking "ust 'e li"ited tosuch necessity. 4n City of Manila v* Chinese Co++unity of Manilawe held that :?) )r >o'(<8:io( o> :?) ri@?: :o );)ri!))i()(: <o8i( i! 8 @)('i() ())!!i: 8(< :?8: ())!!i:'!: ) o> 8 p'li ?8r8:)r . Moreover the ascertain"ent of the necessity "ust precede or acco"pany and not follow thetaking of the land. 4n City of Manila v* 0rellano -a# College weruled that Enecessity within the rule that the particular property to'e e&propriated "ust 'e necessary does not "ean an a'solute

'ut only a reasona'le or practical necessity such as wouldco"'ine the greatest 'enefit to the pu'lic with the leasinconvenience and e&pense to the conde"ning party and theproperty owner consistent with such 'enefit.E

pplying this standard we hold that respondent !ity of #asig hasfailed to esta'lish that there is a genuine necessity to e&propriatepetitioner’s property. $ur scrutiny of the records shows that the'asis for the passage of the $rdinance authori2ing thee&propriation indicates that the intended 'eneficiary is theMelendres !o"pound Ao"eowners ssociation a private non

profit organi2ation not the residents of !aniogan. 4t can 'egleaned that the "e"'ers of the said ssociation are desirous ohaving their own private playground and recreational facility#etitioner’s lot is the nearest vacant space availa'le. The purposeis therefore not clearly and categorically pu'lic. The necessityhas not 'een shown especially considering that there e&ists analternative facility for sports develop"ent and co""unityrecreation in the area which is the Rainforest #ark availa'le toall residents of #asig !ity including those of !aniogan.

W$ERE"ORE the petition for review is GRANTED. Thechallenged Decision and Resolution of the ! are RE/ERSEDThe co"plaint for e&propriation filed 'efore the trial court 'yrespondent !ity of #asig is DISMISSED.

GR No. 1554+, O:o)r 03, 2004LAGCAO !. &UDGE LA*RA

"ACTS# 4n :70 the #rovince of !e'u donated /:8 lots to the !ity of

!e'u. $ne of these lots was <ot :8/ situated in !apitol Aills!e'u !ity with an area of 080 s%uare "eters. 4n :7,petitioners purchased <ot :8/. 9ut then in late :7, the /:8lots reverted to the #rovince of !e'u. !onse%uently the provincetried to annul the sale of <ot 'y the !ity of !e'u to the petitionersThis pro"pted the latter to sue the province for specificperfor"ance and da"ages in the then !>4.

$n ?uly :7 the court a 1uo ruled in favor of petitioners andon ?une :: :/ the !ourt of ppeals affir"ed the decision othe trial court. #ursuant to the ruling of the appellate court the#rovince of !e'u e&ecuted a deed of a'solute sale over <ot :8/in favor of petitioners.

fter ac%uiring title petitioners tried to take possession of the loonly to discover that s%uatters already occupied it. Thuspetitioners instituted e*ect"ent proceedings against the s%uattersThe MT!! rendered a decision on pril : : ordering thes%uatters to vacate the lot. $n appeal the RT! affir"ed theMT!!’s decision and issued a writ of e&ecution and order ode"olition.

Aowever when the de"olition order was a'out to 'ei"ple"ented !e'u !ity Mayor lvin Garcia wrote two letters tothe MT!! re%uesting the defer"ent of the de"olition on theground that the !ity was still looking for a relocation site for thes%uatters. cting on the "ayor’s re%uest the MT!! issued twoorders suspending the de"olition for a period of :/8 days fro">e'ruary // :. Pnfortunately for petitioners during thesuspension period the Sangguniang Panlungsod (+#) of !e'u

!ity passed a resolution which identified <ot :8/ as a sociali2edhousing site pursuant to R -/-. Then on ?une @8 : the+# of !e'u !ity passed $rdinance 1o. :--/ which included <ot:8/ a"ong the identified sites for sociali2ed housing. $n ?uly: /888 $rdinance 1o. :0@ was enacted 'y the +# of !e'u!ity authori2ing the "ayor of !e'u !ity to initiate e&propriationproceedings for the ac%uisition of <ot :8/ which was registeredin the na"e of petitioners. The intended ac%uisition was to 'eused for the 'enefit of the ho"eless after its su'division and saleto the actual occupants thereof. >or this purpose the ordinanceappropriated the a"ount of #7:788 for the pay"ent of thesu'*ect lot. This ordinance was approved 'y Mayor Garcia on

ugust / /888.





$n ugust / /888 petitioners filed with the RT! an action for declaration of nullity of $rdinance 1o. :0@ for 'eingunconstitutional. The trial court dis"issed the co"plaint filed 'ypetitioners whose su'se%uent "otion for recon was also denied.

4n this appeal petitioners argue that $rdinance 1o. :0@ isunconstitutional as it sanctions the e&propriation of their propertyfor the purpose of selling it to the s%uatters an endeavor contraryto the concept of Epu'lic useE conte"plated in the !onstitution.They allege that it will 'enefit only a handful of people. The

ordinance according to petitioners was o'viously passed for politicking the s%uatters undenia'ly 'eing a 'ig source of votes.

ISSUE# hether or not the intended e&propriation 'y the !ity of !e'uof a 080;s%uare;"eter parcel of land owned 'y petitionerscontravenes the !onstitution and applica'le laws.

$ELD# <ocal govern"ent units have no inherent power of e"inent

do"ain and can e&ercise it only when e&pressly authori2ed 'y thelegislature. 9y virtue of R -:78 !ongress conferred upon localgovern"ent units the power to e&propriate. $rdinance 1o. :0@was enacted pursuant to +ection : of R -:78

+B!. :. B"inent Do"ain. － local govern"ent unit "aythrough its chief e&ecutive and acting pursuant to an ordinance

e&ercise the power of e"inent do"ain for pu'lic use or purpose or welfare for the 'enefit of the poor and the landlessupon pay"ent of *ust co"pensation pursuant to the provisionsof the Constitution and pertinent la#s &&&. (italics supplied).

$rdinance 1o. :0@ which authori2ed the e&propriation of petitioners’ lot was enacted 'y the +# of !e'u !ity to providesociali2ed housing for the ho"eless and low;inco"e residents of the !ity.

There are two legal provisions which li"it the e&ercise of thispower (:) no person shall 'e deprived of life li'erty or propertywithout due process of law nor shall any person 'e denied thee%ual protection of the lawsI and (/) private property shall not 'etaken for pu'lic use without *ust co"pensation. Thus the e&ercise'y local govern"ent units of the power of e"inent do"ain is nota'solute.

The foundation of the right to e&ercise e"inent do"ain is genuinenecessity and that necessity "ust 'e of pu'lic character.Govern"ent "ay not capriciously or ar'itrarily choose whichprivate property should 'e e&propriated. 4n this case there wasno showing at all why petitioners’ property was singled out for e&propriation 'y the city ordinance or what necessity i"pelled theparticular choice or selection. $rdinance 1o. :0@ stated noreason for the choice of petitioners’ property as the site of asociali2ed housing pro*ect.

R -/- is the law that governs the local e&propriation of propertyfor purposes of ur'an land refor" and housing. +ections and :8thereof provide

+B! . Priorities in the 0c1uisition of -and . － <ands for sociali2ed housing shall 'e ac%uired in the following order(a) Those owned 'y the Govern"ent or any of its su'divisionsinstru"entalities or agencies including govern"ent;owned or

controlled corporations and their su'sidiariesI(') liena'le lands of the pu'lic do"ainI(c) Pnregistered or a'andoned and idle landsI(d) Those within the declared reas or #riority Develop"entonal 4"prove"ent #rogra" sites and +lu" 4"prove"ent andResettle"ent #rogra" sites which have not yet 'een ac%uiredI(e) 9agong <ipunan 4"prove"ent of +ites and +ervices or 9<4++ which have not yet 'een ac%uiredI and(f) 6ri8:)l-o()< l8(<!.here on;site develop"ent is found "ore practica'le andadvantageous to the 'eneficiaries the priorities "entioned inthis section shall not apply. The local govern"ent units shallgive 'udgetary priority to on;site develop"ent of govern"ent

lands. (B"phasis supplied). +B!. :8. Modes of -and 0c1uisition. － The "odes of ac%uiring

lands for purposes of this ct shall include a"ong othersco""unity "ortgage land swapping land asse"'ly oconsolidation land 'anking donation to the Govern"ent *oinventure agree"ent negotiated purchase and e&propriation#rovided however T?8: );propri8:io( !?8ll ) r)!or:)< :oo(l ?)( o:?)r o<)! o> 8'i!i:io( ?8) ))( );?8'!:)<#rovided further That where e&propriation is resorted to parcelsof land owned 'y s"all property owners shall 'e e&e"pted fo

purposes of this ct &&&. (B"phasis supplied). 4n the recent case of $state or 2eirs of the -ate $x3&ustice &ose

.*-* Reyes et al* vs* City of Manila, we ruled that the a'ove%uoted provisions are strict li"itations on the e&ercise of thepower of e"inent do"ain 'y local govern"ent units especiallywith respect to (:) the order of priority in ac%uiring land fosociali2ed housing and (/) the resort to e&propriation proceedingsas a "eans to ac%uiring it. #rivate lands rank last in the order ofpriority for purposes of sociali2ed housing. 4n the sa"e veine&propriation proceedings "ay 'e resorted to only after the othe"odes of ac%uisition are e&hausted. !o"pliance with theseconditions is 8(<8:or 'ecause these are the only safeguardsof oftenti"es helpless owners of private property against what"ay 'e a tyrannical violation of due process when their propertyis forci'ly taken fro" the" allegedly for pu'lic use.

e have found nothing in the records indicating that the !ity o!e'u co"plied strictly with +ections and :8 of R -/-$rdinance 1o. :0@ sought to e&propriate petitioners’ propertywithout any atte"pt to first ac%uire the lands listed in (a) to (e) o+ection of R -/-. <ikewise !e'u !ity failed to esta'lish thathe other "odes of ac%uisition in +ection :8 of R -/- were firse&hausted. Moreover prior to the passage of $rdinance 1o:0@ there was no evidence of a valid and definite offer to 'uypetitioners’ property as re%uired 'y +ection : of R -:78. etherefore find $rdinance 1o. :0@ to 'e constitutionally infir" fo'eing violative of the petitioners’ right to due process.

4t should also 'e noted that as early as : petitioners hadalready o'tained a favora'le *udg"ent of eviction against theillegal occupants of their property. The *udg"ent in this e*ect"encase had in fact already attained finality with a writ of e&ecutionand an order of de"olition. 9ut Mayor Garcia re%uested the tria

court to suspend the de"olition on the prete&t that the !ity wasstill searching for a relocation site for the s%uatters. Aoweverinstead of looking for a relocation site during the suspensionperiod the city council suddenly enacted $rdinance 1o. :0@ fothe e&propriation of petitioners’ lot. The unconsciona'le "anner inwhich the %uestioned ordinance was passed clearly indicated tharespondent !ity transgressed the !onstitution R -:78 and R-/-.

>or an ordinance to 'e valid it "ust not only 'e within thecorporate powers of the city or "unicipality to enact 'ut "ust also'e passed according to the procedure prescri'ed 'y law. 4t "us'e in accordance with certain well;esta'lished 'asic principles oa su'stantive nature. These principles re%uire that an ordinance(:) "ust not contravene the !onstitution or any statute (/) "ustnot 'e unfair or oppressive (@) "ust not 'e partial odiscri"inatory (0) "ust not prohi'it 'ut "ay regulate trade (,"ust 'e general and consistent with pu'lic policy and (7) "ustnot 'e unreasona'le.

$rdinance 1o. :0@ failed to co"ply with the foregoingsu'stantive re%uire"ents. clear case of constitutional infir"ityhaving 'een thus esta'lished this !ourt is constrained to nullifythe su'*ect ordinance. e recapitulate

first the %uestioned ordinance is repugnant to the pertinenprovisions of the !onstitution R -/- and R -:78Isecond the precipitate "anner in which it was enacted wasplain oppression "as%uerading as a pro;poor ordinanceIthird the fact that petitioners’ s"all property was singled out foe&propriation for the purpose of awarding it to no "ore than afew s%uatters indicated "anifest partiality against petitioners





andfourth, the ordinance failed to show that there was areasona'le relation 'etween the end sought and the "eansadopted. hile the o'*ective of the !ity of !e'u was to provideade%uate housing to slu" dwellers the "eans it e"ployed inpursuit of such o'*ective fell short of what was legal sensi'leand called for 'y the circu"stances.

G.R. No. 152230. A'@'!: 9, 2005&ESUS IS LORD C$RISTIAN SC$OOL "OUNDATION, INC. vs.

MUNICI6ALIT 7(o CIT O" 6ASIG, METRO MANILA

The assailed decision affir+ed the order of the Regional Trial Court 4RTC5 of Pasig, .ranch (67, declaring the respondent Municipality 4no# City5 of Pasig as having the right to expropriate and ta8e

possession of the sub9ect property*

"ACTS# The Municipality of #asig needed an access road fro" B. R.

+antos +treet a "unicipal road near the #asig #u'lic Market to9arangay +to. To"as 9ukid #asig where 78 to -8 houses"ostly "ade of light "aterials were located. The road had to 'eat least three "eters in width as re%uired 'y the >ire !ode sothat fire trucks could pass through in case of conflagration.<ikewise the residents in the area needed the road for water andelectrical outlets.

The "unicipality then decided to ac%uire ,:

s%uare "eters out of the :-:;s%uare "eter property of <oren2o!hing !uanco Victor !hing !uanco and Brnesto !hing !uancoSho.

$n pril : :@ the Sangguniang .ayan of #asig approved an$rdinance

authori2ing the "unicipal "ayor to initiate

e&propriation proceedings to ac%uire the said property andappropriate the fund therefore. The ordinance stated that theproperty owners were notified of the "unicipality’s intent topurchase the property for pu'lic use as an access road 'ut theyre*ected the offer.$n ?uly /: :@ the "unicipality filed a

co"plaint a"ended on ugust 7 :@ against the !hing!uancos for the e&propriation of the property under +ection : of Repu'lic ct (R..) 1o. -:78 otherwise known as the <ocalGovern"ent !ode. The plaintiff alleged that it already notified thedefendants 'y letter of its intention to construct an access roadon a portion of the property 'ut they refused to sell the sa"eportion.

The plaintiff deposited with the RT! :, of the "arket value of the property 'ased on the latest ta& declaration covering theproperty. $n plaintiff’s "otion the RT! issued a writ of possession over the property sought to 'e e&propriated. $n1ove"'er /7 :@ the plaintiff caused the annotation of a noticeof lis pendens at the dorsal portion under the na"e of the ?esus4s <ord !hristian +chool >oundation 4ncorporated (?4<!+>4)which had purchased the property.

Thereafter the plaintiff

constructed therein a ce"ented road with a width of three "etersIthe road was called Da"ayan +treet.

4n their answer the defendants clai"ed that as early as >e'ruary

:@ they had sold the said property to ?4<!+>4 as evidenced 'ya deed of sale

'earing the signature of defendant Brnesto !hing

!uanco Sho and his wife.

?4<!+>4 averred 'y way of special and affir"ative defenses thatthe plaintiff’s e&ercise of e"inent do"ain was only for a particular class and not for the 'enefit of the poor and the landless. 4talleged that the property sought to 'e e&propriated is not the 'estportion for the road and the least 'urdenso"e to it.

The intervenor filed a crossclai" against its co;defendants for rei"'urse"ent in case the su'*ect property is e&propriated.

The petitioner asserts that the respondent "ust co"ply with there%uire"ents for the esta'lish"ent of an ease"ent of right;of;way "ore specifically the road "ust 'e constructed at the pointleast pre*udicial to the servient state and that there "ust 'e noade%uate outlet to a pu'lic highway. The petitioner asserts that

the portion of the lot sought to 'e e&propriated is located at the"iddle portion of the petitioner’s entire parcel of land there'ysplitting the lot into two halves and "aking it i"possi'le for thepetitioner to put up its school 'uilding and worship center.

During the trial the plaintiff presented witnesses who wereresidents of the town testifying that it was they who re%uested fothe construction of the road.

The defendant on the other hand presented so"e residents whocounterclai"ed that there are other roads leading to B. R. +antos

+treet. $n +epte"'er @ :- the RT! issued an $rder in favor of the

plaintiff. The RT! held that there was su'stantial co"pliance withthe definite and valid offer re%uire"ent of +ection : of R.. 1o-:78 and that the e&propriated portion is the "ost convenienaccess to the interior of +to. To"as 9ukid.

Dissatisfied ?4<!+>4 elevated the case to the !ourt of ppeals. 4n a Decision dated March :@ /88: the ! affir"ed the order of

the RT!. The appellate court upheld the pu'lic necessity for thesu'*ect property 'ased on the findings of the trial court that theportion of the property sought to 'e e&propriated appears to 'enot only the "ost convenient access to the interior of +to. To"as9ukid 'ut also an easy path for vehicles entering the areaparticularly fire trucks.

Moreover the ! took into consideration the provision of rticle

@@ of the Rules and Regulations 4"ple"enting the <ocaGovern"ent !ode which regards the 5construction or e&tensionof roads streets sidewalks6 as pu'lic use purpose or welfare.

ISSUE# $1 the su'*ect property which is intended to 'e used forpu'lic purposes "ay 'e e&propriated 'y the respondent.

$ELD# 1o the su'*ect property although intended for pu'lic cannot 'ee&propriated 'y the Municipality of #asig. The +upre"e !ourt held that failed to show the necessity for

constructing the road particularly in the petitioner’s property andnot elsewhere.

s correctly pointed out 'y the petitioner there is no showing inthe record that an ocular inspection was conducted during thetrial. 4f at all the trial court conducted an ocular inspection of the

su'*ect property during the trial the petitioner was not notified. The petitioner was therefore deprived of its right to due process4n this case the petitioner was not notified of any oculainspection of the property any factual finding of the court 'asedon the said inspection has no pro'ative weight. The findings othe trial court 'ased on the conduct of the ocular inspection "usttherefore 'e re*ected.

IN LIG$T O" ALL T$E "OREGOING the petition is GR1TBD.The Decision and Resolution of the !ourt of ppeals areRBVBR+BD 1D +BT +4DB. The RT! is ordered to dis"iss theco"plaint of the respondent without pre*udice to the refilingthereof.

G.R. No. 1+3130, S)p:))r , 200SAN ROFUE REALT AND DE/ELO6MENT COR6ORATION !.RE6U*LIC O" T$E 6$ILI66INES 7:?ro'@? :?) Ar)< "or)! o

:?) 6?ilippi()!

"ACTS# The su'*ect parcels of land are located at <ahug !e'u !ity and

were part of <ot 1o. @@. <ot 1o. @@ was covered 'y Transfer!ertificate of Title 1o. ::07. 4t was originally owned 'y 4s"ael DRosales #antaleon !a'rera and >rancisco Raca2a. $n ,+epte"'er :@ su'*ect parcels of land together with seventeen(:-) others were the su'*ect of an e&propriation proceedinginitiated 'y the then !o""onwealth of the #hilippines docketedas !ivil !ase 1o. -:. $n : $cto'er :@ ?udge >eli& Martine2ordered the initial deposit of #,88.88 as pre;condition for the





entry on the lands sought to 'e e&propriated. $n :0 May :08 aDecision was rendered conde"ning the parcels of land. Aoweverthe title of the su'*ect parcel of land was not transferred to thegovern"ent.

Bventually the land was su'divided and T.!.T. 1o. ::07 wascancelled and new titles were issued 'y the Register of Deeds of !e'u. Two parcels covered 'y T.!.T. 1os. :/:- (<ot 1o. @@;9;@) and :/: (<ot 1o. @@;9;0) were ac%uired 'y defendant;appellee. 4n :, defendant;appellee 'egun construction of townhouses on the su'*ect parcels of land.

$n // >e'ruary :7 plaintiff;appellant filed the present casealleging that it is the owner of the su'*ect parcels of land 'y virtueof the :@ Decision in the e&propriation case thus T.!.T. 1os.:/:- and :/: are null and void. 4t argued that defendant;appellee had no right to possess the su'*ect properties 'ecauseit was not its lawful owner.

4n its nswer defendant;appellee clai"ed that it was a 'uyer ingood faith. 4t also clai"ed that there was no valid e&propriation'ecause it was initiated 'y the e&ecutive 'ranch withoutlegislative approval. 4t also alleged that the e&propriation wasnever consu""ated 'ecause the govern"ent did not actuallyenter the land nor were the owners paid any co"pensation

$n ugust /, : the RT! rendered a Decision dis"issing the

Repu'licCs co"plaint and upholding +RRD!Cs ownership over thesu'*ect properties as supported 'y +RRD!Cs actual possession

thereof and its un%ualified title thereto. The RT! ruled that+RRD!Cs ownership is 'orne out 'y the original ownerCs title to<ot 1o. @@ and the su'se%uent transferees’ respective titles allof which 'ore no annotation of the fact of e&propriation and didnot indicate the Repu'licCs favora'le lien. 4t also found that therewas no valid e&propriation since the records are 'ereft of ashowing that consideration was paid for the su'*ect properties.

ggrieved the Repu'lic appealed the decision to the ! insistingon its a'solute ownership over the su'*ect properties grounded onthe following (:) the !>4 Decision in the e&propriation case !ivil!ase 1o. -:I (/) the ruling of this !ourt in Valdehue2a v.Repu'lic and (@) the e&propriated properties including <ot 1o.@@ are devoted to pu'lic use.

The ! reversed the RT! Decision on the finding that the appealfro" the !>4 Decision in the e&propriation case was never

perfected 'y the original owners of the su'*ect properties andthus the e&propriation of <ot 1o. @@ 'eca"e final and 'inding onthe original owners and +RRD! which "erely stepped into thelatterCs shoes is si"ilarly 'ound. The ! further held that lachesand estoppel cannot work against the Repu'lic despite its failurefro" :08 to register <ot 1o. @@ in its na"e or to record thedecree of e&propriation on the title. ccordingly the ! found nonecessity to rule on the applica'ility of aldehueza v* Republic inthe case.

Aence the instant petition.

ISSUES#1. hether respondent clai"ing its right to e"inent do"ain

was the dutiful owner of the su'*ect property despite failureto register it.

2. hether petitioner was a 'uyer of good faith

$ELD# The +upre"e !ourt ruled in favor of petitioner on 'oth issues. Ti"e and again the +! declared that e"inent do"ain cases are

to 'e strictly construed against the e&propriator. The pay"ent of *ust co"pensation for private property taken for pu'lic use is anindispensa'le re%uisite for the e&ercise of the +tate’s sovereignpower of e"inent do"ain. >ailure to o'serve this re%uire"entrenders the taking ineffectual notwithstanding the avowed pu'licpurpose. To disregard this li"itation on the e&ercise of govern"ental power to e&propriate is to ride roughshod over private rights.

>ro" the records of this case and our previous findings in therelated cases the Repu'lic "anifestly failed to present clear andconvincing evidence of full pay"ent of *ust co"pensation andreceipt thereof 'y the property owners.

+ection /,: of the !ode of !ivil #rocedure the law in force at theti"e of the Co++on#ealthcase likewise provides for therecording of the *udg"ent of e&propriation in the Registry oDeeds. +aid provision reads to wit+B!. /,:. %inal &udg+ent, :ts Record and $ffect . L The record o

the final *udg"ent in such action shall state definitely 'y "etesand 'ounds and ade%uate description. The particular land ointerest in land conde"ned to the pu'lic use and the nature ofthe pu'lic use. A )r:i>i)< op o> :?) r)or< o> ='<@)(: !?8l) r)or<)< i( :?) o>>i) o> :?) r)@i!:r8r o> <))<! >or :?)proi() i( ?i? :?) )!:8:) i! !i:'8:)<, 8(< i:! )>>): !?8l) :o )!: i( :?) pl8i(:i>> >or :?) p'li '!) !:8:)< :?) l8(<8(< )!:8:) !o <)!ri)<. (B"phasis supplied)

>ro" the foregoing it is clear that it was incu"'ent upon theRepu'lic to cause the registration of the su'*ect properties in itsna"e or record the decree of e&propriation on the title. =et notonly did the Repu'lic fail to register the su'*ect properties in itsna"e it failed to do so for fifty;si& (,7) years.

nother 'asic %uestion is whether or not +RRD! is a 'uyer ingood faith.

The ! found +RRD! wanting in good faith 'ecause it should 'ei"puted with constructive knowledge or at least sufficientlywarned that the Repu'lic had clai"s over the property in view oindications that the su'*ect land 'elonged to a "ilitary reservation

n innocent purchaser for value is one who relying on thecertificate of title 'ought the property fro" the registered ownerwithout notice that so"e other person has a right to or interest insuch property and pays a full and fair price for the sa"e at theti"e of such purchase or 'efore he has notice of the clai" ointerest of so"e other person in the property.

4n the instant case the Repu'lic’s adverse clai" of ownershipover the su'*ect properties "ay have given +RRD!’spredecessors;in;interest the sellers voida'le title to the su'*ecproperties. Aowever we stress that prior to +RRD!’s ac%uisitionof the su'*ect properties <ot 1o. @@ had already 'eensu'divided and covered 'y separate titles of the su'se%uen

transferees. These titles including the titles to the su'*ecproperties had not 'een voided at the ti"e of the sale to +RRD!in :0. s such +RRD! ac%uired good title to the su'*ecproperties having purchased the" in good faith for value andwithout notice of the seller’s defect of title if any.

W$ERE"ORE pre"ises considered the petition is GRANTED

The ugust :, /88@ Decision of the !ourt of ppeals is here'yRE/ERSEDand the ugust /, : Decision of the RegionaTrial !ourt is REINSTATED. T!T 1os. :/:- and :/: in thena"e of petitioner +an Ro%ue Realty and Develop"en!orporation are upheld and declared valid.

OBJECTS OF EXPROPRIATION

G.R. No. L-1%%41, &8('8r 2, 19+9

R6 !. 6$ILI66INE LONG DISTANCE TELE6$ONE COM6AN

"ACTS# +o"eti"e in :@@ the defendant #<DT and the R!

!o""unications 4nc. entered into an agree"ent where'ytelephone "essages co"ing fro" the Pnited +tates and received'y R!Cs do"estic station could auto"atically 'e transferred tothe lines of #<DTI and vice;versa for calls collected 'y the #<DTfor trans"ission fro" the #hilippines to the Pnited +tates.

The arrange"ent was later e&tended to radio;telephone"essages to and fro" Buropean and siatic countries. Thei





contract contained a stipulation that either party could ter"inate iton a /0;"onth notice to the other. $n / >e'ruary :,7 #<DTgave notice to R! to ter"inate their contract on / >e'ruary:,.

+oon after its creation in :0- the 9ureau of Teleco""unicationsset up i ts own Govern"ent Telephone +yste" 'y utili2ing its ownappropriation and e%uip"ent and 'y renting trunk lines of the#<DT to ena'le govern"ent offices to call private parties. The9ureau has e&tended its services to the general pu'lic since:0 using the sa"e trunk lines owned 'y and rented fro" the

#<DT and prescri'ing its (the 9ureauCs) own schedule of rates.Through these trunk lines a Govern"ent Telephone +yste"(GT+) su'scri'er could "ake a call to a #<DT su'scri'er in thesa"e way that the latter could "ake a call to the for"er.

$n , March :, the plaintiff through the Director of Teleco""unications entered into an agree"ent with R!!o""unications 4nc. for a *oint overseas telephone servicewhere'y the 9ureau would convey radio;telephone overseas callsreceived 'y R!Cs station to and fro" local residents.

$n - pril :, the defendant #hilippine <ong DistanceTelephone !o"pany co"plained to the 9ureau of Teleco""unications that said 'ureau was violating the conditionsunder which their #rivate 9ranch B&change (#9F) is inter;connected with the #<DTCs facilities referring to the rented trunklines for the 9ureau had used the trunk lines not only for the use

of govern"ent offices 'ut even to serve private persons or thegeneral pu'lic in co"petition with the 'usiness of the #<DTI andgave notice that if said violations were not stopped 'y "idnight of :/ pril :, the #<DT would sever the telephone connections.hen the #<DT received no reply it disconnected the trunk lines'eing rented 'y the 9ureau at "idnight on :/ pril :,. Theresult was the isolation of the #hilippines on telephone servicesfro" the rest of the world e&cept the Pnited +tates.

The 9ureau of Teleco""unications had proposed to the #<DT on ?anuary :, that 'oth enter into an interconnectingagree"ent with the govern"ent paying (on a call 'asis) for allcalls passing through the interconnecting facilities fro" theGovern"ent Telephone +yste" to the #<DT. The #<DT repliedthat it was willing to enter into an agree"ent on overseastelephone service to Burope and sian countries provided that the9ureau would su'"it to the *urisdiction and regulations of the

#u'lic +ervice !o""ission. $n :/ pril :, plaintiff Repu'lic co""enced suit against thedefendant in the !ourt of >irst 4nstance of Manila (!ivil !ase 1o.@,8,) praying in its co"plaint for *udg"ent co""anding the#<DT to e&ecute a contract with plaintiff through the 9ureau for the use of the facilities of defendantCs telephone syste"throughout the #hilippines under such ter"s and conditions asthe court "ight consider reasona'le and for a writ of preli"inaryin*unction against the defendant co"pany to restrain theseverance of the e&isting telephone connections andOor restorethose severed.

#<DT on the other hand denied any o'ligation on its part toe&ecute a contrary of services with the 9ureau of Teleco""unicationsI contested the *urisdiction of the !ourt of >irst 4nstance to co"pel it to enter into interconnectingagree"ents and averred that it was *ustified to disconnect the

trunk lines heretofore leased to the 9ureau of Teleco""unications under the e&isting agree"ent 'ecause itsfacilities were 'eing used in fraud of its rights. #<DT further clai"ed that the 9ureau was engaging in co""ercial telephoneoperations in e&cess of authority in co"petition with and to thepre*udice of the #<DT using defendants own telephone poleswithout proper accounting of revenues.

fter trial the lower court rendered *udg"ent that it could notco"pel the #<DT to enter into an agree"ent with the 9ureau'ecause the parties were not in agree"entI that under B&ecutive$rder 0 esta'lishing the 9ureau of Teleco""unications said9ureau was not li"ited to servicing govern"ent offices alone nor was there any in the contract of lease of the trunk lines since the

#<DT knew or ought to have known at the ti"e that their use 'ythe 9ureau was to 'e pu'lic throughout the 4slands hence the9ureau was neither guilty of fraud a'use or "isuse of the polesof the #<DTI and in view of serious pu'lic pre*udice that wouldresult fro" the disconnection of the trunk lines declared thepreli"inary in*unction per"anent although it dis"issed 'oth theco"plaint and the counterclai"s.

9oth parties appealed.

ISSUE#

$1 #<DT is co"pelled to enter into a contract co"pulsoryrendering the co"pany to provide inter;connectivity services despiteits o'*ection.

$ELD# The +upre"e !ourt agreed with the court 'elow that parties

cannot 'e coerced to enter into a contract where no agree"ent ishad 'etween the" as to the principal ter"s and conditions of thecontract. >reedo" to stipulate such ter"s and conditions is of theessence of our contractual syste" and 'y e&press provision othe statute a contract "ay 'e annulled if tainted 'y violenceinti"idation or undue influence (rticles :@87 :@@7 :@@- !ivi!ode of the #hilippines).

9ut the court a 1uohas apparently overlooked that while theRepu'lic "ay not co"pel the #<DT to cele'rate a contract with itthe Repu'lic "ay in the e&ercise of the sovereign power ofe"inent do"ain re%uire the telephone co"pany to per"iinterconnection of the govern"ent telephone syste" and that othe #<DT as the needs of the govern"ent service "ay re%uiresu'*ect to the pay"ent of *ust co"pensation to 'e deter"ined 'ythe court.

hile the defendant telephone co"pany is a pu'lic utilitycorporation whose franchise e%uip"ent and other properties areunder the *urisdiction supervision and control of the #u'lic+ervice !o""ission (+ec. :@ #u'lic +ervice ct) yet theplaintiffCs teleco""unications network is a pu'lic service owned'y the Repu'lic and operated 'y an instru"entality of the 1ationaGovern"ent hence e&e"pt under +ection :0 of the #u'lic+ervice ct fro" such *urisdiction supervision and control.

ABRB>$RB the decision of the !ourt of >irst 4nstance nowunder appeal is affir"ed e&cept in so far as it dis"isses the

petition of the Repu'lic of the #hilippines to co"pel the #hilippine<ong Distance Telephone !o"pany to continue servicing theGovern"ent telephone syste" upon such ter"s and for aco"pensation that the trial court "ay deter"ine to 'e *ustincluding the period elapsed fro" the filing of the originaco"plaint or petition. nd for this purpose the records areordered returned to the court of origin for further hearings andother proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 1o costs.

G.R. No. L-14355, O:o)r 31, 1919T$E CIT O" MANILA vs. C$INESE COMMUNIT O" MANILA, ETAL.

"ACTS#$n the ::th day of Dece"'er ::7 the city of Manila presented apetition in the !ourt of >irst 4nstance of said city praying that certainlands 'e e&propriated for the purpose of constructing a pu'lici"prove"ent na"ely the e&tension of Ri2al venue Manila. Thedefendant the Co+unidad de Chinos de Manila J!hinese !o""unityof ManilaK opposed the e&propriation alleging that the !hinesece"etery has for its purpose the 'enefit and general welfare of the!hinese !o""unity of the !ity of Manila and that the e&propriation infact was not necessary as a pu'lic i"prove"ent for other routes wereavaila'le which would fully satisfy the plaintiffCs purposes at "uch lesse&pense and without distur'ing the resting places of the dead.The trial court decided that there was no necessity for the e&propriationof the particular strip of land in %uestion and a'solved each and all ofthe defendants fro" all lia'ility under the co"plaint without any findingas to costs. The !ity of Manila then appealed the trial court’s decision.





ISSUE# $1 the !hinese !e"etery "ay 'e validly e&propriated 'ythe !ity of Manila.

$ELD# The e&ercise of the right of e"inent do"ain whether directly 'y

the +tate or 'y its authori2ed agents is necessarily in derogationof private rights and the rule in that case is that the authority "ust'e strictly construed. 1o species of property is held 'y individualswith greater tenacity and none is guarded 'y the constitution andlaws "ore sedulously than the right to the freehold of inha'itants.

hen the legislature interferes with that right and for greater pu'lic purposes appropriates the land of an individual without hisconsent the plain "eaning of the law should not 'e enlarged 'ydou'tly interpretation.

The right of e&propriation is not an inherent power in a "unicipalcorporation and 'efore it can e&ercise the right so"e law "uste&ist conferring the power upon it. hen the courts co"e todeter"ine the %uestion they "ust only find (a) that a law or authority e&ists for the e&ercise of the right of e"inent do"ain 'ut(b) also that the right or authority is 'eing e&ercised in accordancewith the law. 4n the present case there are two conditions i"posedupon the authority conceded to the !ity of Manila %irst the land"ust 'e privateI and second the purpose "ust 'e pu'lic.

4t is a well known fact that ce"eteries "ay 'e pu'lic or private.The for"er is a ce"etery used 'y the general co""unity or

neigh'orhood or church while the latter is used only 'y a fa"ilyor a s"all portion of the co""unity or neigh'ourhood. here ace"etery is open to pu'lic it is a pu'lic use and no part of theground can 'e taken for other pu'lic uses under a generalauthority. nd this i""unity e&tends to the uni"proved andunoccupied parts which are held in good faith for future use. Thece"etery in %uestion is used 'y the general co""unity of !hinese which fact in the general acceptation of the definition of a pu'lic ce"etery would "ake the ce"etery in %uestion pu'licproperty. The petition of the plaintiff "ust 'e denied for thereason that the city of Manila has no authority or right under thelaw to e&propriate pu'lic property. 4n the present case evengranting that a necessity e&ists for the opening of the street in%uestion the record contains no proof of the necessity of openingthe sa"e through the ce"etery. The record shows that ad*oiningand ad*acent lands have 'een offered to the city free of chargewhich will answer every purpose of the plaintiff.

>or all of the foregoing the *udg"ent of the lower court should 'eand is here'y affir"ed with costs against the appellant.

WHERE EXPROPRIATION SUIT IS FILED

G.R. No. 13%%9+, &'() 20, 2000RG. SAN ROFUE !. $EIRS O" 6ASTOR

"ACTS# #etitioner filed 'efore the Municipal Trial !ourt (MT!) of Talisay

!e'u (9ranch :) a !o"plaint to e&propriate a property of therespondents. 4n an $rder dated pril :- the MT! dis"issedthe !o"plaint on the ground of lack of *urisdiction. 4t reasonedthat EJeK"inent do"ain is an e&ercise of the power to take private

property for pu'lic use after pay"ent of *ust co"pensation. 4n anaction for e"inent do"ain therefore the principal cause of actionis the e&ercise of such power or right. The fact that the action alsoinvolves real property is "erely incidental. n action for e"inentdo"ain is therefore within the e&clusive original *urisdiction of theRegional Trial !ourt and not with this !ourt.E

The RT! also dis"issed the !o"plaint when filed 'efore itholding that an action for e"inent do"ain affected title to realpropertyI hence the value of the property to 'e e&propriatedwould deter"ine whether the case should 'e filed 'efore the MT!or the RT!. !oncluding that the action should have 'een filed'efore the MT! since the value of the su'*ect property was less

than #/8888. ggrieved petitioner appealed directly to this !ourt raising a

pure %uestion of law.

ISSUE# hich court MT! or RT! has *urisdiction over cases fore"inent do"ain or e&propriation where the assessed value of thesu'*ect property is 'elow Twenty Thousand (#/8888.88) #esos3

$ELD#

n e&propriation suit is incapa'le of pecuniary esti"ation thusRT!s shall e&ercise e&clusive original *urisdiction ovee&propriation case as provided for 'y +ection : (:) of 9# :/which states that RT!s shall e&ercise e&clusive origina

*urisdiction over Eall civil actions in which the su'*ect of thelitigation is incapa'le of pecuniary esti"ationI6.

4f the issue is pri"arily for the recovery of a su" of "oney theclai" is considered capa'le of pecuniary esti"ation and whethe

*urisdiction is in the "unicipal courts or in the courts of firsinstance would depend on the a"ount of the clai". Aoweverwhere the 'asic issue is so"ething other than the right to recovea su" of "oney or where the "oney clai" is purely incidental toor a conse%uence of the principal relief sought like in suits tohave the defendant perfor" his part of the contract (specificperfor"ance) and in actions for support or for annul"ent of a

*udg"ent or to foreclose a "ortgage this !ourt has considered

such actions as cases where the su'*ect of the litigation "ay not'e esti"ated in ter"s of "oney and are cogni2a'le e&clusively'y courts of first instance.

4n the present case an e&propriation suit does not involve therecovery of a su" of "oney. Rather it deals with the e&ercise 'ythe govern"ent of its authority and right to take private propertyfor pu'lic useAence the courts deter"ine the authority of thegovern"ent entity the necessity of the e&propriation and theo'servance of due process. The su'*ect "atter of ane&propriation suit is the govern"ent’s e&ercise of e"inendo"ain a "atter that is incapa'le of pecuniary esti"ation.

REQUISITES OF TAKING

G.R. No. L-20+20 A'@'!: 15, 194

R6 !. CASTEL/I

"ACTS# The !astellvi property had 'een occupied 'y the #hilippine ir

>orce since :0- under a contract of lease. 4t was stipulated 'ythe parties that Ethe foregoing contract of lease is Csi"ilar in ter"sand conditions including the dateC with the annual contractentered into fro" year to year 'etween defendant !astellvi andthe Repu'lic of the #hilippines. 4t is undisputed therefore thathe Repu'lic occupied !astellviCs land fro" ?uly : :0- 'y virtueof the a'ove;"entioned contract on a year to year 'asis (fro"?uly : of each year to ?une @8 of the succeeding year). 9efore thee&piration of the contract of lease on ?une @8 :,7 the Repu'licsought to renew the sa"e 'ut !astellvi refused. hen the >#refused to vacate the leased pre"ises after the ter"ination of thecontract on ?uly :: :,7 !astellvi wrote to the !hief of +taff

># infor"ing the latter that the heirs of the property had decidednot to continue leasing the property in %uestion 'ecause they haddecided to su'divide the land for sale to the general pu'licde"anding that the property 'e vacated within @8 days fro"receipt of the letter and that the pre"ises 'e returned insu'stantially the sa"e condition as 'efore occupancy .$n?anuary @8 :,- <ieutenant General lfonso rellano !hief of+taff answered the letter of !astellvi saying that it was difficulfor the ar"y to vacate the pre"ises in view of the per"anentinstallations and other facilities worth al"ost #,88888.88 thawere erected and already esta'lished on the property and thatthere 'eing no other recourse the ac%uisition of the property 'y"eans of e&propriation proceedings would 'e reco""ended to





the #resident. Defendant !astellvi then 'rought suit in the !ourtof >irst 4nstance of #a"panga to e*ect the #hilippine ir >orcefro" the land. hile this e*ect"ent case was pending theRepu'lic instituted these e&propriation proceedings.

The Repu'lic argues that the EtakingE should 'e reckoned fro"the year :0- when 'y virtue of a special lease agree"ent'etween the Repu'lic and appellee !astellvi the for"er wasgranted the Eright and privilegeE to 'uy the property should thelessor wish to ter"inate the lease.

!astellvi on the other hand "aintains that the EtakingE of property under the power of e"inent do"ain re%uires twoessential ele"ents to wit (:) entrance and occupation 'yconde"n or upon the private property for "ore than a "o"entaryor li"ited period and (/) devoting it to a pu'lic use in such a wayas to oust the owner and deprive hi" of all 'eneficial en*oy"entof the property. This appellee argues that in the instant case thefirst ele"ent is wanting for the contract of lease relied uponprovides for a lease fro" year to yearI that the second ele"ent isalso wanting that the contract of lease does not grant theRepu'lic the Eright and privilegeE to 'uy the pre"ises Eat thevalue at the ti"e of occupancy.E

ISSUE# $1 the 5Taking6 of properties under e&propriationco""enced with the filing of the action. (hat are the re%uisites of 5Taking6 of property of e"inent do"ain3)

$ELD# 4t is clear that the EtakingE of !atellviCs property for purposes of

e"inent do"ain cannot 'e considered to have taken place in:0- when the Repu'lic co""enced to occupy the property aslessee thereof. e find "erit in the contention of !astellvi thattwo essential ele"ents in the EtakingE of property under the power of e"inent do"ain na"ely (:) that the entrance and occupation'y the conde"nor "ust 'e for a per"anent or indefinite periodand (/) that in devoting the property to pu'lic use the owner wasousted fro" the property and deprived of its 'eneficial use werenot present when the Repu'lic entered and occupied the !astellviproperty in :0-.

Pntena'le also is the Repu'licCs contention that although thecontract 'etween the parties was one of lease on a year to year 'asis it was Ein reality a "ore or less per"anent right to occupy

the pre"ises under the guise of lease with the Cright and privilegeCto 'uy the property should the lessor wish to ter"inate the leaseEand Ethe right to 'uy the property is "erged as an integral part of the lease relationship ... so "uch so that the fair "arket value has'een agreed upon not as of the ti"e of purchase 'ut as of theti"e of occupancyE. e cannot accept the Repu'licCs contentionthat a lease on a year to year 'asis can give rise to a per"anentright to occupy since 'y e&press legal provision a lease "ade for a deter"inate ti"e as was the lease of !astellviCs land in theinstant case ceases upon the day fi&ed without need of ade"and (rticle :77 !ivil !ode). 1either can it 'e said that theright of e"inent do"ain "ay 'e e&ercised 'y si"ply leasing thepre"ises to 'e e&propriated (Rule 7- +ection : Rules of !ourt).

To sustain the contention of the Repu'lic is to sanction a practicewhere'y in order to secure a low price for a land which thegovern"ent intends to e&propriate (or would eventuallye&propriate) it would first negotiate with the owner of the land tolease the land (for say ten or twenty years) then e&propriate thesa"e when the lease is a'out to ter"inate then clai" that theEtakingE of the property for the purposes of the e&propriation 'ereckoned as of the date when the Govern"ent started to occupythe property under the lease and then assert that the value of theproperty 'eing e&propriated 'e reckoned as of the start of thelease in spite of the fact that the value of the property for "anygood reasons had in the "eanti"e increased during the period of the lease.

The lower court did not co""it an error when it held that theEtakingE of the property under e&propriation co""enced with thefiling of the co"plaint in this case.

4n the instant case it is undisputed that the Repu'lic was placedin possession of the !astellvi property 'y authority of the courton ugust :8 :,. The EtakingE of the !astellvi property for thepurposes of deter"ining the *ust co"pensation to 'e paid "usttherefore 'e reckoned as of ?une /7 :, when the co"plaintfor e"inent do"ain was filed.

G.R. No. L-34915 &'() 24, 19%3CIT GO/ERNMENT O" FUEON CIT 8(< CIT COUNCIL O"FUEON CIT !.$ON. &UDGE /ICENTE G. ERICTA

"ACTS#The city govern"ent of Uue2on tried to enforce $rdinance 1o. 7::+;70 entitled E$RD411!B RBGP<T41G TAB B+T9<4+AMB1TM41TB11!B 1D $#BRT4$1 $> #R4VTB MBM$R4< T=#B!BMBTBR= $R 9PR4< GR$P1D 4TA41 TAB ?PR4+D4!T4$1 $>UPB$1 !4T= 1D #R$V4D41G #B1<T4B+ >$R TAB V4$<T4$1TABRB$>E through the passing of a resolution wchich readsRB+$<VBD 'y the council of Uue2on asse"'led to re%uest as idoes here'y re%uest the !ity Bngineer Uue2on !ity to stop anyfurther selling andOor transaction of "e"orial park lots in Uue2on !itywhere the owners thereof have failed to donate the re%uired 7 spaceintended for paupers 'urial. 9ut Respondent Ai"layang #ilipino%uestioned the validity of the ordinance specifically its sec wOcprovides that 5t least si& (7) percent of the total area of the "e"oriapark ce"etery shall 'e set aside for charity 'urial of deceased persons

who are paupers and have 'een residents of Uue2on !ity for at least ,years prior to their death to 'e deter"ined 'y co"petent !ity uthorities. The area so designated shall i""ediately 'e developedand should 'e open for operation not later than si& "onths fro" thedate of approval of the application.6 . respondent alleged that this iscontrary to law and further contended that contends that the taking oconfiscation of property is o'vious 'ecause the %uestioned ordinanceper"anently restricts the use of the property such that it cannot 'eused for any reasona'le purpose and deprives the owner of a'eneficial use of his property and stressed that the general welfareclause is not availa'le as a source of power for the taking of theproperty in this case 'ecause it refers to Ethe power of pro"oting thepu'lic welfare 'y restraining and regulating the use of li'erty andproperty. fter the e&a"ining the facts respondent court ruled tha5The power to regulate does not include the power to prohi'it6 anddeclared the ordinance null and void.

ISSUE# $1 the trial court is correct in declaring the ordinance nuand void3

$ELD# +! ruled that 5police power is usually e&ercised in the for" o

"ere regulation or restriction in the use of li'erty or property forthe pro"otion of the general welfare. 4t does not involve the takingor confiscation of property with the e&ception of a few caseswhere there is a necessity to confiscate private property in orderto destroy it for the purpose of protecting the peace and order andof pro"oting the general welfare as for instance the confiscationof an illegally possessed article such as opiu" and firear"s.

4t see"s to the court that +ection of $rdinance 1o. 7:: +eriesof :70 of Uue2on !ity is not a "ere police regulation 'ut anoutright confiscation. 4t deprives a person of his private propertywithout due process of law nay even without co"pensationThere is no reasona'le relation 'etween the setting aside of aleast si& (7) percent of the total area of an private ce"eteries focharity 'urial grounds of deceased paupers and the pro"otion ohealth "orals good order safety or the general welfare of thepeople. The ordinance is actually a taking without co"pensationof a certain area fro" a private ce"etery to 'enefit paupers whoare charges of the "unicipal corporation. 4nstead of 'uilding or"aintaining a pu'lic ce"etery for this purpose the city passes the'urden to private ce"eteries.6

ABRB>$RB the petition for review is here'y D4+M4++BD. Thedecision of the respondent court is affir"ed.





TAKING DEPRIVATION OF USE

104 6$IL 443 7195%R6 !. "A&ARDO(o <i@)!:)< 8!) !'i::)<

193 SCRA 1 71991NA6OCOR !. GUTIERRE

"ACTS# #laintiff 1ational #ower !orporation a govern"ent owned and

controlled entity planned to construct /@8 SV Me&ico;<i"aytrans"ission lines 'ut the lines have to pass the lands 'elongingto defendants Matias !ru2 Aeirs of 1atalia #aule and spousesMisericordia Gutierre2 and Ricardo Malit and filed an e"inentdo"ain proceedings against the defendants.

The defendant spouses were authori2ed to withdraw the fi&edprovisional value of their land in the su" of #[email protected] 'y the courtafter 1#! deposited the a"ount upon filing the co"plaint. Theonly controversy e&isting 'etween the parties litigants is thereasona'leness and ade%uacy of the distur'ance or co"pensation fee of the e&propriated properties. the courtappointed three co""issioners in deter"ining the fair and *ustco"pensation due the defendants.

ith the reports su'"itted 'y the three co""issioners and on theevidence adduced 'y the defendants as well as the plaintiff for thepurpose of proving the fair "arket value of the property sought to'e e&propriated the lower court rendered a decision that 1ational#ower !orporation has to pay defendant spouses Ricardo Malitand Misericordia Gutierre2 the su" #,.88 per s%uare "eter asthe fair and reasona'le "arket value of the -78 s%uare "eters'elonging to the said spouses and that decision was affir"ed 'ythe court of appeals.

ISSUE# ABTABR #BT4T4$1BR +A$P<D 9B MDB T$ #=+4M#BB $R >P<< !$M#B1+T4$1 >$R TAB<1D TRVBR+BD 9= 4T+ TR1+M4++4$1 <41B+

$ELD#

5hile it is true that plaintiff are (sic ) only after a right;of;wayease"ent it nevertheless perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as "anifested 'y the i"position 'y the plaintiff upon defendants that 'elow said trans"ission lines no planthigher than three (@) "eters is allowed. >urther"ore 'ecause of the high;tension current conveyed through said trans"issionlines danger to life and li"'s that "ay 'e caused 'eneath saidwires cannot altogether 'e discounted and to cap it all plaintiff only pays the fee to defendants once while the latter shallcontinually pay the ta&es due on said affected portion of their propertyn the case at 'ar the ease"ent of right;of;way is definitely a taking under the power of e"inent do"ain.!onsidering the nature and effect of the installation of the /@8 SVMe&ico;<i"ay trans"ission lines the li"itation i"posed 'y 1#!against the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives privaterespondents of its ordinary use>or these reasons theowner of the property e&propriated is entitled to a *ust

co"pensation which should 'e neither "ore nor less whenever it is possi'le to "ake the assess"ent than the "oney e%uivalentof said property. &ust co+pensation has al#ays been understood to be the 9ust and co+plete e1uivalent of the loss #hich theo#ner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of theexpropriation

ABRB>$RB the assailed decision of the !ourt of ppeals is >>4RMBD.

G.R. No. 10945, S)p:))r 2+, 200+NATIONAL 6OWER COR6ORATION vs. MARIA MENDOA SAN6EDRO

"ACTS# The 1ational #ower !orporation (1#!) is a govern"ent;owned

and;controlled corporation created to undertake the develop"enof hydro;electric generation of power and the production oelectricity fro" any and all sourcesI and particularly theconstruction operation and "aintenance of power plantsau&iliary plants da"s reservoirs pipes "ains trans"issionlines power stations and su'stations and other works for thepurpose of developing hydraulic power fro" any river lake creek

spring and waterfalls in the #hilippines and supplying such poweto the inha'itants thereof. Pnder Repu'lic ct 1o. 7@, asa"ended the 1#! is authori2ed to enter private propertyprovided that the owners thereof shall 'e inde"nified for anyactual da"age caused there'y.

>or the construction of its +an Manuel;+an ?ose ,88 SVTrans"ission <ine and Tower 1o. +M?;@ 1#! negotiated withMaria Mendo2a +an #edro then represented 'y her son Vicentefor an ease"ent of right of way over her property <ot 1o. /8-7The property which was partly agricultural and partly residentialand was located in 9arangay #artida 1or2agaray 9ulacan andcovered 'y Ta& Declaration 1o. 88@7. $n ?une : :- Maria

e&ecuted a Right of ay Grant in favor of 1#! over the lot fo#:/--7.8. The 1#! paid her #,/07@,.,8 for the da"agedi"prove"ents thereon.

The pay"ent voucher for the residential portion of the lot valuedat #7888888.88 (at #788.88 per s%uare "eter) was then

processed.# Aowever the 1#! 9oard of Directors approved9oard Resolution 1o. -;/07 stating that it would pay only#/@8.88 per s% " for the residential portion and #.88 per s% "for the agricultural portion.

$n ?uly :/ : tty. 9alta2ar and Bngr. !ru2 su'"itted thei

report# reco""ending as pay"ent for *ust co"pensation#88.88 per s% " for the residential lot and #-88.88 per s% " fothe agricultural lot. $n $cto'er / : the RT! rendered

*udg"ent# declaring as well;grounded fair and reasona'le theco"pensation for the property as reco""ended 'y tty. 9alta2aand Bngr. !ru2.

ISSUE# hether or not the *ust co"pensation was achieved withregards to the fair "arket value of the residential and agriculturaproperty3

$ELD# The trial court fi&ed the *ust co"pensation for the property as

follows (:) #0.88 per s% " on the :-:, s% " agriculturaportion of the su'*ect landI and (/) #88.88 per s% " on the 7,7,s% " residential portion of the lot. 1oticea'ly the trial court did no'lindly accept the reco""endation of "a*ority of theco""issioners of #88.88 per s% " for the residential lot and#-88.88 per s% " for the agricultural lot. 4ndeed the trial courtook into account the evidence of the parties in tande" with thefindings and reco""endation of the "a*ority of theco""issioners. !onsidering that such valuation of the trial couras affir"ed 'y the ! is reasona'le as it is and supported 'y the

evidence on record we find no co"pelling reason to distur' thesa"e.

The constant loud 'u22ing and e&ploding sounds e"anating fro"the towers and trans"ission lines especially on rainy daysI theconstant fear on the part of the landowners that the largetrans"ission lines loo"ing not far a'ove their land and the hugetower in front of their lot will affect their safety and healthI and thesli" chance that no one would 'e interested to 'uy the re"ainingportions on each side of the residential lot affected 'y the pro*ectto the da"age of the landowners 'oth as to future actual use othe land and financial gains to 'e derived therefro" "akes theinstant case fall within the a"'it of e&propriation.


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_170945_2006.html%20%5C%20nt3%23fnt3





















32% U.S. 25+, M8 2, 194+UNITED STATES . CAUS*

"ACTS# Military airplanes are su'*ect to rules of !ivil eronautics 9oard.

Respondents own /. acres near an airport outside of Greens'oro 1orth !arolina. 4t has on it a dwelling house andalso various out'uildings which were "ainly used for raising

chickens. The end of the airportCs northwest;southeast runway is///8 feet fro" respondentsC 'arn and //-, feet fro" their house Pnited +tates 'egan operations in May :0/ its four;"otored

heavy 'o"'ers other planes of the heavier type and its fighter planes have fre%uently passed over respondentsC land 'uildings inconsidera'le nu"'ers and rather close together. They co"eclose enough at ti"es to appear 'arely to "iss the tops of thetrees and at ti"es so close to the tops of the trees as to 'low theold leaves off. The noise is startling. nd at night the glare fro"the planes 'rightly lights up the place. s a result of the noiserespondents had to give up their chicken 'usiness. s "any assi& to ten of their chickens were killed in one day 'y flying into thewalls fro" fright. The total chickens lost in that "anner was a'out:,8. #roduction also fell off. The result was the destruction of theuse of the property as a co""ercial chicken far". Respondentsare fre%uently deprived of their sleep and the fa"ily has 'eco"e

nervous and frightened. lthough there have 'een no airplaneaccidents on respondentsC property there have 'een severalaccidents near the airport and close to respondentsC place

The Pnited +tates relies on the ir !o""erce ct of :/7 00+tat. ,7 0 P.+.!. :-: et se%. 0 P.+.!.. :-: et se%. asa"ended 'y the !ivil eronautics ct of :@ ,/ +tat. -@ 0P.+.!. 08: et se%. 0 P. +.!.. 08: et se%. Pnder those statutesthe Pnited +tates has Cco"plete and e&clusive nationalsovereignty in the air spaceC over this country. the planes never touched the surface would 'e as irrelevant as the a'sence in thisday of the feudal l ivery of seisin on the transfer of real estate.

The >ifth "end"ent provides that Cprivate propertyC shall not C'etaken for pu'lic use without *ust co"pensation.C The !ourt holdstoday that the Govern"ent has CtakenC respondentsC property 'yrepeatedly flying r"y 'o"'ers directly a'ove respondentsC landat a height of eighty;three feet where the light and noise fro"

these planes caused respondents to lose sleep and their chickensto 'e killed

ISSUE# hether respondentsC property was taken within the "eaningof the >ifth "end"ent 'y fre%uent and regular flights of ar"y andnavy aircraft over respondentsC land at low altitudes.

$ELD# The !onstitution entrusts !ongress with full power to control all

naviga'le airspace. !ongress has already acted under thatpower. 4t has 'y statute 00 +tat. ,7 ,/ +tat. -@ provided thatCthe Pnited +tates of "erica is ... to possess and e&erciseco"plete and e&clusive national sovereignty in the J@/ P.+. /,7/-/K air space (over) the Pnited +tates.C naviga'le airspacewhich !ongress has placed in the pu'lic do"ain is Cairspacea'ove the "ini"u" safe altitudes of flight prescri'ed 'y the !ivil

eronautics uthority. irspace apart fro" the i""ediatereaches a'ove the land is part of the pu'lic do"ain.

The contri'ution of courts "ust 'e "ade through the awarding of da"ages for in*uries suffered fro" the flying of planes or 'y thegranting of in*unctions to prohi'it their flying

The *udg"ent is reversed and the cause is re"anded to the !ourtof !lai"s so that it "ay "ake the necessary findings inconfor"ity with this opinion.

244 SCRA 22 G.R. No. 119+94 22 M8 19956$ILI66INE 6RESS INSTITUTE /S. COMELEC

"ACTS# Respondent !o"elec pro"ulgated Resolution 1o. /--/ directing

newspapers to provide free !o"elec space of not less than one;half page for the co""on use of political parties and candidatesThe !o"elec space shall 'e allocated 'y the !o""ission free ocharge a"ong all candidates to ena'le the" to "ake known thei%ualifications their stand on pu'lic 4ssue and their platfor"s ogovern"ent. The !o"elec space shall also 'e used 'y the!o""ission for disse"ination of vital e lection infor"ation.

#etitioner #hilippine #ress 4nstitute 4nc. (##4) a non;proforgani2ation of newspaper and "aga2ine pu'lishers asks the+upre"e !ourt to declare !o"elec Resolution 1o. /--/unconstitutional and void on the ground that it violates theprohi'ition i"posed 'y the !onstitution upon the govern"enagainst the taking of private property for pu'lic use without *ustco"pensation. $n 'ehalf of the respondent !o"elec the +olicitoGeneral clai"ed that the Resolution is a per"issi'le e&ercise othe power of supervision (police power) of the !o"elec over theinfor"ation operations of print "edia enterprises during theelection period to safeguard and ensure a fair i"partial andcredi'le election.

ISSUE# hether or not !o"elec Resolution 1o. /--/ isunconstitutional.

$ELD# The +upre"e !ourt declared the Resolution as unconstitutional. 4

held that to co"pel print "edia co"panies to donate 5!o"elespace6 a"ounts to 5taking6 of private personal property withoupay"ent of the *ust co"pensation re%uired in e&propriation casesMoreover the ele"ent of necessity for the taking has not 'eenesta'lished 'y respondent !o"elec considering that thenewspapers were not unwilling to sell advertising space. Thetaking of private property for pu'lic use is authori2ed 'y theconstitution 'ut not without pay"ent of *ust co"pensation. lsoResolution 1o. /--/ does not constitute a valid e&ercise of thepolice power of the state. 4n the case at 'ench there is noshowing of e&istence of a national e"ergency to take privateproperty of newspaper or "aga2ine pu'lishers.

G.R. No. 13152 &8('8r 29, 2001

CIT O" MANDALUONG !. "RANCISCO

"ACTS# The petitioner sought to e&propriate the three (@) ad*oining land

with and area of :0- s%. "eter registered under the na"e of thedefendants na"ely >rancisco Thel"a Buse'io Rodulfo

ntonio and Virginia wherein they constructed residential housesseveral decades ago which they had leased out to tenants untithe present. 4n :@ the lots were classified 'y the 9oard of theAousing and Pr'an Develop"ent !ouncil as an rea of #riorityDevelop"ent for Pr'an <and Refor" under #rocla"ation 1u"'eof then #resident Marcos. s a result of this classification thetenants and occupants offered to purchase the lots 'ut therespondents refused to sell. $n 1ove"'er :7 upon petition othe Sapit'isig an association of tenants and occupants of thesu'*ect land adopted a resolution authori2ing Mayor 'alos of the

!ity of Mandaluyong to initiate action for e&propriation of thesu'*ect lots and construction of a "ediu";rise condo"iniu" fo%ualified occupants of the land. $n ?anuary :7 Mayor 'alosallegedly sent a letter to the respondents offering to purchase thesaid property at #@ 888.88 per s%. "eterI respondents did noanswer the letter. #etitioner thus prayed for the e&propriation othe said lots and the fi&ing of *ust co"pensation at the fair "arkevalue of #@ 888.88 per s%. "eter.

The respondents e&cept Buse'io guilar who died in :,clai"ed that they did not received a copy of Mayor 'alos letter topurchase their lots. They alleged that the e&propriation of theiland is ar'itrary and capricious and is not for a pu'lic purposethe su'*ect lots are their only real property and are too s"all for





e&propriation while petitioner has several properties inventoriedfor sociali2ed housingI the fair "arket value of #@888.88 per s%uare "eter is ar'itrary 'ecause the 2onal valuation set 'y the9ureau of 4nternal Revenue is #-888.88 per s%uare "eter. $n:- #etitioner filed an a"ended co"plaint and na"ed as anadditional defendant Virginia guilar and at the sa"e ti"esu'stituted Buse'io guilar with his five (,) heirs. #etitioner alsoreduced the area sought to 'e e&propriated to : 7@7 s%uare"eters. The Trial !ourt’s decision was in favor of therespondents dis"iss the a"ended co"plaint and declared

respondents as 5s"all property owners6 whose land are e&e"ptfro" e&propriation under R -/-. lso found out that thee&propriation was not for pu'lic purpose for petitioner’s failure topresent evidence that the intended 'eneficiaries of thee&propriation are landless and ho"eless.

ISSUES#1. O1 the respondents are %ualified as s"all property owners and

are thus e&e"pt fro" e&propriation under R no. --/.2. O1 the su'*ect property is the only real property of respondents

for the" to co"ply with the second re%uisite for s"all propertyowners.

$ELD# The ac%uisition of lands for sociali2ed housing are governed with

several provisions of the law. Thus +ection and :8 of R 1o.

-/- provides for the priorities in the ac%uisition of lands andenu"erates the type of lands to 'e ac%uired and the hierarchy intheir ac%uisition and the "odes of land ac%uisition or the processof ac%uiring lands for sociali2ed housing respectively.

Pnder +ection lands for sociali2ed housing are to 'e ac%uiredin the following order (:) govern"ent landsI (/) aliena'le lands of the pu'lic do"ainI (@) unregistered or a'andoned or idle landsI(0) lands within the declared reas for #riority Develop"ent(#D) onal 4"prove"ent #rogra" (4#) sites +lu"4"prove"ent and Resettle"ent (+4R) sites which have not yet'een ac%uiredI (,) 9gong <ipunan 4"prove"ent of +ites and+ervices or 9<4++ sites which have not yet 'een ac%uiredI and(7) privately;owned lands.

There is no dispute that the two lots in litigation are privately;owned and therefore last in the order of priority ac%uisition.

Aowever the law also provides that lands within the declared #DCs which have not yet 'een ac%uired 'y the govern"ent arefourth in the order of priority. ccording to petitioner since thesu'*ect lots lie within the declared #D this fact "andates thatthe lots 'e given priority in ac%uisition.

lso <ands for sociali2ed housing under +ection :8 are to 'eac%uired in the following "odes (:) co""unity "ortgageI (/)land swapping (@) land asse"'ly or consolidationI (0) land'ankingI (,) donation to the govern"entI (7) *oint ventureagree"entI (-) negotiated purchaseI and () e&propriation. The"ode of e&propriation is su'*ect to two conditions (a) it shall 'eresorted to only when the other "odes of ac%uisition have 'eene&haustedI (') parcels of land owned 'y s"all property ownersare e&e"pt fro" such ac%uisition.

These "eans that the types of lands that "ay 'e ac%uired in theorder of priority in +ection are to 'e ac%uired only in the "odes

authori2ed under +ection :8. #etitioner clai"s that it had faithfully o'served the different "odes

of land ac%uisition for sociali2ed housing under R.. -/- andadhered to the priorities in the ac%uisition for sociali2ed housingunder said law. 4t however did not state with particularity whether it );?8'!:)< the other "odes of ac%uisition in +ection :8 of thelaw 'efore it decided to e&propriate the su'*ect lots. The lawstates Ee&propriation shall 'e resorted to when other "odes of ac%uisition have 'een e&hausted.E #etitioner alleged only one"ode of ac%uisition i.e. 'y negotiated purchase. #etitionerthrough the !ity Mayor tried to purchase the lots fro"respondents 'ut the latter refused to sell. s to the other "odesof ac%uisition (o "ention has 'een "ade. The Resolution of the

+angguniang #anlungsod authori2ing the Mayor of Mandaluyongto effect the e&propriation of the su'*ect property did not evenstate whether the city govern"ent tried to ac%uire the sa"e 'yco""unity "ortgage land swapping land asse"'ly oconsolidation land 'anking donation to the govern"ent or *oinventure agree"ent under +ection :8 of the law. The lawe&pressly e&e"pted Es"all property ownersE fro" e&propriation otheir land for ur'an land refor".

Pnder +ection @ of R -/- 5+"all;property ownersE are defined'y two ele"ents (:) those owners of real property whose

property consists of residential lands with an area of not "orethan @88 s%uare "eters in highly ur'ani2ed cities and 88 s%uare"eters in other ur'an areasI and (/) that they do not own reaproperty other than the sa"e.

4n the case at 'ar involves two (/) residential lots Mandaluyong!ity a highly ur'ani2ed !ity. The lot totalled : 7@7 s%uare "eterswas issued in the na"es of the herein five (,) respondents. Therespondents are co;owners of the said lot. Pnder rticle 0@ othe !ivil !ode every co;owner has the a'solute ownership of hisundivided interest in the co""on property. The co;owner is freeto alienate assign or "ortgage his interest e&cept as to purelypersonal rights. Ae "ay also validly lease his undivided interest toa third party independently of the other co;owners. The effect oany such transfer is li"ited to the portion which "ay 'e awardedto hi" upon the partition of the property. The partition in : si&(7) "onths after the filing of the e&propriation case ter"inated the

co;ownership 'y converting into certain and definite parts therespective undivided shares of the co;owners. The rights of theco;owners to have the property partitioned and their share in thesa"e delivered to the" cannot 'e %uestioned for Eno co;ownershall 'e o'liged to re"ain in the co;ownership.E The partition was"erely a necessary incident of the co;ownershipI and a'sent anyevidence to the contrary this partition is presu"ed to have 'eendone in good faith. Ppon partition only Buse'io guilar wasgranted @0- s%uare "eters which is 0- s%. "eters "ore than the"a&i"u" of @88 s%uare "eters allowed 'y law set 'y R -/-for s"all property owners. Aowever after Buse'io died his fiveheirs 'eca"e co;owners of his @0- s%uare "eter portion. Dividingthe @0- s%uare "eters a"ong the five entitled each heir to 7.0s%uare "eters of the land su'*ect of litigation. The share of eachco;owner did not e&ceed the @88 s%uare "eter li"it set in R.-/-.

The second issue is whether the su'*ect property is the only reaproperty of respondents for the" to co"ply with the secondre%uisite for s"all property owners which ntonio guilar testifiedthat he and "ost of the original co;owners do not reside on thesu'*ect property 'ut in their ancestral ho"e in #aco ManilaRespondents therefore appear to own real property other than thelots in litigation. 1onetheless the records do not show that theancestral ho"e in #aco Manila and the land on which it standsare owned 'y respondents or anyone of the". #etitioner did nopresent any title or proof of this fact despite ntonio guilarCstesti"ony. Respondents clai" that the su'*ect lots are their onlyreal property and that they particularly two of the five heirs oBuse'io guilar are "erely renting their houses and therefore donot own any other real property in Metro Manila.

>inally this court notes that the su'*ect lots are now in thepossession of respondents. ntonio guilar testified that he and

the other co;owners filed e*ect"ent cases against the occupantsof the land 'efore the Metropolitan Trial !ourt Mandaluyong$rders of eviction were issued and e&ecuted on +epte"'er :-:- which resulted in the eviction of the tenants and otheoccupants fro" the land in %uestion.

GR No. 1554+, O:o)r 3, 2004LAGCAO !. &UDGE LA*RA r)p)8:)< 8!)

GR No. 152230, A'@'!: 09, 2005&IL !. MUNICI6ALIT O" 6ASIG r)p)8:)< 8!)





PRIORITY IN EXPROPRIATION

2%4 SCRA 1+ 7199%"ILSTREAM INTERNATIONAL INCOR6ORATED /S. COURT O"A66EALS

"ACTS#>ilstrea" is the registered owner of the su'*ect land which filed ane*ect"ent suit against the occupants of the parcels of land on thegrounds of ter"ination of the lease contract and non;pay"ent of rentals. The MT! rendered decision in favor of the petitioner andordered private respondents to vacate the pre"ises and pay 'ackrentals to the petitioner. The RT! and ! affir"ed this decision. 4t wasat this stage that respondent !ity of Manila approved an $rdinanceauthori2ing Mayor <i" to initiate the ac%uisition 'y negotiatione&propriation purchased and other legal "eans certain parcels of landwhich for"ed part of the properties of the petitioner then occupied 'yprivate respondents. The said properties were to 'e sold and to 'edistri'uted to the %ualified tenants of the area pursuant to the <andPse Develop"ent #rogra" of the !ity of Manila. The Trial !ourtissued a writ of possession in favor of the !ity of Manila.

ISSUE# O1 the !ity of Manila co"plies with the conditions under R1o. -/- when it e&propriated petitioner >ilstrea" properties.

$ELD# The court found nothing that would indicate that respondent !ity

of Manila co"plied with +ection and :8 of R 1o. -/-. Pnder +ection lands for sociali2ed housing are to 'e ac%uired in thefollowing order (:) govern"ent landsI (/) aliena'le lands of thepu'lic do"ainI (@) unregistered or a'andoned or idle landsI (0)lands within the declared reas for #riority Develop"ent (#D)onal 4"prove"ent #rogra" (4#) sites +lu" 4"prove"ent andResettle"ent (+4R) sites which have not yet 'een ac%uiredI (,)9gong <ipunan 4"prove"ent of +ites and +ervices or 9<4++sites which have not yet 'een ac%uiredI and (7) privately;ownedlands.

The provisions are the li"itations with respect to the order of priority in ac%uiring private lands and in resorting to e&propriation.#rivate lands rank the last in the order of priority for purposes of

sociali2ed housing. B&propriation proceedings are to 'e resortedto only when the other "odes of ac%uisition have 'eene&hausted. !o"pliance with these conditions "ust 'e dee"ed"andatory 'ecause these are the only safeguards on securingthe right of owners of private property to due process when their property is e&propriated for pu'lic use.

#etitioner >ilstrea"’s properties were e&propriated and orderedconde"ned in favor of the !ity of Manila sans any showing thatresort to the ac%uisition of other lands listed under +ection of R.. no. -/- have proved futile. There was a violation of #etitioner >ilstrea"’s right to due process which "ust accordingly'e ratified. The state has the para"ount interest in e&ercising hispower of e"inent do"ain for the general welfare considering thatthe right of the +tate to e&propriate private property as long as it isfor pu'lic use always takes precedence over the interest of private property owners. 9ut we "ust not lost sight of the fact that

the individual rights affected 'y the e&ercise of such rights arealso entitled for protection 'earing in "ind that the e&ercise of this right cannot override the guarantee of due process e&tended'y the law to owners of the property to 'e e&propriated.

PUBLIC USE

G.R. No!. L-+0549, +0553 :o +0555 , O:o)r 2+, 19%3$EIRS O" &UANC$O ARDONA /S. REES

"ACTS#

This is a petition for certiorari with preli"inary in*unctionchallenging the constitutionality of #residential Decree 1o. ,70the Revised !harter of the #hilippine Touris" uthority and#rocla"ation 1o. /8,/ declaring the 'arangays of +i'ugayMalu'og 9a'ag and +irao including the proposed <usaran Da"in the !ity of !e'u and in the "unicipalities of rgao andDalaguete in the province of !e'u as tourist 2ones. Thepetitioners ask that we restrain respondent !ourt of >irst 4nstanceof !e'u and the #hilippine Touris" uthority (#T) fro" enforcingand i"ple"enting the writs of possession issued in four (0

e&propriation cases filed 'y #T against the petitioners. The #hilippine Touris" uthority filed four (0) !o"plaints with the

!ourt of >irst 4nstance of !e'u !ity for the e&propriation of so"e// hectares of rolling land situated in 'arangays Malu'og and9a'ag !e'u !ity under #TCs e&press authority Eto ac%uire 'ypurchase 'y negotiation or 'y conde"nation proceedings anyprivate land within and without the tourist 2onesE for the purposesindicated in +ection , paragraph 9(/) of its Revised !harter (#D,70) "ore specifically for the develop"ent into integrated resorco"ple&es of selected and well;defined geographic areas withpotential touris" value.

The defendants filed their respective $pposition with Motion toDis"iss andOor Reconsideration. The defendants now petitionershad a co""on allegation in that the taking is allegedly noi"pressed with pu'lic use under the !onstitution. They furthe

alleged in addition to the issue of pu'lic use that there is nospecific constitutional provision authori2ing the taking of privateproperty for touris" purpose.

ISSUE# hether e&propriation of several 'arangays for provocation otouris" and construction of sports and hotel co"ple&es constitutese&propriation for pu'lic use.

$ELD# =B+. The petitionersC contention that the pro"otion of touris" is no

Epu'lic useE 'ecause private concessioners would 'e allowed to"aintain various facilities such as restaurants hotels stores etcinside the tourist co"ple& is i"pressed with even less "erit. Thee&propriation of private land for slu" clearance and ur'andevelop"ent is for a pu'lic purpose even if the developed area is

later sold to private ho"eowners co""ercial fir"s entertain"enand service co"panies and other private concerns. #rivate 'usfir"s ta&ica' fleets roadside restaurants and other private'usinesses using pu'lic streets end highways do not di"inish inthe least 'it the pu'lic character of e&propriations for roads andstreets. The lease of store spaces in underpasses of streets 'uilon e&propriated land does not "ake the taking for a privatepurpose. irports and piers catering e&clusively to private airlinesand shipping co"panies are still for pu'lic use.

G.R. No. L-4%+%5, S)p:))r 30, 19%SUMULONG /S. GUERRERO

"ACTS# The 1ational Aousing uthority (144) filed a co"plaint fo

e&propriation of parcels of land covering appro&i"ately twenty five(/,) hectares (in ntipolo Ri2al) including the lots of petitioners<oren2o +u"ulong and B"ilia Vidanes;9alaoing with an area o777- s%uare "eters and @@@@ s%uare "eters respectively. Theland sought to 'e e&propriated were valued 'y the 1A at onepeso (#:.88) per s%uare "eter adopting the "arket value fi&ed 'ythe provincial assessor in accordance with presidential decreesprescri'ing the valuation of property in e&propriation proceedings.

Together with the co"plaint was a "otion for i""ediatepossession of the properties. The 1A deposited the a"ount o#:,8.88 with the #hilippine 1ational 9ank representing theEtotal "arket valueE of the su'*ect twenty five hectares of landpursuant to #residential Decree 1o. ://0 which defines Ethe





policy on the e&propriation of private property for sociali2edhousing upon pay"ent of *ust co"pensation.E

#etitioners filed a "otion for reconsideration on the ground thatthey had 'een deprived of the possession of their property withoutdue process of law. This was however denied.

Aence this petition challenging the orders of respondent ?udgeand assailing the constitutionality of #res. Decree 1o. ://0 asa"ended.

ISSUE# hether sociali2ed housing constitutes 5pu'lic use6 for purposes of e&propriation.

$ELD# =B+. This !ourt is satisfied that Esociali2ed housingE fans within the

confines of Epu'lic useE. s long as the purpose of the taking ispu'lic then the power of e"inent do"ain co"es into play. s *ustnoted the constitution in at least two cases to re"ove any dou'tdeter"ines what is pu'lic use. $ne is the e&propriation of lands to'e su'divided into s"all lots for resale at cost to individuals. Theother is in the transfer through the e&ercise of this power of utilities and other private enterprise to the govern"ent. isaccurate to state then that at present whatever "ay 'e'eneficially e"ployed for the general welfare satisfies there%uire"ent of pu'lic use

4n the case at 'ar the use to which it is proposed to put thesu'*ect parcels of land "eets the re%uisites of Epu'lic useE. Thelands in %uestion are 'eing e&propriated 'y the 1A for thee&pansion of 9agong 1ayon Aousing #ro*ect to provide housingfacilities to low;salaried govern"ent e"ployees.

G.R. No. 103125, M8 1, 19936RO/INCE O" CAMARINES SUR /S. COURT O" A66EALS

"ACTS# This is an appeal 'y certiorari fro" the decision of the !ourt of

ppeals. The +angguniang #anlalawigan of the #rovince of !a"arines +ur

passed Resolution 1o. :/ +eries of : authori2ing the#rovincial Governor to purchase or e&propriate property

contiguous to the provincial capitol site in order to esta'lish apilot far" for non;food and non;traditional agricultural crops and ahousing pro*ect for provincial govern"ent e"ployees.

#ursuant to the Resolution the #rovince of !a"arines +urthrough its Governor Aon. <uis R.Villafuerte filed two separatecases for e&propriation against Brnesto 1. +an ?oa%uin and Bfren1. +an ?oa%uin.

The #rovince of !a"arines +ur then filed a "otion for theissuance of writ of possession 'ut the +an ?oa%uins failed toappear at the hearing of the "otion.

The +an ?oa%uins "oved to dis"iss the co"plaints on the groundof inade%uacy of the price offered for their property. The trial courtdenied the "otion to dis"iss and authori2ed the #rovince of !a"arines +ur to take possession of the property upon thedeposit with the !lerk of !ourt of the a"ount of #,-:0.88 the

a"ount provisionally fi&ed 'y the trial court to answer for da"ages that private respondents "ay suffer in the event that thee&propriation cases do not prosper. The trial court issued a writ of possession.

The +an ?oa%uins filed a "otion for relief fro" the orderauthori2ing the #rovince of !a"arines +ur to take possession of their property and a "otion to ad"it an a"ended "otion todis"iss. 9oth "otions were denied.

4n their petition 'efore the !ourt of ppeals the +an ?oa%uinsasked (a) that Resolution 1o. :/ of the +angguniang#anlalawigan 'e declared null and voidI (') that the co"plaints for e&propriation 'e dis"issedI and (c) that the order denying the

"otion to dis"iss and allowing the #rovince of !a"arines +ur totake possession of the property su'*ect of the e&propriation andthe order denying the "otion to ad"it the a"ended "otion todis"iss 'e set aside. They also asked that an order 'e issued torestrain the trial court fro" enforcing the writ of possession andthereafter to issue a writ of in*unction.

4n its answer to the petition the #rovince of !a"arines +uclai"ed that it has the authority to initiate the e&propriation andthat the e&propriations are for a pu'lic purpose.

sked 'y the !ourt of ppeals to give his !o""ent to thepetition the +olicitor General stated that under +ection of the<ocal Govern"ent !ode (9.#. 9lg. @@-) there was no need forthe approval 'y the $ffice of the #resident of the e&ercise 'y the+angguniang #anlalawigan of the right of e"inent do"ainAowever the +olicitor General e&pressed the view that the#rovince of !a"arines +ur "ust first secure the approval of theDepart"ent of grarian Refor" of the plan to e&propriate thelands of petitioners for use as a housing pro*ect.

The !ourt of ppeals set aside the order of the trial courtallowing the #rovince of !a"arines +ur to take possession oprivate respondentsC lands and the order denying the ad"ission othe a"ended "otion to dis"iss. 4t also ordered the trial court tosuspend the e&propriation proceedings until after the #rovince of!a"arines +ur shall have su'"itted the re%uisite approval of theDepart"ent of grarian Refor" to convert the classification of the

property of the private respondents fro" agricultural to nonagricultural land. Aence this petition.

ISSUE# hether the e&propriation of property intended for theesta'lish"ent of a pilot develop"ent center and housing pro*ect of the#rovince of !a"arines +ur is in consonance with the pu'lic purposere%uire"ent of the !onstitution.

$ELD# =B+. The e&propriation of the property authori2ed 'y the %uestioned

resolution is for a pu'lic purpose. The esta'lish"ent of a pilodevelop"ent center would insure to the direct 'enefit andadvantage of the people of the #rovince of !a"arines +ur. $nceoperational the center would "ake availa'le to the co""unity

invalua'le infor"ation and technology on agriculture fishery andthe cottage industry. Plti"ately the livelihood of the far"ersfisher"en and crafts"en would 'e enhanced. The housingpro*ect also satisfies the pu'lic purpose re%uire"ent of the!onstitution. s held in Su+ulong v* ;uerrero :,0 +!R 07:EAousing is a 'asic hu"an need. +hortage in housing is a "atterof state concern since it directly and significantly affects pu'lichealth safety the environ"ent and in su" the general welfare.E

252 SCRA 412, 199+MANOSCA /S. COURT O" A66EALS

"ACTS# petition for review on certiorari, fro" the decision of the !ourt o ppeals dated :, ?anuary :/ in !;G.R. +# 1o. /07 (entitled5le*andro Manosca et al. v* Aon. 9en*a"in V. #elayo et al.6herein #etitioners inherited a piece of land located at #. 9urgos

+treet !al2ada Taguig Metro Manila with an area of a'out fouhundred ninety;two (0/) s%uare "eters. hen the parcel wasascertained 'y the 1A4 to have 'een the 'irthsite of >eli& =. Manalothe founder of :glesia i Cristo, it passed Resolution 1o. : +eries o:7 pursuant to +ection 0 of #residential Decree 1o. /78 declaringthe land to 'e a national historical land"ark. The resolution was on 87?anuary :7 approved 'y the Minister of Bducation !ulture and+ports. <ater the opinion of the +ecretary of ?ustice was asked on thelegality of the "easure. Thus the assail"ent of this petition.

ISSUE# hether or not the 5pu'lic use6 re%uire"ent of B"inenDo"ain is e&tant in the atte"pted e&propriation 'y the Repu'lic of a0/;s%uare;"eter parcel of land so declared 'y the 1ational Aistorica





4nstitute (51A46) as a national historical land"ark.

$ELD# The ter" 5pu'lic use6 not having 'een otherwise defined 'y the

constitution "ust 'e considered in its general concept of "eetinga pu'lic need or a pu'lic e&igency. The validity of the e&ercise of the power of e"inent do"ain for traditional purposes is 'eyond%uestionI it is not at all to 'e said however that pu'lic use shouldthere'y 'e restricted to such traditional uses. The idea that 5pu'licuse6 is strictly li"ited to clear cases of 5use 'y the pu'lic6 has

long 'een discarded. !hief ?ustice Bnri%ue M. >ernando states 5The taking to 'e valid

"ust 'e for pu'lic use. There was a ti"e when it was felt that aliteral "eaning should 'e attached to such a re%uire"ent.hatever pro*ect is undertaken "ust 'e for the pu'lic to en*oy asin the case of streets or parks. $therwise e&propriation is notallowa'le. 4t is not so any "ore. s long as the purpose of thetaking is pu'lic then the power of e"inent do"ain co"es intoplay. s *ust noted the constitution in at least two cases tore"ove any dou't deter"ines what is pu'lic use. $ne is thee&propriation of lands to 'e su'divided into s"all lots for resale atcost to individuals. The other is the transfer through the e&erciseof this power of utilities and other private enterprise to thegovern"ent. 4t is accurate to state then that at present whatever "ay 'e 'eneficially e"ployed for the general welfare satisfies there%uire"ent of pu'lic use.6

!hief ?ustice >ernando writing the ponencia in ?.M. Tuason N!o. vs* <and Tenure d"inistration has viewed the !onstitution adyna"ic instru"ent and one that 5is not to 'e construed narrowlyor pedantically6 so as to ena'le it 5to "eet ade%uately whatever pro'le"s the future has in store.6 >r. ?oa%uin 9ernas a notedconstitutionalist hi"self has aptly o'served that what in fact hasulti"ately e"erged is a concept of pu'lic use which is *ust as'road as 5pu'lic welfare. #etitioners finally would faultrespondent appellate court in sustaining the trial court’s order which considered inapplica'le the case of 1o'le v* !ity of Manila.9oth courts held correctly. The Repu'lic was not a party to thealleged contract of e&change 'etween the :glesia ni Cristo andpetitioners which (the contracting parties) alone not the Repu'liccould properly 'e 'ound.

ll considered the !ourt finds the assailed decision to 'e in

accord with law and *urisprudence. ABRB>$RB the petition isDB14BD.

GR No. 132%5, &8('8r 15, 2001ESTATE O" &IMENE /S. 6EA

FACTS: $n May :, :: private respondent #hilippines B&port

#rocessing one (#B) then called as the B&port #rocessingone uthority (B#) initiated 'efore the Regional Trial !ourt of !avite e&propriation proceedings on three (@) parcels of irrigatedriceland in Rosario !avite. $ne of the lots <ot :087 ( and 9) of the +an >rancisco de Mala'on Bstate with an appro&i"ate areaof /88 s%uare "eters is registered in the na"e of +alud?i"ene2 under T!T 1o. T;::@0 of the Registry of Deeds of !avite.

More than ten (:8) years later the said trial court in an $rder dated ?uly :: :: upheld the right of private respondent #Bto e&propriate a"ong others <ot :087 ( and 9).Reconsideration of the said order was sought 'y petitioner contending that said lot would only 'e transferred to a privatecorporation #hilippines Vinyl !orp. and hence would not 'eutili2ed for a pu'lic purpose.

4n an $rder dated $cto'er /, :- the trial court reconsideredthe $rder dated ?uly :: :: and released <ot :087; fro"e&propriation while the e&propriation of <ot :087;9 was"aintained. >inding the said order unaccepta'le privaterespondent #B interposed an appeal to the !ourt of ppeals.

Meanwhile petitioner wrote a letter to private respondent offeringtwo (/) proposals na"ely

:. ithdrawal of private respondentCs appeal with respect to<ot :087; 4 consideration of the waiver of clai" foda"ages and lass of inco"e for the possession of said lo'y private respondent.

/. The swap of <ot :087;9 with <ot 0@0 covered 'y T!T 1o

T;:0--/ since private respondent has no "oney yet to payfor the lot.

#rivate respondentCs 9oard approved the EproposalE and theco"pro"ise agree"ent was signed 'y private respondenthrough its then ad"inistrator Tagu"pay ?adiniano assisted 'yGovern"ent !orporate !ounsel $scar 4. Garcia. +aid

co"pro"ise agree"ent dated ?anuary 0 :@ is %uotedhereunder

:. That plaintiff agrees to withdraw its appeal fro" the $rdeof the Aonora'le !ourt dated $cto'er /, :: whichreleased lot :087; fro" the e&propriation proceedings. $nthe other hand defendant Bstate of +alud ?i"ene2 agrees towaive %uit clai" and forfeit its clai" for da"ages and loss oinco"e which it sustained 'y person of the possession osaid lot 'y plaintiff fro" :: up to the present.

/. That the parties agree that defendant Bstate of +alud?i"ene2 shall transfer lot :087;9 with an area of :@::s%uare "eters which for"s part of the lot registered undeT!T 1o. ::@0 of the Registry of Deeds of !avite to thena"e of the plaintiff and the sa"e shall 'e swapped ande&changed with lot 0@0 with an area of :0:7- s%uare"eters and covered 'y Transfer !ertificate of Title 1o:0--/ of the Registry of Deeds of !avite which lot will 'etransferred to the na"e of Bstate of +alud ?i"ene2.

@. That the swap arrange"ent recogni2ed the fact that thelot :087;9 covered 'y T!T 1o. T;::@0 of the state o

defendant +alud ?i"ene2 is considered e&propriated in favoof the govern"ent 'ased on $rder of the Aonora'le !ourdated ?uly :: ::. Aowever instead of 'eing paid the *usco"pensation for said lot the estate of said defendant shal'e paid with lot 0@0 covered 'y T!T 1o. T;:0--/.

0. That the parties agree that they will a'ide 'y the ter"s othe foregoing agree"ent in good faith and the Decision to 'erendered 'ased on this !o"pro"ise gree"ent isi""ediately final and e&ecutory.

The !ourt of ppeals re"anded the case to the trial court for theapproval of the said co"pro"ise agree"ent entered into 'etweenthe parties conse%uent with the withdrawal of the appeal with the!ourt of ppeals. 4n the $rder dated ugust /@ :@ the tria

court approved the co"pro"ise agree"ent. Aowever private respondent failed to transfer the title of <ot 0@0to petitioner inas"uch as it was not the registered owner of thecovering T!T 1o. T;:0--/ 'ut #rogressive Realty Bstate 4ncThus on March :@ :- petitioner Bstate filed a EMotion to#artially nnul the $rder dated ugust /@ :@.E

4n the $rder dated ugust 0 :- the trial court annulled the saidco"pro"ise agree"ent entered into 'etween the parties anddirected private respondent to peacefully turn over <ot :087; tothe petitioner. Disagreeing with the said $rder of the trial court

respondent #B "oved:@ for its reconsideration. The sa"eproved futile since the trial court denied reconsideration in its





$rder :0 dated 1ove"'er @ :-. $n Dece"'er 0 :- the trial court at the instance of petitioner

corrected the $rders dated ugust 0 :- and 1ove"'er @:- 'y declaring that it is <ot :087;9 and <ot :087; that should'e surrendered and returned to petitioner.

$n 1ove"'er /- :- respondent interposed 'efore the !ourtof ppeals a petition for certiorari and prohi'ition seeking to nullifythe $rders dated ugust 0 :- and 1ove"'er @ :- of the

court. #etitioner filed its !o""ent:- on ?anuary :7 :.

ISSUE# The petition anchored on the following assign"ent of errors

:. hether or not the !ourt of ppeals co""itted grave andreversi'le error in giving due course to the special !ivil ction filed 'yrespondent #B in !;G.R. +#. 1o. 07::/ when it was "adesu'stitute for lost appeal in clear contravention of the Aonora'le!ourt’s ruling in +e"pio v. !ourt of ppeals (/7@ +!R 7:-) and$ngsitco v. !ourt of ppeals (/,, +!R -8@) .

/. Granting in ;ratia 0rgu+enti that the +pecial !ivil ction of !ertiorari is proper the !ourt of ppeals nevertheless wronglyinterpreted the phrase 5$riginal De"and6 contained in rticle /80: of petitioner estate is the return of the su'*ect lot (<ot :087;9) whichsought to 'e e&propriated and not the deter"ination of *ust

co"pensation for the lot. >urther"ore even if the interpretation of thecourt of appeals or the i"port of the phrase in %uestion is correct it is rticle /8@ of the !ivil !ode and not rticle /80: which is applica'leto co"pro"ise agree"ents approved 'y the courts.

$ELD# This court therefore finds that the !ourt of ppeals did not err in

interpreting Eoriginal de"andE to "ean the fi&ing of *ustco"pensation. The authority of respondent and the nature of thepurpose thereof have 'een put to rest when the B&propriation$rder dated ?uly :: :: 'eca"e final and was duly ad"itted 'ypetitioner in the co"pro"ise agree"ent. The only issue for consideration is the "anner and a"ount of pay"ent due topetitioner. 4n fact aside fro" the withdrawal of privaterespondentCs appeal to the !ourt of ppeals concerning <ot :087;

the "atter of pay"ent of *ust co"pensation was the only

su'*ect of the co"pro"ise agree"ent dated ?anuary 0 :@.Pnder the co"pro"ise agree"ent petitioner was supposed toreceive respondentCs <ot 1o. 0@0 in e&change for <ot :087;9.hen respondent failed to fulfill its o'ligation to deliver <ot 0@0petitioner can again de"and for the pay"ent 'ut not the return of the e&propriated <ot :087;9. This interpretation 'y the !ourt of

ppeals is in according with +ection 0 to Rule 7- of the Rulesof !ourt.

This court holds that respondent has the legal authority toe&propriate the su'*ect <ot :087;9 and that the sa"e was for a

valid pu'lic purpose. 4n Su+ulong v* ;uerrero0: this !ourt hasruled that the Epu'lic useE re%uire"ent for a valid e&ercise of thepower of e"inent do"ain is a fle&i'le and evolving conceptinfluenced 'y changing conditions.

e have rules that the concept of *ust co"pensation e"'races

not only the correct deter"ination of the a"ount to 'e paid to theowners of the land 'ut also the pay"ent of the land within areasona'le ti"e fro" its taking. ithout pro"pt pay"entco"pensation cannot 'e considered E*ustE inas"uch as theproperty owner is "ade to suffer the conse%uences of 'eingi""ediately deprived of his land while 'eing "ade to wait for adecade or "ore 'efore actually receiving the a"ount necessaryto cope with his loss. e find that respondent capriciously evadedits duty of giving what is due to petitioner. 4n the case at 'ar thee&propriation order was issued 'y the trial court in ::. Theco"pro"ise agree"ent 'etween the parties was approved 'y thetrial court in :@. Aowever fro" :@ up to the presentrespondent has failed in its o'ligation to pay petitioner to the

pre*udice of the latter. Respondent caused da"age to petitioner in"aking the latter to e&pect that it had a good title to the propertyto 'e swapped with <ot :087;9I and "eanwhile respondent has'een reaping 'enefits fro" the lease or rental inco"e of the saide&propriated lot. Aowever it is high ti"e that the petitioner 'epaid what was due hi" eleven years ago. 4t is high ti"e that thepetitioner 'e paid what was due hi" eleven years ago. 4t isar'itrary and capricious for a govern"ent agency to initiatee&propriation proceedings sei2e a personCs property allow the

*udg"ent of the court to 'eco"e final and e&ecutory and then

refuse to pay on the ground that there are no appropriations forthe property earlier taken and profita'ly used. Though therespondent has co""itted a "isdeed to petitioner we cannothowever grant the petitionerCs prayer for the return of thee&propriated <ot 1o. :087;9. The $rder of e&propriation dated?uly :: :: has long 'eco"e final and e&ecutory.

4n view of all the foregoing *ustice and e%uity dictate that thiscase 'e re"anded to the trial court for hearing of thee&propriation proceedings on the deter"ination of *usco"pensation for <ot :087;9 and for its pro"pt pay"ent to thepetitioner.

ABRB>$RB the instant petition is here'y denied. TheRegional Trial !ourt of !avite !ity is here'y ordered to proceedwith the hearing of the e&propriation proceedings docketed as!ivil !ase 1o. 1;08/ regarding the deter"ination of *usco"pensation for <ot :087;9 covered and descri'ed in T!T 1o

T;::@0;!avite and to resolve the sa"e with dispatch.

GR No. 14511, &8('8r 20, 2003REES /S. N$A

"ACTS# 4n :-- respondent 1ational Aousing uthority (1A) filed

separate co"plaints for the e&propriation of sugarcane landsparticularly <ot 1os. 70,8 700;B 7:; and 7: of thecadastral survey of Das"ariWas !avite 'elonging to thepetitioners 'efore the then !ourt of >irst 4nstance of !avite anddocketed as !ivil !ase 1os. T.G.;@/ T.G.;@7 and T.G.;0:-The stated pu'lic purpose of the e&propriation was the e&pansionof the Das"arinas Resettle"ent #ro*ect to acco""odate thes%uatters who were relocated fro" the Metropolitan Manila areaThe trial court rendered *udg"ent ordering the e&propriation of

these lots and the pay"ent of *ust co"pensation. This wasaffir"ed 'y the +upre"e !ourt in a decision rendered on $cto'e

/ :- in the case of 1A vs. a'allero/ and which 'eca"efinal on 1ove"'er /7 :-.

$n >e'ruary /0 : the e&propriation court (now 9ranch :

Regional Trial !ourt of Tagaytay !ity) issued an $rder 0 thedispositive portion of which reads

EABRB>$RB and resolving thus let an lias rit of B&ecution'e i""ediately issued and that(:) The Register of Deeds of the #rovince of !avite is here'yordered to transfer in the na"e of the plaintiff 1ational Aousing

uthority the following(a) Transfer !ertificate 1o. RT;7@ containing an area o-:7- s%uare "eters situated in 9arrio 9angkalDas"ariWas !aviteI

(') Transfer !ertificate of Title 1o. T;,,-8/ containing anarea of /8-/ s%uare "eters situated in 9arrio 9angkalDas"ariWas !aviteI(c) Transfer !ertificate of Title 1o. RT;7@ and RT;070:covering <ot 1os. 7:; and 7: with an aggregate areaof :,, s%uare "eters also situated in 9arrio 9angkalDas"ariWas !avite.

(/) #laintiff 1ational Aousing uthority is likewise here'y orderedunder pain of conte"pt to i""ediately pay the defendants thea"ounts stated in the rit of B&ecution as the ad*udicatedco"pensation of their e&propriated properties which process wasreceived 'y it according to the records on +epte"'er /7 :segregating therefro" and in separate check the lawyerCs fees in





favor of tty. 9o''y #. =useco in the a"ount of #@//:/@.8, assustained 'y their contract as gleaned fro" the records with noother deduction paying on its own (1A) account the necessarylegal e&penses incident to the registration or issuance of newcertificates of title pursuant to the provisions of the #ropertyRegistration <aw (#D :,/)I(@) Defendants however are directed to pay the correspondingcapital gains ta& on the su'*ect properties directing the"additionally to coordinate with the plaintiff 1A in this regard inorder to facilitate the ter"ination of this case put an end to this

controversy and consign the sa"e to its final rest.E

ISSUE# The petitioners raise the following assign"ent of errors1. The Aonora'le !ourt of ppeals had decided a %uestion of

su'stance not in accord with *ustice and e%uity when it ruled thatas the *udg"ent of the e&propriation court did not contain acondition that should the e&propriated property 'e not used for theintended purpose it would revert to the conde"nee the action todeclare the forfeiture of rights under the e&propriation *udg"entcan not prosperI

2. The Aonora'le !ourt of ppeals decided a %uestion of su'stancenot in accord with *urisprudence *ustice and e%uity when it ruledthat the non;pay"ent is not a ground for forfeitureI

3. The Aonora'le !ourt of ppeals erred in not declaring the *udg"ent of e&propriation forfeited in light of the failure of respondent to use the e&propriated property for the intended

purpose 'ut for a totally different purpose.E$ELD# The :- !onstitution e&plicitly provides for the e&ercise of the

power of e"inent do"ain over private properties upon pay"ent of *ust co"pensation. More specifically section rticle 444 statesthat private property shall not 'e taken for pu'lic use without *ustco"pensation. The constitutional restraints are pu'lic use and

*ust co"pensation. #etitioners cannot insist on a restrictive view of the e"inent

do"ain provision of the !onstitution 'y contending that thecontract for low cost housing is a deviation fro" the stated pu'licuse. 4t is now settled doctrine that the concept of pu'lic use is nolonger li"ited to traditional purposes. Aere as elsewhere theidea that Epu'lic useE is strictly li"ited to clear cases of Euse 'ythe pu'licE has 'een a'andoned. The ter" Epu'lic useE has now

'een held to 'e synony"ous with Epu'lic interestE Epu'lic'enefitE Epu'lic welfareE and Epu'lic convenience.E

The restrictive view of pu'lic use "ay 'e appropriate for a nationwhich circu"scri'es the scope of govern"ent activities and pu'licconcerns and which possesses 'ig and correctly located pu'liclands that o'viate the need to take private property for pu'licpurposes. 1either circu"stance applies to the #hilippines. ehave never 'een a laisse2 faire +tate. nd the necessities whichi"pel the e&ertion of sovereign power are all too often found inareas of scarce pu'lic land or li"ited govern"ent resources.

The act of respondent 1A in entering into a contract with a realestate developer for the construction of low cost housing on thee&propriated lots to 'e sold to %ualified low inco"e 'eneficiariescannot 'e taken to "ean as a deviation fro" the stated pu'licpurpose of their taking. ?urisprudence has it that the e&propriationof private land for slu" clearance and ur'an develop"ent is for apu'lic purpose even if the developed area is later sold to privateho"eowners co""ercials fir"s entertain"ent and serviceco"panies and other private concerns.

Moreover the !onstitution itself allows the +tate to undertake for the co""on good and in cooperation with the private sector 8o(:i('i(@ pro@r8 o> 'r8( l8(< r)>or 8(< ?o'!i(@ whichwill "ake at afforda'le cost decent housing and 'asic services tounderprivileged and ho"eless citi2ens in ur'an centers and

r)!)::l))(: 8r)8!.:: The e&propriation of private property for the purpose of sociali2ed housing for the "arginali2ed sector is infurtherance of the social *ustice provision under +ection : rticleF444 of the !onstitution which provides that

E+B!T4$1 :. The !ongress shall give highest priority to theenact"ent of "easures that protect and enhance the right of althe people to hu"an dignity reduce social econo"ic andpolitical ine%ualities and re"ove cultural ine%uities 'y e%uita'lydiffusing wealth and political power for the co""on good.

To this end the +tate shall re%uire the ac%uisition ownership useand disposition of property and its incre"ents.E

TABRB>$RB The appealed *udg"ent is "odified as follows:. $rdering respondent 1ational Aousing uthority to paypetitioners the a"ount of #:/:,-0.@, with legal interesthereon at :/ per annu" co"puted fro" the taking of thee&propriated properties in :- until the a"ount due shall have'een fully paidI/. $rdering petitioners to pay the capital gains ta&I and@. $rdering petitioners to surrender to respondent 1ationaAousing uthority the ownersC duplicate certificates of title of thee&propriated properties upon full pay"ent of *ust co"pensation.

2+% SCRA 3+%MODA !. COURT O" A66EALSr)p)8:)< 8!)

GOVVERNMENT WITHDRAWAL

GR No. 154411, &'() 19, 2003

N$A !. $EIRS O" ISIDRO GUI/ELONDO

"ACTS# $n >e'ruary /@ : petitioner filed with the RT! of !e'u !ity

an "ended !o"plaint for e"inent do"ain against respondents4t alleged that defendant ssociacion 9enevola de !e'u was theclai"ant of a <ot located in 9anilad !e'u !ityI that defendanBngracia Prot was the clai"ant of parcels of <ots in the sa"eareaI that defendant Aeirs of 4sidro Guivelondo were clai"ants olots in !arreta Ma'olo !e'u !ityI and that the lands are in theur'an center which petitioner intends to develop as a sociali2edhousing pro*ect.

$n 1ove"'er :/ : the Aeirs of Guivelondo filed aManifestation waiving their o'*ections to petitioner’s power toe&propriate their properties. Thus the RT! issued an order to tha

effect. Thereafter the RT! appointed three !o""issioners toascertain the *ust co"pensation of the properties of respondentsThe !o""issioners su'"itted their report reco""ending the *usco"pensation 'e fi&ed at #::/88.88 per s%uare "eter whichwas favored 'y the RT!.

#etitioner however filed a Motion to Dis"iss alleging that thei"ple"entation of its sociali2ed housing pro*ect was renderedi"possi'le 'ecause the value of the land sought to 'ee&propriated was too high and the intended 'eneficiaries cannoafford. The Motion was denied since the prior case was decidedon already.

fter petitioner’s appeal was denied 'y the ! the <and'anke&ecuted garnish"ent proceedings against the funds of 1A.

ISSUES#1. $1 TAB +TTB !1 9B !$M#B<<BD 9= TAB !$PRT+ T$

!$1T41PB 4TA TAB BFBR!4+B $> 4T+ 41ABRB1T #$BR$> BM41B1T D$M41I

2. $1 ?PDGMB1T A+ 9B!$MB >41< 1D BFB!PT$R= 1D 4> B+T$##B< ##<4B+ T$ G$VBR1MB1TI

3. $1 R4T+ $> BFB!PT4$1 1D GR14+AMB1T M= 9B4++PBD G41+T TAB +TTB.

$ELD# There are two (/) stages in every action for e&propriation. The

first is concerned with the deter"ination of the authority of theplaintiff to e&ercise the power of e"inent do"ain. The second isconcerned with the deter"ination 'y the !ourt of the *us





co"pensation. The outco"e of the first phase is final since it disposes of the

case. $n the other hand the second phase fi&es the a"ount of *ust co"pensation. 9oth orders 'eing final are howeverappeala'le. $nce the first order 'eco"es final and no appealthereto is taken the authority to e&propriate and its pu'lic use canno longer 'e %uestioned.

4n the case at 'ar petitioner did not appeal the $rder of the RT!which declared the lawful right to e&propriate the properties hence

the $rder 'eca"e final. +ociali2ed housing has 'een recogni2ed as pu'lic use for

purposes of e&ercising the power of e"inent do"ain. The need toprovide housing to the ur'an poor was not lost 'y fact that theland cost "ore than petitioner had e&pected. The pu'lic purposeof is not di"inished 'y the a"ount of *ust co"pensation the courthas fi&ed.

$n the issue of the garnish"ent against petitioner’s funds thereis a need to deter"ine if it is a govern"ent entity. Generallyfunds and properties of the govern"ent cannot 'e the o'*ect of garnish"ent proceedings.

Aowever if the funds 'elong to a pu'lic corporation or a G$!!with a personality of its own then its funds are not e&e"pt fro"garnish"ent.

Aence it is clear that 1A is not e&e"pt fro" garnish"ent.

W$ERE"ORE, in view of the foregoing the instant petition for review is DB14BD.

GR No. 10+%04, A'@'!: 12, 2004N6C B 6O*RE !. CA

"ACTS# #etitioner 1#! is a pu'lic corporation created to generate

geother"al hydroelectric nuclear and other power and totrans"it electric power nationwide. 1#! is authori2ed 'y law toe&ercise the right of e"inent do"ain.

#rivate respondent #o're is the owner of property located in Tiwi l'ay.

4n :7@ #o're 'egan developing the #roperty as a resort;

su'division which he na"ed as 5Tiwi Aot +prings Resort+u'division.6 $n ugust :7, the !o""ission on Volcanology certified that

ther"al "ineral water and stea" were present 'eneath the#roperty. The co""ission found it suita'le for do"estic use andpotentially for co""ercial or industrial use.

1#! then 'eca"e involved with #o're’s #roperty in threeinstances.

>irst was on >e'ruary :-/ when #o're leased to 1#! for oneyear eleven lots frof the su'division. +econd was so"eti"e in:-- the first ti"e that 1#! filed its e&propriation case against#o're to ac%uire an @::.78 s%" portion of the #roperty. $n:- the trial court ordered the e&propriation of the lots upon1#!’s pay"ent of #/,Os%". 1#! 'egan drilling operations andconstruction of stea" wells. hile the first case was pending

1#! du"ped waste "aterials 'eyond the site agreed upon 'y1#! with #o're. 4t altered the topography o the #roperty. 1oaction was done on #o're’s co"plaints du"ping continued.Third was on +epte"'er :- when 1#! filed its seconde&propriation case. 1#! needed "ore lots for the constructionand "aintenance of a ell +ite. 1#! i""ediately deposited#,,07.@7 with the #hilippine 1ational 9ank. The depositrepresented :8 of the total "arket value of the lots covered 'ythe second e&propriation. 1#! entered the ,,,0 s%" lot uponthe trial court’s issuance of a writ of possession to 1#!.

#o're filed a "otion to dis"iss the second co"plaint and clai"edthat 1#! da"aged his #roperty. Ae prayed for *ust co"pensationof all the lots affected.

$n pril :- the trial court decided in favor of #o're orderedthe whole property to 'e paid off 'y 1#!.

1#! filed its "otion for reconsideration of the decision which wasdenied 'y the trial courts. 1#! appealed to !. ! upheld thetrial court’s decision and denied 1#!’s "otion for reconsideration

ISSUES# $1 ! erred1. 4n holding that 1#! had 5taken6 the entire #roperty of #o'reI2. 4n not e&cluding fro" the #roperty portions of which 1#! had

previously e&propriated and paid forI3. 4n holding that the a"ount of *ust co"pensation fi&ed 'y the triacourt at #@000,8.88 with interest fro" +epte"'er :- untfully paid is *ust and fairI

4. 4n not holding that the *ust co"pensation should 'e fi&ed a#/,Os%" only as what had 'een previously agreed uponI

$ELD# Bven 'efore the first case #o're had esta'lished his property as

a resort;su'division. 1#! had wrought so "uch da"age to theproperty that it "ade it uninha'ita'le as a resort;su'division.Uuestions of facts are 'eyond the pale of the +! as a petition forreview "ay only raise %uestions of law. 1#! points out that it didnot take #o're’s 77 s%" property. 1#! argues that assu"ingthat it is lia'le for da"ages the @::.78 s%" portion that it hadsuccessfully e&propriated and fully paid for should have 'een

e&cluded fro" the 77 s%" property that #o're clai"s 1#!had da"aged. 4t was clearly esta'lished that the property originally had a tota

area of :0:@88 s%". #o're identified the lots for"ing the 77s%" property that co"prised the undeveloped area. 1#! had theopportunity to o'*ect to the identification of the lots 'ut failed todo so. Thus the trial and appellate courts’ finding on the totaland area 1#! had da"aged cannot 'e distur'ed.

hen possession of the land cannot 'e turned over to thelandowner 'ecause it is not any"ore convenient or feasi'le to doso the only re"edy availa'le to the aggrieved landowner is tode"and pay"ent of *ust co"pensation.

4n this case the property is no longer ha'ita'le as a resort;su'division. The #roperty is worthless is now only useful to1#!. 1#! "oved for the dis"issal of the co"plaint for the

second e&propriation on the ground that it had found analternative site and there was stiff opposition fro" #o're. 1#!a'andoned the second e&propriation case five years after it hadalready deprived the #roperty virtually of all its value. 1#! hasde"onstrated its utter disregard for #o're’s property rights.

Thus it would now 'e futile to co"pel 1#! to institutee&propriation proceedings to deter"ine the *ust co"pensation fo#o're’s 77 s%uare;"eter #roperty. #o're "ust 'e sparedany further delay in his pursuit to receive *ust co"pensation fro"1#!. ?ust co"pensation is the fair and full e%uivalent of the loss

The lesson in this case "ust not 'e lost on entities with e"inentdo"ain authority. +uch entities cannot trifle with a citi2en’sproperty rights. The power of e"inent do"ain is an e&traordinarypower they "ust wield with circu"spection and ut"ost regard foprocedural re%uire"ents.

W$ERE"ORE the petition is denied for lack of "erit.

RECOVERY OF EXPROPRIATED LAND

GR No. 15%5+3, &'() 30, 2005ATO !. GO6UCO

"ACTS# Respondent was the owner of lots consisting of , s%" located

in the vicinity of the <ahug irport in !e'u !ity. The airport had'een turned over 'y the P.+. r"y to the #hilippines so"eti"e in





:0- through the +urplus #roperty !o""ission. 4n :0- the!o""ission was succeeded 'y the 9ureau of eronautics whichwas supplanted 'y the 1ational irport !orporation (1!). The1! was then dissolved and replaced with the !ivil eronautics

d"inistration (!). +o"eti"e in :0 the 1! infor"ed the various lot;owners

surrounding the <ahug irport including respondent that thegovern"ent was ac%uiring their lands for purposes of e&pansion.+o"e landowners sold their properties on the assurance that theywould 'e a'le to repurchase the sa"e when these would no

longer 'e used 'y the airport. $thers including respondentrefused to do so.

Thus on pril :,/ the ! filed a co"plaint with the !ourt of >irst 4nstance (!>4) for the e&propriation of the lots which the !>4decided in favor of !. 1o appeal was "ade.

+u'se%uently when the Mactan 4nternational irport 'eganoperations the <ahug irport was ordered closed 'y then#resident %uino. $n March :8 respondent wrote the "anager of the <ahug irport seeking the return of his lot and offered toreturn the "oney previously paid. This letter was ignored.

$n 8 May :/ ownership of the <ahug lots were transferred toMactan;!e'u 4nternational irport uthority (M!4).Respondent filed recovery of ownership of his <ot with the RT! of !e'u and "aintained that since the <ahug irport has 'eenclosed the purpose of the property had ceased and title to the

property had therefore reverted to hi". Respondent however failed to present evidence on entering the

previous co"pro"ise agree"ent "ade. <astly Gopuco asserted that there were several announce"ents

that the <ahug irport was soon to 'e developed into aco""ercial co"ple& which he took to 'e a sche"e of the#rovince of !e'u to "ake per"anent the deprivation of hisproperty.

The RT! dis"issed the co"plaint and directed the respondent topay e&e"plary da"ages litigation e&penses and costs.

ggrieved 'y the decision respondent appealed to ! whichoverturned the RT! decision ordered petitioners to reconvey lotsto respondent upon pay"ent of the reasona'le price asdeter"ined 'y it and deleted the costs of da"ages.

ISSUES#1. $1 TAB ! BRRBD 41 A$<D41G TAT RB+#$1DB1T A+

TAB R4GAT T$ RB!<4M $1BR+A4# $> TAB <$T.2. $1 TAB ! BRRBD 41 DB<BT41G TAB RD $>

<4T4GT4$1 BF#B1+B+ 1D !$+T+ 41 >V$R $>#BT4T4$1BR+.

$ELD# hen land has 'een ac%uired for pu'lic use in fee si"ple

unconditionally either 'y the e&ercise of e"inent do"ain or 'ypurchase the for"er owner retains no rights in the land and thepu'lic use "ay 'e a'andoned or the land "ay 'e devoted to adifferent use without any i"pair"ent of the estate or titleac%uired or any reversion to the for"er owner.

4t was ruled that a co"pro"ise agree"ent when not contrary to

law pu'lic order pu'lic policy "orals or good custo"s is a validcontract which is the law 'etween the parties. 4ndeed anyonewho is not a party to a contract or agree"ent cannot 'e 'ound 'yits ter"s and cannot 'e affected 'y it. +ince respondent was nota party to the co"pro"ise agree"ents he cannot legally invokethe sa"e.

B"inent do"ain is generally descri'ed as 5the highest and "oste&act idea of property re"aining in the govern"ent6 that "ay 'eac%uired for pu'lic purpose through a "ethod in the nature of aforced purchase 'y the +tate. lso often referred to ase&propriation or conde"nation it is like police power andta&ation an inherent power of sovereignty and need not 'e

clothed with any constitutional gear to e&istI instead provisions inour !onstitution on the su'*ect are "eant "ore to regulate rathethan to grant the e&ercise of the power.

The only direct constitutional %ualification is thus that 5privateproperty shall not 'e taken for pu'lic use without *usco"pensation.6 This prescription is intended to provide asafeguard against possi'le a'use. 4n this case the *udg"ent onthe propriety of the taking of the co"pensation received have long'eco"e final. 1either has respondent in the present caseadduced any evidence at all concerning a right of repurchase in

his favor. The trial court was thus correct in denying respondent’s clai".

Aowever the petitioner’s clai" of harass"ent or that therespondent acted in 'ad faith is unfounded the i"position olitigation e&penses and costs has no 'asis. W$ERE"ORE thepetition is GR1TBD.

GENUINE NECESSITY

G.R. No. 1+1+5+. &'() 29, 2005RE6U*LIC O" T$E 6$ILI66INES !. /ICENTE G. LIM

"ACTS#

The Repu'lic of the #hilippines (Repu'lic) instituted a special civiaction for e&propriation with the !ourt of >irst 4nstance (!>4) o!e'u docketed as !ivil !ase 1o. -: involving <ots @/ and@ of the 9anilad >riar <and Bstate <ahug !e'u !ity for thepurpose of esta'lishing a "ilitary reservation for the #hilippine

r"y. <ot @/ was registered in the na"e of Gervasia Den2onunder Transfer !ertificate of Title (T!T) 1o. :0/: with an area o/,:@- s%uare "eters while <ot @ was in the na"e of BulaliaDen2on and covered 'y T!T 1o. :/,78 consisting of :@:70s%uare "eters.

fter depositing #,88.88 with the #hilippine 1ational 9ankpursuant to the $rder of the !>4 dated $cto'er : :@ theRepu'lic took possession of the lots. Thereafter or on May :0:08 the !>4 rendered its Decision ordering the Repu'lic to paythe Den2ons the su" of #087/.:8 as *ust co"pensation.

The Den2ons interposed an appeal to the !ourt of ppeals 'ut itwas dis"issed

>or failure of the Repu'lic to pay for the lots the Den2onssuccessors;in;interest >rancisca Galeos;Valdehue2a and?osefina Galeos;#anerio filed with the sa"e !>4 an action forecovery of possession with da"ages against the Repu'lic andofficers of the r"ed >orces of the #hilippines in possession othe property. The case was docketed as !ivil !ase 1o. R;-/8.

4n the interi" T!T 1os. /@@0 and /@@, covering <ots @/ and@ were issued in the na"es of >rancisca Valdehue2a and?osefina #anerio respectively. nnotated thereon was thephrase 5su'*ect to the priority of the 1ational irports !orporationto ac%uire said parcels of land <ots @/ and @ upon previouspay"ent of a reasona'le "arket value.6

The !>4 pro"ulgated its Decision in favor of Valdehue2a and#anerio holding that they are the owners and have retained theirright as such over <ots @/ and @ 'ecause of the Repu'lic’sfailure to pay the a"ount of #087/.:8 ad*udged in thee&propriation proceedings. Aowever in view of the annotation ontheir land titles they were ordered to e&ecute a deed of sale infavor of the Repu'lic. 4n view of 5the differences in "oney valuefro" :08 up to the present6 the court ad*usted the "arket valueat #:7/0.08 to 'e paid with 7 interest per annu" fro" pril ,:0 date of entry in the e&propriation proceedings until fulpay"ent.

fter their "otion for reconsideration was denied Valdehue2a and#anerio appealed fro" the !>4 Decision in view of the a"ount incontroversy directly to this !ourt. The case was docketed as 1o





<;/:8@/. $n May : :77 this !ourt rendered its Decisionaffir"ing the !>4 Decision. 4t held that Valdehue2a and #anerioare still the registered owners of <ots @/ and @ there having'een no pay"ent of *ust co"pensation 'y the Repu'lic.

pparently this !ourt found nothing in the records to show thatthe Repu'lic paid the owners or their successors;in;interestaccording to the !>4 decision. hile it deposited the a"ount of #,8888 and said deposit was allegedly dis'ursed howeverthe payees could not 'e ascertained.

Meanwhile Valdehue2a and #anerio "ortgaged <ot @/ to

Vicente <i" herein respondent as security for their loans. >or their failure to pay <i" despite de"and he had the "ortgageforeclosed in :-7. Thus T!T 1o. /@@0 was cancelled and inlieu thereof T!T 1o. 7@0 was issued in his na"e.

Respondent <i" filed a co"plaint for %uieting of title with theRegional Trial !ourt (RT!) 9ranch :8 !e'u !ity againstGeneral Ro"eo ulueta as !o""ander of the r"ed >orces of the #hilippines !o""odore Bdgardo Galeos as !o""ander of 1aval District V of the #hilippine 1avy ntonio !a'alunaDoroteo Mantos and >lorencio 9elotindos herein petitioners.+u'se%uently he a"ended the co"plaint to i"plead theRepu'lic.

RT! rendered a decision in favor of respondent thus declaringplaintiff Vicente <i" the a'solute and e&clusive owner of <ot 1o.@/ with all the rights of an a'solute owner including the right to

possession. The "onetary clai"s in the co"plaint and in thecounter clai"s contained in the answer of defendants are orderedDis"issed.

#etitioners elevated the case to the !ourt of ppeals docketedtherein as !;G.R. !V 1o. -/:,. 4n its Decision dated+epte"'er : /88@ the ppellate !ourt sustained the RT!Decision thus

n action to %uiet title is a co""on law re"edy for the re"oval of any cloud or dou't or uncertainty on the title to real property. 4t isessential for the plaintiff or co"plainant to have a legal or e%uita'le title or interest in the real property which is the su'*ect"atter of the action. lso the deed clai" encu"'rance or proceeding that is 'eing alleged as cloud on plaintiff’s title "ust'e shown to 'e in fact invalid or inoperative despite its pri"a facieappearance of validity or legal efficacy (Ro'les vs. !ourt of

ppeals @/ +!R -). 4n view of the foregoing discussion

clearly the clai" of defendant;appellant Repu'lic constitutes acloud dou't or uncertainty on the title of plaintiff;appellee Vicente<i" that can 'e re"oved 'y an action to %uiet title.

ABRB>$RB in view of the foregoing and finding no reversi'leerror in the appealed May 0 /88: Decision of 9ranch RegionalTrial !ourt of !e'u !ity in !ivil !ase 1o. !B9;:/-8: the saiddecision is P#AB<D 1D >>4RMBD. ccordingly the appeal isD4+M4++BD for lack of "erit.6

ISSUE# The 'asic issue is whether the Repu'lic has retainedownership of <ot @/ despite its failure to pay respondent’spredecessors;in;interest the *ust co"pensation

$ELD# >ro" the taking of private property 'y the govern"ent under the

power of e"inent do"ain there arises an i"plied pro"ise toco"pensate the owner for his loss

+ignificantly the a'ove;"entioned provision of +ection rticle444 of the !onstitution is not a grant 'ut a li"itation of power. Thisli"iting function is in keeping with the philosophy of the 9ill of Rights against the ar'itrary e&ercise of govern"ental powers tothe detri"ent of the individual’s rights. Given this function theprovision should therefore 'e strictly interpreted against thee&propriator the govern"ent and li'erally in favor of the propertyowner.

“Title to property which is the su'*ect of conde"nationproceedings does not vest the conde"nor until the *udg"ent

fi&ing *ust co"pensation is entered and paid 'ut the conde"nor’stitle relates 'ack to the date on which the petition under theB"inent Do"ain ct or the co""issioner’s report under the<ocal 4"prove"ent ct is filed.

!learly without full pay"ent of *ust co"pensation there can 'eno transfer of title fro" the landowner to the e&propriator$therwise stated the Repu'lic’s ac%uisition of ownership isconditioned upon the full pay"ent of *ust co"pensation within areasona'le ti"e

ABRB>$RB the assailed Decision of the !ourt of ppeals in!;G.R. !V 1o. -/:, is >>4RMBD

G.R. No. 212+, &8('8r 29, 19%%MUNICI6ALIT O" MECAUAAN !. INTERMEDIATEA66ELLATE COURT

"ACTS# This is a petition for review on certiorari of the resolution dated

pril /0:, 'y the for"er 4nter"ediate ppellate !ourt now!ourt of ppeals setting aside its earlier decision dated ?anuary:8 :, and dis"issing the special civil action for e&propriationfiled 'y the petitioner.

Respondent #hilippine #ipes and Merchandising !orporation filedwith the $ffice of the Municipal Mayor of Meycauayan 9ulacan

an application for a per"it to fence a parcel of land with a width o/7. "eters and a length of :0.@- "eters covered 'y Transfer!ertificates of Title 1os. /:,:7, and @--. The fencing of saidproperty was allegedly to ena'le the storage of the respondentCsheavy e%uip"ent and various finished products such as largedia"eter steel pipes pontoon pipes for ports wharves andhar'ors 'ridge co"ponents pre;stressed girders and piles largedia"eter concrete pipes and parts for low cost housing.

The Municipal !ouncil of Meycauayan headed 'y then Mayor!elso R. <egaspi passed Resolution 1o. /, +eries of :-,"anifesting the intention to e&propriate the respondentCs parcel oland covered 'y Transfer !ertificate of Title 1o. @--.

n opposition to the resolution was filed 'y the respondent withthe $ffice of the #rovincial Governor which in turn created aspecial co""ittee of four "e"'ers to investigate the "atter.

The +pecial !o""ittee reco""ended that the #rovincial 9oardof 9ulacan disapprove or annul the resolution in %uestion 'ecausethere was no genuine necessity for the Municipality oMeycauayan to e&propriate the respondentCs property for use as apu'lic road.

$n the 'asis of this report the #rovincial 9oard of 9ulacanpassed Resolution 1o. /@ +eries of :-7 disapproving andannulling Resolution 1o. /, +eries of :-, of the Municipa!ouncil of Meycauayan. The respondent then reiterated to the$ffice of the Mayor its petition for the approval of the per"it tofence the aforesaid parcels of land.

Aowever the Municipal !ouncil of Meycauayan now headed 'yMayor driano D. Dae2 passed Resolution 1o. /: +eries o:@ for the purpose of e&propriating anew the respondentCsland. The #rovincial 9oard of 9ulacan approved the aforesaidresolution on ?anuary /, :0.

Thereafter the petitioner on >e'ruary :0 :0 filed with theRegional Trial !ourt of Malolos 9ulacan 9ranch V4 a special civiaction for e&propriation.

Ppon deposit of the a"ount of #/08/,.88 which is the "arkevalue of the land with the #hilippine 1ational 9ank the trial couron March : :0 issued a writ of possession in favor of thepetitioner.

The trial court issued an order declaring the taking of the propertyas lawful and appointing the #rovincial ssessor of 9ulacan ascourt co""issioner who shall hold the hearing to ascertain the

*ust co"pensation for the property.





The respondent went to the 4nter"ediate ppellate !ourt onpetition for review. The appellate court affir"ed the trial courtCsdecision. Aowever upon "otion for reconsideration 'y therespondent the decision was re;e&a"ined and reversed. Theappellate court held that there is no genuine necessity toe&propriate the land for use as a pu'lic road as there wereseveral other roads for the sa"e purpose and another "oreappropriate lot for the proposed pu'lic road. The court taking intoconsideration the location and si2e of the land also opined thatthe land is "ore 4deal for use as storage area for respondentCs

heavy e%uip"ent and finished products.

ISSUE# hether the Municipality of Meycauayan was right to e&erciseits power of e"inent do"ain to e&propriate the respondentCs propertyfor use as a pu'lic road3

$ELD# This !ourt held that the foundation of the right to e&ercise the

power of e"inent do"ain is genuine necessity and that necessity"ust 'e of a pu'lic character. !onde"nation of private property is

*ustified only if it is for the pu'lic good and there is a genuinenecessity of a pu'lic character. !onse%uently the courts have thepower to in%uire into the legality of the e&ercise of the right of e"inent do"ain and to deter"ine whether there is a genuinenecessity thereof. There is a'solutely no showing in the petitionwhy the "ore appropriate lot for the proposed road which was

offered for sale has not 'een the su'*ect of the petitionerCsatte"pt to e&propriate assu"ing there is a real need for another connecting road.

ABRB>$RB the petition is here'y D4+M4++BD for lack of "erit. The %uestioned resolution of the respondent court is

>>4RMBD.

G.R. No. L-510%, O:o)r 30, 19%0CRISTINA DE NEC$T, !. $ON. 6EDRO &L. *AUTISTA

"ACTS# petition for certiorari and prohi'ition was filed 'y !ristina de

Snecht against the Aonora'le #edro ?<. 9autista as ?udgepresiding over 9ranch 444 of the !ourt of >irst 4nstance of Ri2al

(#asay !ity) and the Repu'lic of the #hilippines pines seekingthat *udg"ent 'e rendered annulling the order for i""ediatepossession issued 'y respondent court in the e&propriationproceedings and co""anding respondents to desist fro" further proceedings in the e&propriation action or the order for i""ediatepossession issued in said action with costs.

nd that a restraint order or writ of preli"inary in*unction 'eissued e&;parte en*oining respondents their representativerepresentative and agents fro" enforcing the here %uestionedorder for "ediate posession petitioner offering to post a 'onde&ecuted to the parties en*oined in an a"ount to 'e fi&ed 'y the!ourt to the effect that she will pay to such parties all da"ageswhich they "ay sustain 'y reason of the in*unction if the !ourtshould finally decide she is not entitled there.

Ten years ago the govern"ent through the Depart"ent of #u'licork"enCs and !o""unication prepared a to Bpifanio de los

+antos venue (BD+) to Ro&as 9oulevardI that the proposede&tension an ad*unct of 'uilding progra" the pro*ect would passthrough !uneta venue up to Ro&as 9oulevard that this routewould 'e a straight one taking into account the direction of BD+.Then +ecretary 9alta2ar %uino of the Depart"ent of #u'licAighways directed the !ity Bngineer of #asay !ity not to issuete"porary or per"anent per"its for the construction andOor i"prove"ent of 'uildings and other structures located within theproposed e&tension through !uneta venue.

Depart"ent of #u'lic Aighways decided to "ake the proposede&tension go through >ernando Rein and Del #an +treets whichare lined with old su'stantial housesI that upon learning of thechanged the owners of the residential houses that would 'e

affected the herein petitioner 'eing one of the". #etitioner filed a for"al petition to #resident >erdinand B. Marcos

asking hi" to order the Ministry of #u'lic Aighways to adoptionthe original plan of "aking the e&tension of BD+ through

raneta venue instead of the new plan going through >ernandoRein and Del #an +treetsI that #resident Marcos directed thenMinister 9alta2ar %uino to e&plain within twenty;four (/0) hourswhy the proposed pro*ect should not 'e suspended.

Minister %uino su'"itted his e&planation defending the new

proposed routeI that the #resident then referred the "atter to theAu"an +ettle"ents !o""ission for investigation andreco""endationI that after for"al hearings to which all theparties proponents and oppositors were given full opportunity toventilate their views and to present their evidence the+ettle"ents !o""ission su'"itted a report reco""ending thereversion of the e&tension of BD+ to the original plan passingthrough !uneta venueI and that notwithstanding the said reporand reco""endation the Ministry of #u'lic Aighways insisted oni"ple"enting the plan to "ake the e&tension of BD+ go through>ernando Rein and Del #an +treets.

The Repu'lic of the #hilippines filed a "otion for the issuance oa writ of possession of the property sought to 'e e&propriated onthe ground that said Repu'lic had "ade the re%uired deposit withthe #hilippine 1ational 9ank.

The respondent *udge issued a writ of possession authori2ing the

Repu'lic of the #hilippines to take and enter upon the possessionof the properties sought 'e conde"ned.

ISSUES#1. hether the plan to "ake the e&tension of BD+ to Ro&as

9oulevard through >ernando Rein and Del #an +treet 'e "ade32. hether the respondent *udge co""itted a grave a'use o

discretion in allowing the Repu'lic of the #hilippines to takei""ediate possession of the properties sought to 'ee&propriated3

$ELD# >ro" all the foregoing the facts of record and reco""endations

of the Au"an +ettle"ents !o""ission it is clear that the choiceof >ernando Rein H Del #an +treets as the line through which

the Bpifanio de los +antos venue should 'e e&tended to Ro&as9oulevard is ar'itrary and should not receive *udicial approvalThe respondent *udge co""itted a grave a'use of discretion inallowing the Repu'lic of the #hilippines to take i""ediatepossession of the properties sought to 'e e&propriated.

The petition for certiorari and prohi'ition is here'y granted. Theorder authori2ing the Repu'lic of the #hilippines to take or enterupon the possession of the properties sought to 'e conde"ned isset aside and the respondent ?udge is per"anently en*oined fro"taking any further action e&cept to dis"iss said case.

GR No. %351, ")r'8r 12, 1990R6 !. DE NEC$T(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

G.R. No. 13+349, &8('8r 23, 200+LOURDES DE LA 6A MASII6 !. $ON. MARIETTA A. LEGAS6I

"ACTS# #etitioner <ourdes Dela #a2 Masikip is the registered owner of a

parcel of land with an area of 0,/: s%uare "eters located a#ag;sa !aniogan #asig !ity Metro Manila. 4n a letter dated?anuary 7 :0 the then Municipality of #asig now !ity o#asig respondent notified petitioner of its intention to e&propriatea :,88 s%uare "eter portion of her property to 'e used for theEsports develop"ent and recreational activitiesE of the residents o9arangay !aniogan. This was pursuant to $rdinance 1o. 0/





+eries of :@ enacted 'y the then +angguniang 9ayan of #asig . gain on March /@ :0 respondent wrote another letter topetitioner 'ut this ti"e the purpose was allegedly Ein line with theprogra" of the Municipal Govern"ent to provide landopportunities to deserving poor sectors of our co""unity.E $nMay / :0 petitioner sent a reply to respondent stating that theintended e&propriation of her property is unconstitutional invalidand oppressive as the area of her lot is neither sufficient nor suita'le to Eprovide land opportunities to deserving poor sectorsof our co""unity.E 4n its letter of Dece"'er /8 :0 respondent

reiterated that the purpose of the e&propriation of petitioner’sproperty is Eto provide sports and recreational facilities to its poor residents.E

+u'se%uently on >e'ruary /: :, respondent filed with thetrial court a co"plaint for e&propriation docketed as +! 1o.-@. Respondent prayed that the trial court after due notice andhearing issue an order for the conde"nation of the propertyI thatco""issioners 'e appointed for the purpose of deter"ining the

*ust co"pensationI and that *udg"ent 'e rendered 'ased on thereport of the co""issioners.

$n May - :7 the trial court issued an $rder denying theMotion to Dis"iss on the ground that there is a genuine necessityto e&propriate the property for the sports and recreationalactivities of the residents of #asig . s to the issue of *ustco"pensation the trial court held that the sa"e is to 'edeter"ined in accordance with the Revised Rules of !ourt.

#etitioner filed a "otion for reconsideration 'ut it was denied 'ythe trial court in its $rder of ?uly @: :7. >orthwith it appointedthe !ity ssessor and !ity Treasurer of #asig !ity asco""issioners to ascertain the *ust co"pensation. This pro"ptedpetitioner to file with the !ourt of ppeals a special civil action for certiorari docketed as !;G.R. +# 1o. 0:78. $n $cto'er @::- the ppellate !ourt dis"issed the petition for lack of "erit.#etitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied in aResolution dated 1ove"'er /8 :.

ISSUES# TAB UPB+T4$1BD DB!4+4$1 DTBD @: $!T$9BR :-(TT!AMB1T EE) 1D RB+$<PT4$1 DTBD /8 1$VBM9BR: (TT!AMB1T E9E) RB !$1TRR= T$ < TAB RP<B+ $>!$PRT 1D ?PR4+#RPDB1!B !$1+4DBR41G TAT4

. TABRB 4+ 1$ BV4DB1!B T$ #R$VB TAT TABRB 4+ GB1P41B

1B!B++4T= >$R TAB TS41G $> TAB #BT4T4$1BR’+ #R$#BRT=.9. TABRB 4+ 1$ BV4DB1!B T$ #R$VB TAT TAB #P9<4! P+BRBUP4RBMB1T >$R TAB BFBR!4+B $> TAB #$BR $>BM41B1T D$M41 A+ 9BB1 !$M#<4BD 4TA.!. TABRB 4+ 1$ BV4DB1!B T$ #R$VB TAT RB+#$1DB1T !4T=$> #+4G A+ !$M#<4BD 4TA << !$1D4T4$1+ #RB!BDB1T>$R TAB BFBR!4+B $> TAB #$BR $> BM41B1T D$M41.TAB !$PRT UP$’+ $RDBR DTBD 8- M= :7 1D @: ?P<=:7 A4!A BRB >>4RMBD 9= TAB !$PRT $> ##B<+B>>B!T4VB<= M$P1T T$ TAB TS41G $> #BT4T4$1BR’+#R$#BRT= 4TA$PT DPB #R$!B++ $> <44TAB !$PRT $> ##B<+ GRVB<= BRRBD 41 ##<=41G $>RP #+4G ’+ !$M#<41TDTBD 8- #R4< :, T$ ?P+T4>= TAB !$PRT UP$’+ DB14<$> #BT4T4$1BR’+ RB+#$1+4VB #<BD41G T$ TAB !$M#<41T>$R BF#R$#R4T4$1 (TAB M$T4$1 T$ D4+M4++ DTBD /:

#R4< :,).444TAB !$PRT $> ##B<+ GRVB<= BRRBD 41 ##<=41G TABRP >!T+ <<BGBD 41 !$M#<41T !$1+4DBR41G TAT TAB M$T4$1 T$ D4+M4++>4<BD 9= #BT4T4$1BR 41 TAB BF#R$#R4T4$1 !+B 9B<$+ TAB RB+#$1+4VB #<BD41G RBUP4RBD T$ 9B >4<BDP1DBR TAB TAB1 RP TAB RP<B+ $> !$PRT 1D 1$T

1 $R4D1R= M$T4$1 T$ D4+M4++ P1DBR RP TABRP<B+ $> !$PRT.

$ELD#

$n the two "ain issues L one su'stantive and one procedural #etitioner filed her Motion to Dis"iss the co"plaint fo

e&propriation on pril /, :,. 4t was denied 'y the trial court onMay - :7. t that ti"e the rule on e&propriation was governed'y +ection @ Rule 7- of the Revised Rules of !ourt whichprovides

E+B!. @. Defenses and o'*ections. L ithin the ti"e specified inthe su""ons each defendant in lieu of an answer shall presenin a single "otion to dis"iss or for other appropriate relief all his

o'*ections and defenses to the right of the plaintiff to take hisproperty for the use or purpose specified in the co"plaint. ll sucho'*ections and defenses not so presented are waived. copy ofthe "otion shall 'e served on the plaintiff’s attorney of record andfiled with the court with proof of service.E

The "otion to dis"iss conte"plated in the a'ove Rule clearlyconstitutes the responsive pleading which takes the place of ananswer to the co"plaint for e&propriation. +uch "otion is thepleading that puts in issue the right of the plaintiff to e&propriatethe defendant’s property for the use specified in the co"plaint. lthat the law re%uires is that a copy of the said "otion 'e servedon plaintiff’s attorney of record. 4t is the court that at itsconvenience will set the case for trial after the filing of the saidpleading.

The !ourt of ppeals therefore erred in holding that the "otion todis"iss filed 'y petitioner hypothetically ad"itted the truth of the

facts alleged in the co"plaint Especifically that there is a genuinenecessity to e&propriate petitioner’s property for pu'lic use.E hathe trial court should have done was to set the case for thereception of evidence to deter"ine whether there is indeed agenuine necessity for the taking of the property instead osu""arily "aking a finding that the taking is for pu'lic use andappointing co""issioners to fi& *ust co"pensation.

+ignificantly the a'ove Rule allowing a defendant in ane&propriation case to file a "otion to dis"iss in lieu of an answewas a"ended 'y the :- Rules of !ivil #rocedure which tookeffect on ?uly : :-. +ection @ Rule 7- now e&pressly"andates that any o'*ection or defense to the taking of theproperty of a defendant "ust 'e set forth in an answer.

The fact that the !ourt of ppeals rendered its Decision in !G.R. +# 1o. 0:78 on $cto'er @: after the :- Rules of !ivi

#rocedure took effect is of no "o"ent. 4t is only fair that the Ruleat the ti"e petitioner filed her "otion to dis"iss should governThe new provision cannot 'e applied retroactively to hepre*udice.

e now proceed to address the su'stantive issue. The power of e"inent do"ain is lodged in the legislative 'ranch

of the govern"ent. 4t delegates the e&ercise thereof to locagovern"ent units other pu'lic entities and pu'lic utilitycorporations su'*ect only to !onstitutional li"itations. <ocagovern"ents have no inherent power of e"inent do"ain and "aye&ercise it only when e&pressly authori2ed 'y statute. +ection :of the <ocal Govern"ent !ode of :: (Repu'lic ct 1o. -:78prescri'es the delegation 'y !ongress of the power of e"inentdo"ain to local govern"ent units and lays down the para"etersfor its e&ercise thus ?udicial review of the e&ercise of e"inendo"ain is li"ited to the following areas of concern (a) the

ade%uacy of the co"pensation (') the necessity of the takingand (c) the pu'lic use character of the purpose of the taking. 4n this case petitioner contends that respondent !ity of #asig

failed to esta'lish a genuine necessity which *ustifies theconde"nation of her property. hile she does not dispute theintended pu'lic purpose nonetheless she insists that there "us'e a genuine necessity for the proposed use and purposesBvidently there is no Egenuine necessityE to *ustify thee&propriation.

The right to take private property for pu'lic purposes necessarilyoriginates fro" Ethe necessityE and the taking "ust 'e li"ited tosuch necessity. 4n !ity of Manila v. !hinese !o""unity of Manila





we held that the very foundation of the right to e&ercise e"inentdo"ain is a genuine necessity and that necessity "ust 'e of apu'lic character. Moreover the ascertain"ent of the necessity"ust precede or acco"pany and not follow the taking of the land.

pplying this standard we hold that respondent !ity of #asig hasfailed to esta'lish that there is a genuine necessity to e&propriatepetitioner’s property. $ur scrutiny of the records shows that the!ertification issued 'y the !aniogan 9arangay !ouncil dated1ove"'er /8 :0 the 'asis for the passage of $rdinance 1o.0/ s. :@ authori2ing the e&propriation indicates that the

intended 'eneficiary is the Melendres !o"pound Ao"eowners ssociation a private non;profit organi2ation not the residents of !aniogan. 4t can 'e gleaned that the "e"'ers of the said

ssociation are desirous of having their own private playgroundand recreational facility. #etitioner’s lot is the nearest vacantspace availa'le. The purpose is therefore not clearly andcategorically pu'lic.

Pnless the re%uisite of genuine necessity for the e&propriation of one’s property is clearly esta'lished it shall 'e the duty of thecourts to protect the rights of individuals to their private property.4"portant as the power of e"inent do"ain "ay 'e the inviola'lesanctity which the !onstitution attaches to the property of theindividual re%uires not only that the purpose for the taking of private property 'e specified. The genuine necessity for thetaking which "ust 'e of a pu'lic character "ust also 'e shownto e&ist.

The petition for review is GR1TBD. The challenged Decisionand Resolution of the !ourt of ppeals in !;G.R. +# 1o. 0:78are RBVBR+BD. The co"plaint for e&propriation filed 'efore thetrial court 'y respondent !ity of #asig docketed as +! 1o. -@is ordered D4+M4++BD.

JUST COMPENSATION DEFINED

G.R. No. 14+0+2, &'() 2%, 2001SANTIAGO ESLA*AN, &R. !. CLARITA /DA. DE ONORIO

"ACTS# This is a petition for review of the decision of the !ourt of ppeals

which affir"ed the decision of the Regional Trial !ourt 9ranch

/7 +urallah +outh !ota'ato ordering the 1ational 4rrigation d"inistration (14 for 'revity) to pay respondent the a"ount of #:8-,:-.78 as *ust co"pensation for the taking of the latter’sproperty.

Respondent !larita Vda. de Bnorio is the owner of a lot in9arangay M. Ro&as +to. 1iXo +outh !ota'ato with an area of @,:/ s%uare "eters. $n $cto'er 7 :: +antiago Bsla'an?r. #ro*ect Manager of the 14 approved the construction of the"ain irrigation canal of the 14 on the said lot affecting a /0778s%uare "eter portion thereof. Respondent’s hus'and agreed tothe construction of the 14 canal provided that they 'e paid 'y thegovern"ent for the area taken after the processing of docu"ents'y the !o""ission on udit.

+o"eti"e in :@ a Right;of;ay agree"ent was e&ecuted'etween respondent and the 14 (B&h. :). The 14 then paid

respondent the a"ount of #0:8.88 as Right;of;ay da"ages.Respondent su'se%uently e&ecuted an ffidavit of aiver of Rights and >ees where'y she waived any co"pensation for da"ages to crops and i"prove"ents which she suffered as aresult of the construction of a right;of;way on her property (B&h./). The sa"e year petitioner offered respondent the su" of #@,888.88 'y way of a"ica'le settle"ent pursuant to B&ecutive$rder 1o. :8@, Y: which provides in part that Q

>inancial assistance "ay also 'e given to owners of landsac%uired under !.. :0: as a"ended for the area or portionsu'*ect to the reservation under +ection :/ thereof in sucha"ounts as "ay 'e deter"ined 'y the i"ple"entingagencyOinstru"entality concerned in consultation with the

!o""ission on udit and the assessor’s office concerned. Respondent de"anded pay"ent for the taking of her property 'u

petitioner refused to pay. ccordingly respondent filed onDece"'er :8 :8 a co"plaint against petitioner 'efore theRegional Trial !ourt praying that petitioner 'e ordered to pay thesu" of #:::/.,, as co"pensation for the portion of heproperty used in the construction of the canal constructed 'y the14 litigation e&penses and the costs.

#etitioner through the $ffice of the +olicitor;General filed an

nswer in which he ad"itted that 14 constructed an irrigationcanal over the property of the plaintiff and that 14 paid a certainlandowner whose property had 'een taken for irrigation purposes'ut petitioner interposed the defense that (:) the govern"ent hadnot consented to 'e suedI (/) the total area used 'y the 14 for itsirrigation canal was only /./- hectares not /0788 s%uare "etersand (@) respondent was not entitled to co"pensation for thetaking of her property considering that she secured title over theproperty 'y virtue of a ho"estead patent under !.. 1o. :0:.

t the pre;trial conference the following facts were stipulatedupon (:) that the area taken was /0778 s%uare "etersI (/) that iwas a portion of the land covered 'y T!T 1o. T;//:/: in thena"e of respondent and her late hus'and (B&h. )I and (@) thatthis area had 'een taken 'y the 14 for the construction of anirrigation canal.

$n $cto'er : :@ the trial court rendered a decision the

dispositive portion of which reads TR4< !$PRT RP<41G 4n view of the foregoing decision is

here'y rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the defendanordering the defendant 1ational 4rrigation d"inistration to payto plaintiff the su" of $ne Aundred +even Thousand >iveAundred +eventeen #esos and +i&ty !entavos (#:8-,:-.78) as

*ust co"pensation for the %uestioned area of /0778 s%uare"eters of land owned 'y plaintiff and taken 'y said defendant 14which used it for its "ain canal plus costs.

$n 1ove"'er :, :@ petitioner appealed to the !ourt o ppeals which on $cto'er @: /888 affir"ed the decision of theRegional Trial !ourt. Aence this petition.

ISSUES#:. ABTABR $R 1$T TAB #BT4T4$1 4+ D4+M4++49$R

>4<PRB T$ !$M#<= 4TA TAB #R$V4+4$1+ $> +B!T4$1 ,RP TAB RBV4+BD RP<B+ $> !4V4< #R$!BDPRB./. ABTABR $R 1$T <1D GR1TBD 9= V4RTPB $> A$MB+TBD #TB1T 1D +P9+BUPB1T<= RBG4+TBRBDP1DBR #RB+4DB1T4< DB!RBB :,/ !B+B+ T$ 9B #RT $>TAB #P9<4! D$M41.@. ABTABR $R 1$T TAB V<PB $> ?P+T !$M#B1+T4$1+A<< 9B DBTBRM41BD >R$M TAB T4MB $> TAB TS41G $R>R$M TAB T4MB $> TAB >41<4T= $> TAB DB!4+4$1.0. ABTABR TAB >>4DV4T $> 4VBR $> R4GAT+ 1D >BB+BFB!PTBD 9= RB+#$1DB1T BFBM#T+ #BT4T4$1BR >R$MMS41G #=MB1T T$ TAB >$RMBR.

$ELD# >irst. Rule - , of the :- Revised Rules on !ivil #rocedure

provides Q !ertification against foru" shopping. Q The plaintiff

or principal party shall certify under oath in the co"plaint or otheinitiatory pleading asserting a clai" for relief or in a sworncertification anne&ed thereto and si"ultaneously filed therewith(a) that he has not theretofore co""enced any action or filed anyclai" involving the sa"e issues in any court tri'unal or %uasi;

*udicial agency and to the 'est of his knowledge no such otheaction or clai" is pending thereinI (') if there is such otherpending action or clai" a co"plete state"ent of the presentstatus thereofI and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the sa"eor si"ilar action or clai" has 'een filed or is pending he shalreport the fact within five (,) days therefro" to the court whereinhis aforesaid co"plaint or initiatory pleading has 'een filed.

>ailure to co"ply with the foregoing re%uire"ents shall not 'e





cura'le 'y "ere a"end"ent of the co"plaint or other initiatorypleading 'ut shall 'e cause for the dis"issal of the case withoutpre*udice unless otherwise provided upon "otion and after hearing . . . .

9y reason of Rule 0, 0 of the :- Revised Rules on !ivil#rocedure in relation to Rule 0/ / thereof the re%uire"ent of acertificate of non;foru" shopping applies to the filing of petitionsfor review on certiorari of the decisions of the !ourt of ppealssuch as the one filed 'y petitioner.

s provided in Rule 0, , EThe failure of the petitioner to co"plywith any of the foregoing re%uire"ents regarding . . . the contentsof the docu"ent which should acco"pany the petition shall 'esufficient ground for the dis"issal thereof.E

The re%uire"ent in Rule - , that the certification should 'ee&ecuted 'y the plaintiff or the principal "eans that counselcannot sign the certificate against foru";shopping. The reason for this is that the plaintiff or principal knows 'etter than anyone elsewhether a petition has previously 'een filed involving the sa"ecase or su'stantially the sa"e issues. Aence a certificationsigned 'y counsel alone is defective and constitutes a valid causefor dis"issal of the petition.

4n this case the petition for review was filed 'y +antiago Bsla'an?r. in his capacity as #ro*ect Manager of the 14. Aowever theverification and certification against foru";shopping were signed'y !esar B. Gon2ales the ad"inistrator of the agency. The real

party;in;interest is the 14 which is a 'ody corporate. ithout'eing duly authori2ed 'y resolution of the 'oard of thecorporation neither +antiago Bsla'an ?r. nor !esar B. Gon2alescould sign the certificate against foru";shopping acco"panyingthe petition for review. Aence on this ground alone the petitionshould 'e dis"issed.

+econd. !o"ing to the "erits of the case the land under litigation as already stated is covered 'y a transfer certificate of title registered in the Registry $ffice of Soronadal +outh!ota'ato on May :@ :-7. This land was originally covered 'y$riginal !ertificate of Title 1o. (#;/,,/) #;88 which wasissued pursuant to a ho"estead patent granted on >e'ruary ::78. e have held

henever pu'lic lands are alienated granted or conveyed toapplicants thereof and the deed grant or instru"ent of

conveyance Jsales patentK registered with the Register of Deedsand the corresponding certificate and owner’s duplicate of titleissued such lands are dee"ed registered lands under theTorrens +yste" and the certificate of title thus issued is asconclusive and indefeasi'le as any other certificate of title issuedto private lands in ordinary or cadastral registration proceedings.

The +olicitor;General contends however that an encu"'rance isi"posed on the land in %uestion in view of @ of the <andRegistration ct (now #.D. 1o. :,/ 00) which provides

Bvery person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of adecree of registration and every su'se%uent purchaser of registered land who takes a certificate of title for value in goodfaith shall hold the sa"e free fro" all encu"'rances e&cept thosenoted on said certificate and any of the following encu"'ranceswhich "ay 'e su'sisting na"ely

Third. ny pu'lic highway way private way esta'lished 'y law or any govern"ent irrigation canal or lateral thereof where thecertificate of title does not state that the 'oundaries of suchhighway way irrigation canal or lateral thereof have 'eendeter"ined.

s this provision says however the only servitude which a privateproperty owner is re%uired to recogni2e in favor of the govern"entis the ease"ent of a Epu'lic highway way private wayesta'lished 'y law or any govern"ent canal or lateral thereof where the certificate of title does not state that the 'oundariesthereof have 'een pre;deter"ined.E This i"plies that the sa"eshould have 'een pre;e&isting at the ti"e of the registration of theland in order that the registered owner "ay 'e co"pelled to

respect it. !onversely where the ease"ent is not pre;e&isting andis sought to 'e i"posed only after the land has 'een registeredunder the <and Registration ct proper e&propriation proceedingsshould 'e had and *ust co"pensation paid to the registeredowner thereof.7

4n this case the irrigation canal constructed 'y the 14 on thecontested property was 'uilt only on $cto'er 7 :: severayears after the property had 'een registered on May :@ :-7

ccordingly prior e&propriation proceedings should have 'eenfiled and *ust co"pensation paid to the owner thereof 'efore i

could 'e taken for pu'lic use. 4ndeed the rule is that where private property is needed for

conversion to so"e pu'lic use the first thing o'viously that thegovern"ent should do is to offer to 'uy it. 4f the owner is willing tosell and the parties can agree on the price and the otheconditions of the sale a voluntary transaction can then 'econcluded and the transfer effected without the necessity of a

*udicial action. $therwise the govern"ent will use its power oe"inent do"ain su'*ect to the pay"ent of *ust co"pensation toac%uire private property in order to devote it to pu'lic use.

Third. ith respect to the co"pensation which the owner of theconde"ned property is entitled to receive it is likewise settledthat it is the "arket value which should 'e paid or Ethat su" of"oney which a person desirous 'ut not co"pelled to 'uy and anowner willing 'ut not co"pelled to sell would agree on as a price

to 'e given and received therefore.E >urther *ust co"pensation"eans not only the correct a"ount to 'e paid to the owner of theland 'ut also the pay"ent of the land within a reasona'le ti"efro" its taking. ithout pro"pt pay"ent co"pensation cannot 'econsidered E*ustE for then the property owner is "ade to suffer theconse%uence of 'eing i""ediately deprived of his land while'eing "ade to wait for a decade or "ore 'efore actually receivingthe a"ount necessary to cope with his loss. 1evertheless asnoted in nsaldo v. Tantuico ?r. there are instances where thee&propriating agency takes over the property prior to thee&propriation suit in which case *ust co"pensation shall 'edeter"ined as of the ti"e of taking not as of the ti"e of filing ofthe action of e"inent do"ain.

9efore its a"end"ent in :- Rule 7- 0 provided $rder of conde"nation. hen such a "otion is overruled or when

any party fails to defend as re%uired 'y this rule the court "ay

enter an order of conde"nation declaring that the plaintiff has alawful right to take the property sought to 'e conde"ned for thepu'lic use or purpose descri'ed in the co"plaint upon thepay"ent of *ust co"pensation to 'e deter"ined as of the date othe filing of the co"plaint. . . .

4t is now provided that Q +B!. 0. $rder of e&propriation. Q 4f the o'*ections to and the

defense against the right of the plaintiff to e&propriate the propertyare overruled or when no party appears to defend as re%uired 'ythis Rule the court "ay issue an order of e&propriation declaringthat the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to 'ee&propriated for the pu'lic use or purpose descri'ed in theco"plaint upon the pay"ent of *ust co"pensation to 'edeter"ined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filingof the co"plaint whichever ca"e first.

final order sustaining the right to e&propriate the property "ay'e appealed 'y any party aggrieved there'y. +uch appeahowever shall not prevent the court fro" deter"ining the *usco"pensation to 'e paid.

fter the rendition of such an order the plaintiff shall not 'eper"itted to dis"iss or discontinue the proceeding e&cept onsuch ter"s as the court dee"s *ust and e%uita'le. (B"phasisadded)

Thus the value of the property "ust 'e deter"ined either as ofthe date of the taking of the property or the filing of the co"plaintEwhichever ca"e first.E Bven 'efore the new rule however it wasalready held in !o""issioner of #u'lic Aighways v. 9urgos tha





the price of the land at the ti"e of taking not its value after thepassage of ti"e represents the true value to 'e paid as *ustco"pensation. 4t was therefore error for the !ourt of ppeals torule that the *ust co"pensation to 'e paid to respondent should'e deter"ined as of the filing of the co"plaint in :8 and notthe ti"e of its taking 'y the 14 in :: 'ecause petitioner wasallegedly re"iss in its o'ligation to pay respondent and it wasrespondent who filed the co"plaint. 4n the case of 9urgos it wasalso the property owner who 'rought the action for co"pensationagainst the govern"ent after /, years since the taking of his

property for the construction of a road. 4ndeed the value of the land "ay 'e affected 'y "any factors. 4t"ay 'e enhanced on account of its taking for pu'lic use *ust as it"ay depreciate. s o'served in Repu'lic v. <ara

JKhere property is taken ahead of the filing of the conde"nationproceedings the value thereof "ay 'e enhanced 'y the pu'licpurpose for which it is takenI the entry 'y the plaintiff upon theproperty "ay have depreciated its value there'yI or there "ayhave 'een a natural increase in the value of the property fro" theti"e it is taken to the ti"e the co"plaint is filed due to generalecono"ic conditions. The owner of private property should 'eco"pensated only for what he actually losesI it is not intendedthat his co"pensation shall e&tend 'eyond his loss or in*ury. ndwhat he loses is only the actual value of his property at the ti"e itis taken. This is the only way that co"pensation to 'e paid can 'etruly *ust i.e. E*ustE not only to the individual whose property is

taken E'ut to the pu'lic which is to pay for itE . . . . 4n this case the proper valuation for the property in %uestion is

#:780-.7: per hectare the price level for :/ 'ased on theappraisal report su'"itted 'y the co""ission (co"posed of theprovincial treasurer assessor and auditor of +outh !ota'ato)constituted 'y the trial court to "ake an assess"ent of thee&propriated land and fi& the price thereof on a per hectare'asis.:0

>ourth. #etitioner finally contends that it is e&e"pt fro" payingany a"ount to respondent 'ecause the latter e&ecuted an

ffidavit of aiver of Rights and >ees of any co"pensation due infavor of the Municipal Treasurer of 9arangay +to. 1iXo +outh!ota'ato . Aowever as the !ourt of ppeals correctly held

J4Kf 14 intended to 'ind the appellee to said affidavit it would noteven have 'othered to give her any a"ount for da"ages caused

on the i"prove"entsOcrops within the appellee’s property. Thisapparently was not the case as can 'e gleaned fro" thedis'urse"ent voucher in the a"ount of #0:8.88 (page :8 of the>older of B&hi'its in !ivil !ase @7) issued on +epte"'er :-:@ in favor of the appellee and the letter fro" the $ffice of the+olicitor General reco""ending the giving of Efinancialassistance in the a"ount of #@,888.88E to the appellee.

Thus e are inclined to give "ore credence to the appellee’se&planation that the waiver of rights and fees Epertains only toi"prove"ents and crops and not to the value of the land utili2ed'y 14 for its "ain canal.E:,

The assailed decision of the !ourt of ppeals is here'y >>4RMBD with M$D4>4!T4$1 to the e&tent that the *ustco"pensation for the contested property 'e paid to respondent inthe a"ount of #:780-.7: per hectare with interest at the legal

rate of si& percent (7) per annu" fro" the ti"e of taking until fullpay"ent is "ade. !osts against petitioner.

GR No. 14+0+2, &'() 2%, 2001R6 /S IAC

"ACTS# property consisting of 0 parcels of land with a total area of 7,8

s%uare "eters was the su'*ect of e&propriation. 4ts previousowner vegon 4nc. offered it for sale to the !ity +chool 9oard of Manila on ?uly /: :-@ at #/ @88888. The school 'oard waswilling to 'uy at #: 88888 'ut the then Mayor of Manilaintervened and volunteered to negotiate with vegon 4nc. for a

'etter price. $n ?une @ :-0 vegon 4nc. sold the property andits i"prove"ents to "ere& Blectronics #hils. !orporation for #:88888.88. $n ugust / :-, the +olicitor General filed for theDepart"ent of Bducation and !ulture (DB!) a co"plaint agains

"ere& for the e&propriation of said property 'efore the !ourt o>irst 4nstance of Manila (!ivil !ase 1o. :8). The co"plainstated that the property was needed 'y the govern"ent as aper"anent site for the Manuel de la >uente Aigh +chool. The fair"arket value of the property had 'een declared 'y "ere& as #/0@,888 and the assessor deter"ined the "arket value as #/

0@/80/. The assessed a"ount for ta&ation purposes is #:@8@0-8 and was deposited with the #19 on +epte"'er @8:-,. The Govern"ent was a'le to take actual possession of theproperty on $cto'er :@ :-,. "ere& then filed a "otion todis"iss citing the issue on *ust co"pensation to 'e fi&ed at #/0@/80/ the "arket value of the property deter"ined 'y theassessor which was lower than "ere&Cs own declaration. The"otion to dis"iss was opposed 'y the plaintiff saying that theycan present evidence of a "uch lower "arket value. "ere& thenfiled a "otion to withdraw the deposit of #:@8@0-8 with the #19without the plaintiff opposing provided that an order oconde"nation 'e issued to allow plaintiff to present evidence onthe "atter of *ust co"pensation. $n March :/ :-7 the plaintifffiled a "otion for leave of court to a"end its co"plaint stating thaafter it had filed the sa"e #.D. 1o. 070was a"ended 'y #.D. 1o-0 and that the a"ended co"plaint would state that the fair"arket value of the property could not 'e in e&cess o

#:88888 the a"ount for which defendantCs predecessor;ininterest had offered to sell said properties to the Division of #u'lic+chools of Manila and which a"ount was also the purchase pricepaid 'y "ere& to vegon 4nc. This was denied 'y the lowercourt 'ut after the plaintiff filed a "otion for reconsideration thelower court ad"itted the a"ended co"plaint on pril /- :-7

udited financial state"ents were su'"itted 'y "ere& and thestate"ents yielded the a"ount of #/ /,8:.0 as the totavalue of the property. $n $cto'er : :-7 the plaintiff filed a"otion to dis%ualify Bngineer urelio 9. %uino as co""issioneon the ground that he could not 'e e&pected to 'e un'iasedinas"uch as in the three appraisal reports su'"itted 'y "ere&

"ere& opposed the "otion to dis%ualify %uino asco""issioner and the court in its order of 1ove"'er , :-7denied it. The co""issioner then filed his appraisal for the fai"arket value of the property which is #/ /,8:.,- for purposesof deter"ining *ust co"pensation paya'le to defendant MBRBFThe plaintiff o'*ected the report and reiterated that the valueshould 'e only #: 88 88.88. 9asing it on the evidence thecourt ruled to fi& the "arket value at of #//,.8:.,- for *usco"pensation hence the plaintiff elevated the case to the then4nter"ediate ppellate !ourt (4!) for review.

ISSUES#1. hether or not respondent !ourt erred in not dis%ualifying

!o""issioner urelio 9. %uino fro" "e"'ership in the!o""ittee of ppraisal.

2. hether or not respondent !ourt erred in totally disregardingpetitionerCs evidence showing that the award of *ust co"pensationshould 'e only #: 88888.88.

$ELD#1. 1o the court did not err in not dis%ualifying !o""issione

%uino. The report of the co""issioners is "erely advisory andreco""endatory in character as far as the court is concernedThe court "ay choose to take action or to set aside the report orappoint new co""issioners hence it really does not "atter if theco""issioner had a pre conceived and 'iased valuation of theproperty. The deter"ination of *ust co"pensation for aconde"ned property is 'asically a *udicial function and not 'ound'y its !o""issioners.

2. 1o the !ourt did not err in disregarding Cs evidence showing thatthe award of *ust co"pensation should 'e only #: 88888.88#etitioner failed to su'stantiate its clai" that the property is worthlower than #: 88888 'asing it on the value when it was firstoffered for sale to the !ity +chool 9oard of Manila. The appraisa





"ade 'y "pil Realty and ppraisal !o. 4nc. on ?une , :-,which date is nearest to that of the actual taking of the propertyshould 'e the 'asis for the deter"ination of *ust co"pensation therecord 'eing 'ereft of any indications of ano"aly appertainingthereto. enceslao "pil the president of said appraisal fir"also had testified at the trial and therefore petitioner had theopportunity to confront hi" and to %uestion his report.

ABRB>$RB the *ust co"pensation of the propertye&propriated for the use of the Manuel de la >uente Aigh +choolDon Mariano Marcos Me"orial Aigh +chool) is here'y fi&ed at

Two Million >our Aundred Thousand #esos (#/088888.88). fter deducting the a"ount of #: @[email protected] therefro" the petitioner shall pay the 'alance with legal interest fro" $cto'er :@ :-,.

D)))r 19, 2005R6 /S GINGOON

"ACTS#The construction of the 14 @ had spawned controversies that had itsroots with the pro"ulgation of the !ourt’s decision in gan vs #4T!$(/88@ decision) which nullified the contract 'etween the Govern"entand the contractor (#4T!$) for 'eing contrary to law and pu'lic policy.

t the ti"e of the pro"ulgation of the /88@ decision the 14 @facilities had already 'een 'uilt 'y #4T!$ and were nearingco"pletion. and several respondents filed their respective "otions for the reconsideration of the /88@ Decision 'ut were denied 'y the !ourt

in its Resolution dated /: ?anuary /880. Aowever the !ourt this ti"es%uarely addressed the issue of the rights of #4T!$ to refundco"pensation or rei"'urse"ent for its e&penses in the construction of the 14 @ facilities. fter the pro"ulgation of the rulings in gan the14 @ facilities have re"ained in the possession of #4T!$. $nDece"'er /: /880 the Govern"ent filed a !o"plaint for e&propriation with the #asay !ity Regional Trial !ourt (RT!).TheGovern"ent sought for the issuance of a writ of possession authori2ingit to take i""ediate possession and control over the 14 @ facilities.The Govern"ent also declared that it had deposited @ 9illion in cashwith the <and 9ank of the #hilippines representing the assessed valuefor ta&ation purposes. This was the case now presided 'y Aonora'leGingoyon. $n the sa"e day that the co"plaint was filed the RT!issued an $rder directing the issuance of a writ of possession to theGovern"ent authori2ing it to Etake or enter upon the possessionE of the 14 @ facilities. This decision was 'ased on +ection / Rule 7- of the :- Rules of !ivil #rocedure which prescri'es that the initial

deposit 'e e%uivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of ta&ation however this was a"ended 'y Repu'lic ct 1o.-0. R -0 provides that as the relevant standard for initialco"pensation the "arket value of the property as stated in the ta&declaration or the current relevant 2onal valuation of the 9ureau of 4nternal Revenue (94R) whichever is higher and the value of thei"prove"ents andOor structures using the replace"ent cost "ethod.$n the 'asis of R -0 the RT! directed first that the <and 9ank of the #hilippines 9aclaran 9ranch i""ediately release the a"ount of P+Z7/@0@:-,.-- to #4T!$. +econd the Govern"ent was directedto su'"it to the RT! a !ertificate of vaila'ility of >unds signed 'yauthori2ed officials to cover the pay"ent of *ust co"pensation. Thirdthe Govern"ent was directed Eto "aintain preserve and safeguardEthe 14 @ facilities or Eperfor" such as acts or activities in preparationfor their direct operationE of the airport ter"inal pending e&propriationproceedings and full pay"ent of *ust co"pensation. The Govern"entwas also not allowed to perfor" acts of ownership like leasing any partof 14 @ to other parties. The Govern"ent then filed an PrgentMotion for Reconsideration on the assailed ?anuary 0 /88, order. $n- ?anuary /88, the RT! issued another $rder the second nowassailed 'efore this !ourt which appointed @ !o""issioners toascertain the a"ount of *ust co"pensation for the 14 @ !o"ple&.

nd on the sa"e day the Govern"ent issued a Motion for 4nhi'ition of Aon. Gingoyon. These "otions were heard 'y the RT! 'ut weredenied in an $"ni'us $rder dated ?anuary :8 /88,. Thus the presentpetition for !ertiorari for the nullification of the RT! orders dated?anuary 0 - and :8 /88, and for the inhi'ition of Aon. Gingoyon fro"taking further action on the e&propriation case.

ISSUE#hether Rule 7- of the Rules of !ourt or Rep. ct 1o. -0 governsthe e&propriation proceedings in this case

$ELD# Rep. ct 1o. -0 applies in this case particularly insofar as it

re%uires the i""ediate pay"ent 'y the Govern"ent of at leasthe proffered value of the 14 @ facilities to #4T!$ andprovides certain valuation standards or "ethods for thedeter"ination of *ust co"pensation.

+ince funds have 'een spent 'y #4T!$ in their construction fothe to take over the said facility it has to co"pensate responden#4T!$ as 'uilder of the said structures. The co"pensation "us'e *ust and in accordance with law and e%uity for the govern"encannot un*ustly enrich itself at the e&pense of #4T!$ and itsinvestors.

+ec / Rule 7- states that plaintiff shall have the right to take orenter upon the possession of the real property involved if hedeposits with the authori2ed govern"ent depositary an a"oune%uivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes ofta&ation to 'e held 'y such 'ank su'*ect to the orders of the court

4n contrast +ection 0 of Rep. ct 1o. -0 relevantly statesPpon the filing of the co"plaint and after due notice to thedefendant the i"ple"enting agency shall i""ediately pay theowner of the property the a"ount e%uivalent to the su" of one

hundred percent of the value of the property 'ased on the currenrelevant 2onal valuation of the 9ureau of 4nternal RevenueI andthe value of the i"prove"ents andOor structures as deter"inedunder +ection -.

4f +ec/ Rule 7- applies then #4T!$ would 'e en*oined fro"receiving a single centavo as *ust co"pensation 'efore theGovern"ent takes over the 14 @ facility 'y virtue of a writ ofpossession.

Aence the !ourt ruled that *ust co"pensation should 'e "ade'efore the Govern"ent "ay take over the 14 @.

GR No. 14%512, &'() 2+, 200+CMSR. O" INTERNAL RE/ENUE /S CENTRAL LUON DRUGCOR6ORATION

"ACTS# >ro" ?anuary :, to Dece"'er :, !entral <u2on Drug

!orporation has 'een granting /8 discount on the sale o"edicines to %ualified senior citi2ens a"ounting to #/:--.88#ursuant to Revenue Regulations 1o. /;0 i"ple"enting R.1o. -0@/ which states that the discount given to senior citi2ensshall 'e deducted 'y the esta'lish"ent fro" its gross sales fovalue;added ta& and other percentage ta& purposes respondendeducted the total a"ount of #/: --.88 fro" its gross inco"efor the ta&a'le year :,. +u'se%uently on Dece"'er /- :7the !entral <u2on Drug !orporation clai"ed for a ta& credia"ounting to #:,8 :@.88 (#/: --.88 /8 sales discoungiven to senior citi2en L #7 ,,.88 inco"e ta&).

+ince the !o""issioner of 4nternal Revenue was not a'le todecide the clai" for refund on ti"e respondent filed a #etition foReview with the !ourt of Ta& ppeals (!T) on March : :

Aowever this was dis"issed 'y !T declaring that even if the/8 sales discount is granted to senior citi2ens as a credit thiscannot 'e applied when there is no ta& lia'ility or the ta& credit isgreater than the ta& due. The respondent then filed with the ! apetition for Review on ugust @ /888. The petition for the # :,8:@.88 ta& credit was granted and the decision of the !T seaside thus this instant petition.

ISSUE# hether the /8 sales discount granted 'y respondent to%ualified senior citi2ens pursuant to +ec. 0(a) of R.. 1o. -0@/ "ay 'eclai"ed as a ta& credit or as a deduction fro" gross sales inaccordance with +ec. /(:) of Revenue Regulations 1o. /;0.





$ELD# The /8 sales discount given to senior citi2ens "ay 'e clai"ed

as a ta& credit and not as a deduction fro" the gross sales. herefore the petition is DB14BD and the decision of the ! is

>>4RMBD. <egal 9asis

+ec. 0(a) of R.. 1o. -0@/ provides

+ec. 0. #rivileges for the +enior citi2ens. L The senior citi2ensshall 'e entitled to the following

(a) The grant of twenty percent (/8) discountfro" all esta'lish"ents relative to utili2ationof transportations services hotels and si"ilar lodging esta'lish"ents restaurants andrecreation centers and purchase of "edicinesanywhere in the country Provided, that

private establish+ents +ay clai+ the cost astax credit*

The a'ove provision e&plicitly e"ployed the word 5ta&credit.6 1othing in the provision suggests for it to "ean a5deduction6 fro" gross sales. To construe it otherwise would 'e adeparture fro" the clear "andate of the law.

4t is a funda"ental rule in statutory construction that the legislativeintent "ust 'e deter"ined fro" the language of the statute itself especially when the words and phrases therein are clear andune%uivocal. The statute in such a case "ust 'e taken to "eane&actly what it says. 4ts literal "eaning should 'e followed todepart fro" the "eaning e&pressed 'y the words is to alter thestatute.

The ta& credit 'enefit granted to the esta'lish"ents can 'edee"ed as their *ust co"pensation for private property taken 'ythe +tate for pu'lic use. The privilege en*oyed 'y the senior citi2ens does not co"e directly fro" the +tate 'ut rather fro" theprivate esta'lish"ents concerned.

GR No. 14%0%3, &'l 21, 200+CMSR. O" INTERNAL RE/ENUE /S *ICOLANDIA DRUG COR6.

(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

JUST COMPENSATION DETERMINATION OF JUST

COMPENSATION

149 SCRA 305 719%E6A !. DULA

"ACTS# $n ?anuary :, :- the #resident of the #hilippines issued

#rocla"ation 1o. ::: reserving a certain parcel of land of thepu'lic do"ain situated in the city of <apu;<apu 4sland of Mactan!e'u and covering a total area of ::@77 s%uare "eters "oreor less for the esta'lish"ent of an e&port processing 2one 'ypetitioner B&port #rocessing one uthority (B#).

1ot all the reserved area however was pu'lic land. it includedfour parcel of land registered in the na"e of private individual.The petitioner therefore offered to purchase the parcels of landfro" the respondent in accordance with the valuation set forth insection / #residential Decree (#.D.) 1o. 070 as a"ended. Theparties failed to reach an agree"ent regarding the sale of theproperty.

The petitioner filed with the then !ourt of >irst 4nstance of !e'u9ranch <apu;<apu !ity a co"plaint for e&propriation with aprayer for the issuance of a writ of possession against the privaterespondent to e&propriate the parcel of land in pursuant to #.D.77 as a"ended which e"powers the petitioner to ac%uire 'y

conde"nation proceedings any property for the esta'lish"ent oe&port processing 2ones in relation to #rocla"ation 1o. :::.

$n $cto'er /: :8 the respondent *udge issued a writ opossession authori2ing the petitioner to take i""ediatepossession of the pre"ises. $n Dece"'er /@ :8 the privaterespondent filed its answer.

t the pre;trial conference the respondent *udge issued an ordestating that the parties have agreed that the only issue to 'eresolved is the *ust co"pensation for the properties and that the

pre;trial is there'y ter"inated and the hearing on the "erits is seon pril / ::. The respondent *udge issued the order appointing certain persons

as co""issioners to ascertain and report to the court the *ustco"pensation for the properties sought to 'e e&propriated.

+u'se%uently the three co""issioners su'"itted theiconsolidated report reco""ending a certain a"ount of #:,.88per s%uare "eter as the fair and reasona'le value of *usco"pensation of the properties.

The petitioner filed a "otion for reconsideration of the order ando'*ection to co""issioner’s report on the grounds that #.D. 1o:,@@ has superseded +ections , to Rule 7- of the rules of couron the ascertain"ent of *ust co"pensation "ust not e&ceed the"a&i"u" a"ount set 'y #.D. 1o. :,@@. 4n addition the petitionerfiled a petition for certiorari and "anda"us with te"porary

restraining order en*oining the trial court fro" en*oining the order.

ISSUE# hether or not +ections , to Rule 7- of the revised rules ocourt had 'een repealed or dee"ed a"ended 'y #.D. 1$. :,@@insofar as appoint"ent of co""issioners are concerned. +tated inanother way is the e&clusive and "andatory "ode of deter"ining *usco"pensation in #.D. 1$. :,@@ valid and constitutional3

$ELD# The "ethod of ascertaining *ust co"pensation under the

aforecited decrees constitutes i"per"issi'le encroach"ent on *udicial prerogatives. 4t tends to render this court inutile in a "attewhich under the constitution is reserved to it for finadeter"ination. The courts task would 'e relegated to si"plystating the lower value of the property as declared either 'y theowner or the assessor and its choice "ust 'e li"ited to the lower

of the two. Aowever the strict application of the decrees duringthe proceedings would 'e nothing short of a "ere for"ality or acharade.the court cannot e&ercise its discretion or independencein deter"ining what is *ust or fair. The court is e"powered toappoint co""issioners to assess the *ust co"pensation of theseproperties under e"inent do"ain proceedings in order for theowner of the property is entitled to recover the fair and full valueof the lot. 4n fine the decree only esta'lishes a unifor" 'asis fodeter"ining *ust co"pensation which the court "ay consider asone of the factors in arriving at *ust co"pensation as envisage inthe constitution. The e&ecutive depart"ent or the legislature "ay"ake the initial deter"inations 'ut when a party clai"s a violationof the guarantee in the 9ill of Rights no statute decree oe&ecutive order can "andate that its own deter"ination shalprevail over the court’s findings. The deter"ination of 5*usco"pensation in e"inent do"ain cases is a *udicial function.

e therefore hold that #.D. 1o. :,@@ which eli"inates thecourt’s discretion to appoint co""issioners pursuant to Rule 7- othe Rules of !ourt is unconstitutional and void.

ABRB>$RB 41 V4B $> TAB >$RBG$41G the petition ishere'y D4+M4++BD. The te"porary restraining order issued on>e'ruary :7 :/ is <4>TBD and +BT +4DB.

2+3 SCRA 0%6ANES !. /ISAAS STATE COLLEGE O" AGRICULTURE(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

195 SCRA 59*ELEN !. CA





"ACTS# s"all portion of land "easuring a hundred (:88) s%uare "eters

"ore or less 'elonging to the Manotoc +ervices 4nc. was leasedto #edro M. 9elen. That piece of land is known as <ot 1o. :89lock : and is situated at +unog pog Tondo Manila. $n itstood a house 'uilt 'y 9elen.

#art of the land ca"e to 'e occupied 'y lfredo ?uliano and hisfa"ily in the early part of :-I ?uliano 'ought a house standing

thereon not 'elonging to 9elen and "ove in without the latter’sknowledge. $n learning of this 9elen had a talk with ?uliano andthey ca"e to an agree"ent that ?uliano could continue staying onthe land te"porarily and would pay one half of the rental toManotoc Reality inc. <ater a fire ra2ed 'oth 9elen’s and ?uliano’shouses to the ground. 9elen told ?uliano not to 'uild anything onthe land any"ore. Aowever on *uliano’s pleas 9elen acceded to?uliano’s continued stay on the land on the e&plicit condition thathis occupancy should not 'e longer than two and a half years.hen ?uliano failed to leave the pre"ises after the stipulatedter" despite de"and 9elen 'rought suit in the Metropolitan Trial!ourt so"eti"e in +epte"'er :/ and succeeded in o'taining

*udg"ent dated +epte"'er , :0 a order of the MT! to thedefendant to vacate the su'*ect lot and pay plaintiff the a"ount of #@888.88 as a attorney’s fees plus cost of suit.

?uliano appealed to the Regional Trial !ourt of "anila. That court

reversed the *udg"ent of the Metropolitan Trial !ourt 'ut thedecision was "ade to rest on the e&propriation of the ManotocBstate effected 'y #residential Decree 1o. :7-8 where the

Manotoc Reality 4ncorporated ceased to 'e the owner of the land. 9elen has perfected an appeal 'y certiorari to +! and prays for

*udg"ent on the following essential propostions that ManotocReality +ervices has 'een denied of its right of *ust co"pensationnot having receive any "oney as pay"ent for the su'*ectproperty and the 1A not having taken possession thereof in anappropriate action of e"inent do"ain.

ISSUE# 4s the passage of #residential Decree 1o. :7-8 constitutionalwhereas it disregarded the right of co"pensation and due process of law3

$ELD# #residential Decree 1o :7-8 together with the co"panion

decree nu"'ered :77 was struck down 'y this court asunconstitutional and therefore null and void. The !ourt found that'oth decrees 'eing 5violative of the petitioners’ (owners) right todue process of law.

The court said on the deter"ination of *ust co"pensation 5Thedecrees do not 'y the"selves provide for any for" of hearing or procedure 'y which the petitioners can %uestion the propriety of the e&propriation of their properties or the reasona'leness of the

*ust co"pensation. Aaving failed to provide for a hearing the govern"ent should

have filed an e&propriation case under Rule 7- of the RevisedRules of !ourt.

ABRB>$RB #D :7-8 'eing void a' initio all acts done in

reliance thereon and in accordance therewith "ust also 'e vioda' initio including particularly the taking of possession of property'y the 1ational Aousing uthority and its atte"pts to convert thesa"e into a housing pro*ect and the selection of the 'eneficiariesthereof.

The decision of the !ourt of ppeals of $cto'er / :7 and thatof Regional Trial !ourt there'y affir"ed are RBVBR+BD 1D+BT +4DB and the decision of the Metropolitan Trial!ourt(9ranch V44) Manila rendered on +epte"'er , :0 in !ivil!ase 1o. 8--,7;cv is RB41+TTBD 1D >>4RMBD with costagainst the private respondents. +$ $RDBRBD.

22 SCRA 401

RE6U*LIC /S CA(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

20+ SCRA 19+MANILA ELECTRIC CO. /S. 6INEDA(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

2+3 SCAR 5%DAR /S. CA(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

G. R. No. L-5524 &8('8r %, 19%+RE6U*LIC /S.,SANTOS

"ACTS#The case is an e&propriation case which involved the 7787 s%uare"eters of land clai"ed 'y 00 persons located in #arana%ue andMuntinlupa Ri2al. The e&propriation was necessary for the wideningof and construction of interchanges in the Manila +outh DiversionRoad. The ppraisal !o""ittee for the province of Ri2al fi&ed at fortypesos (#08) per s%uare "eter or an a"ount of #/ 70::8. TheGovern"ent deposited that a"ount with the provincial treasurer whodeposited it in the #hilippine 1ational 9ank 'ut so"e of therespondents withdrew including Maura +antos. The !ourt of >irs4nstance at #asig Ri2al in its order of ?une : :7 granted thefiscalCs "otion fi&ing the provisional value at #/ 70::8. >ourteen

(:0) clai"ants did not o'*ect to the valuation of #08 a s%uare "eter. sto those who did not settle at the price of #08 a s%uare "eter the triacourt pursuant to section , Rule 7- of the Rules of !ourt appointedthree co""issioners to deter"ine the *ust co"pensation 9en*a"inMorales for the court as chair"anI #acifico ?avier the provinciaassessor for the Repu'lic and #acifico 4. Gu2"an for the clai"antsThe co""issioners in their report dated $cto'er / :-8reco""ended that the *ust co"pensation for the lands should 'e #:88a s%uare "eter e&cept the land of Maura +antos with an area of/,8 s%uare "eters. The trial court in its decision dated May :@:-/ "odified that reco""endation. 4t fi&ed #:88 a s%uare "eter asthe unifor" price to 'e paid to the clai"ants. The !ourt of ppeals inits decision of ?une / :: in turn "odified the trial courtCs decisionand adopted the co""issionersC report and it added 7 legal rate ointerest.

ISSUES#

1. hether or not the *ust co"pensation to 'e paid 'y theGovern"ent is 08 or :88 as reco""ended 'y theco""issioners.

2. hether or not the ppellate !ourt erred in not holding that theco""issioners should not have relied on the price of #:88 for theland of ?ose lcara2 which was sold in 1ove"'er :7 and onother irrelevant evidence.

3. hether or not ppellate !ourt erred in disregarding the fact tha:0 out of the 00 clai"ants already sold their lots to the Repu'lic a#08 a s%uare "eter.

$ELD# e hold that the trial court and the ppellate !ourt erred in

relying on the co""issionersC report whose reco""endation wasnot su'stantiated 'y trustworthy evidence. s pointed out 'y the

ssistant +olicitor General the appraisal of #:88 a s%uare "ete

for the land of lcara2 was "ade a'out eight "onths after thefiling of the instant e&propriation case. 4n #residential Decree 1o:,@@ provides that *ust co"pensation should 'e the value of theland Eprior to the reco""endation or decision of the appropriateGovern"ent office to ac%uire the property.E 4n the case it should'e noted that the e&propriation undenia'ly increased the value ofthe re"ainder of her land with an area of :/:-88 s%uare "eters+he was already paid #: 8@7@78 for her e&propriated land.

>urther"ore the co""issioners should not have glossed overthe undisputed fact that :0 clai"ants out of 00 had winningly soldtheir lands to the Govern"ent at #08 a s%uare "eter as fi&ed 'ythe provincial ppraisal !o""ittee of which the provinciaassessor was a "e"'er. Bvidently they were satisfied that that





was a reasona'le price. ccording to section of Rule 7- thecourt is not 'ound 'y the co""issionersC report. 4t "ay "akesuch order or render such *udg"ent as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the e&ercise of his right of conde"nationand to the defendant *ust co"pensation for the propertye&propriated.

s noted in the Velas%ue2 case the "o"ent a parcel of land issought to 'e conde"ned the price for so"e occult reasoni""ediately soars far 'eyond what the owner would think of asking or receiving in the open "arket. $wners ask fa'ulous

prices for it and neigh'ours look on with an indulgent s"ile or even persuade the"selves that the land is worth the price for which the owner holds out in view of the fact that it is wanted 'yan entity whose financial resources are supposed to 'eine&hausti'le. !onse%uently the petitioner should pay only #08per s%uare "eter for the e&propriated lands. !M! (!M+)4nvest"ents 4nc. was paid #@, a s%uare "eter for its ,@8 s%uare"eters. 4t is entitled to a deficiency on which 7 legal rate of interest per annu" should 'e paid fro" the ti"e the petitioner took possession of its land up to the date of pay"ent. Thedecisions of the trial court and the !ourt of ppeals are reversedand set aside. The *ust co"pensation for the lands descri'ed inparagraph / of petitionerCs co"plaint is forty pesos (#08) per s%uare "eter.

GR No. 10422, M8r? 0, 200%

S6S. LEE /S L*6pl)8!) r)8< >'ll :);:

JUST COMPENSATION WHEN DETERMINED

G. R. No. L-5014 A'@'!: 3, 1990ANSALDO /S. TANTUICO

"ACTS#Two lots of private ownership were taken 'y the Govern"ent and usedfor the widening of a road for "ore than forty;three years without'enefit of an action of e"inent do"ain or agree"ent with its owners.The owners of the land are ?ose Ma. nsaldo and Maria ngela

nsaldo are covered 'y title in their na"es and have an aggregatearea of :80: s%uare "eters. These lots were taken fro" the nsaldos

so"eti"e in :0- 'y the Depart"ent of #u'lic ork Transportationand !o""unication and "ade part of what used to 'e +ta. Mesa+treet and is now Ra"on Magsaysay venue at +an ?uan MetroManila. The said owners did not "ake any action until twenty si& yearslater asking for the co"pensation of their land. The case was referredto the +ecretary of ?ustice who rendered an opinion that the *ustco"pensation 'e "ade in accordance with #residential Decree -7which provide that the 'asis for the pay"ent of *ust co"pensation of property taken for pu'lic use should 'e the current and fair "arketvalue thereof as declared 'y the owner or ad"inistrator or such"arket value as deter"ined 'y the assessor whichever was lower.!o""issioner of #u'lic Aighways re%uested the #rovincial ssessor of Ri2al to "ake a redeter"ination of the "arket value of the nsaldosCproperty in accordance with #D -7. The new valuation was "ade after which the uditor of the 9ureau of #u'lic Aighways forwarded the

nsaldosC clai" to the uditor General with the reco""endation thatpay"ent 'e "ade on the 'asis of the current and fair "arket value and

not on the fair "arket value at the ti"e of taking. The !o""ission on udit declined the reco""endation and decided that theco"pensation 'e fro" the actual ti"e of the taking of the land.

ISSUE# (s to the precise ti"e the *ust co"pensation 'e 'ased)hether or not the *ust co"pensation 'e 'ased on the ti"e of theactual taking of the possession or #D -7.

$ELD# 4n the conte&t of the +tateCs inherent power of e"inent do"ain

there is a taking when the owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his propertyI when there is a practical destruction

or a "aterial i"pair"ent of the value of his property or when he isdeprived of the ordinary use thereof. There is a taking in thissense when the e&propriator enters private property not only for a"o"entary period 'ut for a "ore per"anent duration for thepurpose of devoting the property to a pu'lic use in such a "anneas to oust the owner and deprive hi" of all 'eneficial en*oy"enthereof. >or ownership after all Eis nothing without the inherenrights of possession control and en*oy"ent. here the owner isdeprived of the ordinary and 'eneficial use of his property or of itsvalue 'y its 'eing diverted to pu'lic use there is taking within the

!onstitutional sense. Pnder these nor"s there was undou'tedlya taking of the nsaldosC property when the Govern"ent o'tainedpossession thereof and converted it into a part of a thoroughfarefor pu'lic use.

4t is as of the ti"e of such a taking to repeat that the *ustco"pensation for the property is to 'e esta'lished. s stated inRepublic v* Philippine ational .an8<

hen plaintiff takes possession 'efore the institution of theconde"nation proceedings the value should 'e fi&ed as of theti"e of the taking of said possession not of filing of the co"plainand the latter should 'e the 'asis for the deter"ination of thevalue when the taking of the property involved coincides with ois su'se%uent to the co""ence"ent of the proceedings. 4ndeedotherwise the provision of Rule 7 +ection @ directing thaco"pensation 'e deter"ined as of the date of the filing of theco"plaintC would never 'e operative. s inti"ated in Republic v

-ara (supra) said provision conte"plates nor"al circu"stancesunder which the co"plaint coincides or even precedes the takingof the property 'y the plaintiff.

The reason for the rule as pointed out in Rpublic v* -arae is thatIhere property is taken ahead of the filing of the

conde"nation proceedings the value thereof "ay 'e enchanced'y the pu'lic purpose for which it is takenI the entry 'y the plaintifupon the property "ay have depreciated its value there'yI orthere "ay have 'een a natural increase in the value of theproperty fro" the ti"e the co"plaint is filed due to generaecono"ic conditions. The owner of private property should 'eco+pensated only for #hat he actually loses< it is not intendedthat his co+pensation shall extend beyond his loss or in9ury . ndwhat he loses is only the actual value of his property at the ti+e iis ta8en. This is the only way that co"pensation to 'e paid can 'etruly *ust i.e.E*ustI not only to the individual whose property is

taken 'ut to the pu'lic which is to pay for it.

!learly then the value of the nsaldosC property "ust 'eascertained as of the year :0- when it was actually taken andnot at the ti"e of the filing of the e&propriation suit which 'y theway still has to 'e done. 4t is as of that ti"e that the real "easureof their loss "ay fairly 'e ad*udged. The value once fi&ed shalearn interest at the legal rate until full pay"ent is effectedconfor"a'ly with other principles laid down 'y case law. Thepetition is denied and the challenged decision of the !o""issionon udit is affir"ed and the Depart"ent of #u'lic orks andAighways is directed to forthwith institute the appropriatee&propriation action over the land in %uestion so that the *usco"pensation due its owners "ay 'e deter"ined in accordancewith the Rules of !ourt with interest at the legal rate of si&percent (7) per annu" fro" the ti"e of taking until full pay"en

is "ade.

G.R. No. 10%4+ ")r'8r +, 200NA6OCOR, !. TIANGCO

"ACTS# Respondents are owners of a parcel of land with an area of

:,/:- s%uare "eters at 9arangay +a"paloc Tanay Ri2al. 1#! re%uires :0/@ s%uare "eters of the respondents

afore"entioned property across which its ,88Sv Salayaan;+an?ose Trans"ission <ine #ro*ect will traverse.

1#!’s +egregation #lan# for the purpose shows that the desiredUNI/ERSIT O" SAN CARLOS ROOM 410

41

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_170846_2007.html%20%5C%20nt3

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_170846_2007.html%20%5C%20nt3




right;of;way will cut through the respondents’ land. ithin theportion sought to 'e e&propriated stand fruit;'earing tress suchas "ango avocado *ackfruit casuy santol cala+ansi sintonesand coconut trees.

fter repeated unsuccessful negotiations 1#! filed ane&propriation co"plaint against the land of the respondent in theRT! of Tanay Ri2al. The RT! issued a writ of possession in favor of 1#! after paying the deposit re%uire"ent.

The trial court rendered its decision on the value of the property

using the :0 ta& declaration. (which is incorrect as stated in thedecision of the supre"e court) The respondents filed a "otion for recon. 'ut it was denied 'y

RT!. +o They filed an appeal and the ! gave "erit to thecontention of the respondents and "ade its revised valuationusing the :@ ta& declaration (increasing the value of theproperty). The case went up to the +!.

ISSUE#1. hether or not the property should 'e valued using the :0

or the :@ ta& declarations.2. hether or not +ec. @; of R.. 1o. 7@, as a"ended 'y

#.D. @ will apply.

$ELD1. 4n e"inent do"ain cases the ti"e of taking is the filing of

the co"plaint if there was no actual taking prior thereto.Aence in this case the value of the property at the ti"e of the filing of the co"plaint on 1ove"'er /8 :8 should 'econsidered in deter"ining the *ust co"pensation due therespondents. 1or"ally the ti"e of taking coincides with thefiling of co"plaint for e&propriation as ruled in the case of #ower !orporation v. !ourt of ppeals et al.Thee&propriation proceedings in this case having 'een initiated'y 1#! on 1ove"'er /8 :8 property values on such"onth and year should lay the 'asis for the proper deter"ination of *ust co"pensation.

2. 4t should not apply in the case at 'ar the ac%uisition of suchease"ent is not gratis. The li"itations on the use of theproperty taken for an indefinite period would deprive itsowner of the nor"al use thereof. >or this reason the latter isentitled to pay"ent of a *ust co"pensation which "ust 'e

neither "ore nor less than the "onetary e%uivalent of theland taken.

G.R. No. 14291 M8 0, 2002CIT O" CE*U /S S6OUSES DEDAMO

"ACTS# $n :- +epte"'er :@ petitioner !ity of !e'u filed in !ivil !ase

1o. !B9;:07@/ a co"plaint for e"inent do"ain againstrespondents spouses polonio and 9lasa Deda"o. >or theconstruction of a pu'lic road which shall serve as an accessOrelief road of Gorordo venue to e&tend to the General Ma&ilu"

venue and the 'ack of Magellan 4nternational Aotel Roads in!e'u !ity. The lots are the "ost suita'le site for the purpose

Deposited with the #hilippine 1ational 9ank the a"ount of #,::,7 representing :, of the fair "arket value of the property

to ena'le the petitioner to take i""ediate possession of theproperty pursuant to +ection : of R.. 1o. -:78

Respondents filed a "otion to dis"iss on the ground that their purpose was not for pu'lic purpose 'ut for the 'enefit of a privatesingle entity !e'u Aoldings. lso the respondents alleged thatthey don’t have any other land in !e'u !ity.

$n /@ ugust :0 petitioner filed a "otion for the issuance of awrit of possession pursuant to +ection : of R.. 1o. -:78. The"otion was granted 'y the trial court on /: +epte"'er :0.

:0 Dece"'er :0 the parties e&ecuted and su'"itted to thetrial court an gree"ent0 wherein they declared that they havepartially settled the case and in consideration thereof they agreed

on so"e certain stipulations. $ne of the stipulations was:. &&& /.&&& @.&&& 0.&&& ,.&&& 7.&&&-. That the *udg"ent sought to 'e rendered under this agree"enshall 'e followed 'y a supple"ental *udg"ent fi&ing the *usco"pensation for the property of the +B!$1D #RT= after the!o""issioners appointed 'y this Aonora'le !ourt to deter"inethe sa"e shall have rendered their report and approved 'y thecourt.

The RT! rendered its decision on the value of the propertyaccording to the assessed value of the co""issioners. The

petitioner filed a "otion for reconsideration contending that theassess"ent of the property was no accurate. The court ad*ustedits decision on the value 'ased on the new assessed value.

#etitioner elevated the case to !. 9ut the petitioner failed toconvince the ! and the latter affir"ed the decision of the RT!+till unsatisfied petitioner filed with us the petition for review inthe case at 'ar.

ISSUES#1. hether or not *ust co"pensation should 'e deter"ined as of the

date the filing of the co"plaint.2. hether or not the 'asis of the *ust co"pensation is the value on

the actual date the filing of the co"plaint considering theagree"ent entered into 'y the parties.

$ELD#1. 4t asserts that it should 'e which in this case should 'e :-

+epte"'er :@ and not at the ti"e the property was actuallytaken in :0 pursuant to the decision in "ational Po#eCorporation vs* Court of 0ppeals*"

2. The petitioner has "isread our ruling in The 1ational #ower !orpvs. !ourt of ppeals.:8 e did not categorically rule in that casethat *ust co"pensation should 'e deter"ined as of the filing of theco"plaint. e e&plicitly stated therein that although the generarule in deter"ining *ust co"pensation in e"inent do"ain is thevalue of the property as of the date of the filing of the co"plaintthe rule Ead"its of an e&ception where this !ourt fi&ed the valueof the property as of the date it was taken and not at the date ofthe co""ence"ent of the e&propriation proceedings.E

More than anything else the parties 'y a sole"n docu"ent freelyand voluntarily agreed upon 'y the" agreed to 'e 'ound 'y the

report of the co""ission and approved 'y the trial court. Theagree"ent is a contract 'etween the parties. 4t has the force oflaw 'etween the" and should 'e co"plied with in good faith

rticle ::, and :@:, of the !ivil !ode >urther"ore petitioner did not interpose a serious o'*ection.:: 4

is therefore too late for petitioner to %uestion the valuation nowwithout violating the principle of e%uita'le estoppel. Records showthat petitioner consented to confor" with the valuationreco""ended 'y the co""issioners. 4t cannot detract fro" itsagree"ent now and assail correctness of the co""issionersassess"ent.

JUST COMPENSATION MANNER OF PAYMENT

15 SCRA 343, 19%9ASSOC. O" SMALL LANDOWNERS !. DAR(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

249 SCRA 149, 1995DAR !. CA

"ACTS: #etitioner Pedro =ap alleges that E(o)n 0 +epte"'er :/ the

transfer certificates of title (T!Ts) of petitioner =ap were totallycancelled 'y the Registrar of Deeds of <eyte and were transferredin the na"es of far"er 'eneficiaries collectively 'ased on there%uest of the DR together with a certification of the <and'ank





that the su" of #-@,@@-.-- and #-:7.,0 have 'eenear"arked for <andowner #edro <. =ap for the parcels of landscovered 'y T!T 1os. 7// and 7/@ respectively and issued inlieu thereof T!;,7@ and T!;,7/ respectively in the na"es of listed 'eneficiaries (11BFB+ E!E N EDE) without notice topetitioner =ap and without co"plying with the re%uire"ent of +ection :7 (e) of R 77,- to deposit the co"pensation in cashand <and'ank 'onds in an accessi'le 'ank. (Rollo p. 7).

The a'ove allegations are not disputed 'y any of therespondents.

#etitioner 2eirs of $+iliano Santiago allege that the heirs of B"iliano >. +antiago are the owners of a parcel of land located at<aur 1PBV B!4? with an area of :.,7:, hectares covered 'yT!T 1o. 1T;78@, of the registry of Deeds of 1ueva Bci*aregistered in the na"e of the late B"iliano >. +antiagoI that in1ove"'er and Dece"'er :8 without notice to the petitionersthe <and'ank re%uired and the 'eneficiaries e&ecuted ctualtillers Deed of Pndertaking (11BF E9E) to pay rentals to the<and9ank for the use of their far"lots e%uivalent to at least /,of the net harvestI that on /0 $cto'er :: the DR RegionalDirector issued an order directing the <and'ank to pay thelandowner directly or through the esta'lish"ent of a trust fund inthe a"ount of #:@,0/.:/ that on /0 >e'ruary :/ the<and'ank reserved in trust #:@,0/.:/ in the na"e of B"iliano>. +antiago. (11BF EBEI Rollop. -)I that the 'eneficiaries stopped paying rentals to the

landowners after they signed the ctual TillerCs Deed of Pndertaking co""itting the"selves to pay rentals to the<and9ank (Rollo p. :@@).

The a'ove allegations are not disputed 'y the respondents e&ceptthat respondent <and'ank clai"s :) that it was respondent DRnot <and'ank which re%uired the e&ecution of ctual Tillers Deedof Pndertaking (TDP for 'revity)I and /) that respondent<and'ank although ar"ed with the TDP did not collect anya"ount as rental fro" the su'stituting 'eneficiaries (Rollo p. ).

#etitioner gricultural Manage"ent and Develop"ent !orporation( 0M0COR for 'revity) alleges H with respect to its propertieslocated in +an >rancisco Uue2on H that the properties of

MD!$R in +an >rancisco Uue2on consist of a parcel of landcovered 'y T!T 1o. @0@:0 with an area of /8./:, hectaresand another parcel covered 'y T!T 1o. :8@/ with an area of

:[email protected]: hectaresI that a su""ary ad"inistrative proceeding todeter"ine co"pensation of the property covered 'y T!T 1o.@0@:0 was conducted 'y the DR9 in Uue2on !ity withoutnotice to the landownerI that a decision was rendered on /01ove"'er :/ (11BF E>E) fi&ing the co"pensation for theparcel of land covered 'y T!T 1o. @0@:0 with an area of /8./:, hectares at #/-7@/7.@0 and ordering the <and'ankto pay or esta'lish a trust account for said a"ount in the na"e of

MD!$RI and that the trust account in the a"ount of #/-7@/7.@0 fi&ed in the decision was esta'lished 'y adding#:70.-@ to the first trust account esta'lished on :Dece"'er :: (11BF EGE). ith respect to petitioner

MD!$RCs property in Ta'aco l'ay it is alleged that theproperty of MD!$R in Ta'aco l'ay is covered 'y T!T 1o. T;/077 of the Register of Deeds of l'ay with an area of :7/.0,-hectaresCI that e"ancipation patents were issued covering anarea of -8:. hectares which were registered on :, >e'ruary

: 'ut no action was taken thereafter 'y the DR to fi& theco"pensation for said landI that on /: pril :@ a trust accountin the na"e of MD!$R was esta'lished in the a"ount of #://0-/:-.@C three notices of ac%uisition having 'eenpreviously re*ected 'y MD!$R. (Rollo pp. ;)

The a'ove allegations are not disputed 'y the respondents e&ceptthat respondent <and'ank clai"s that petitioner failed toparticipate in the DR9 proceedings (land valuation case)despite due notice to it.

ISSUE #etitioners su'"it that respondent court erred in (:) declaringas null and void DR d"inistrative $rder 1o. +eries of :8insofar as it provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit

in cash or in 'onds and (/) in holding that private respondents areentitled as a "atter of right to the i""ediate and provisional release othe a"ounts deposited in trust pending the final resolution of the casesit has filed for *ust co"pensation.

$ELD# nent the first assign"ent of error petitioners "aintain that the

word EdepositE as used in +ection :7(e) of R 77,- referred"erely to the act of depositing and in no way e&cluded theopening of a trust account as a for" of deposit. Thus in opting fo

the opening of a trust account as the accepta'le for" of deposithrough d"inistrative !ircular 1o. petitioner DR did noco""it any grave a'use of discretion since it "erely e&ercised itspower to pro"ulgate rules and regulations in i"ple"enting thedeclared policies of R 77,-.

The contention is untena'le. +ection :7(e) of R 77,- providesas follows

+ec. :7. #rocedure for c%uisition of #rivate <ands H(e) Ppon receipt 'y the landowner of the corresponding pay"enor in case of re*ection or no response fro" the landowner uponthe deposit #ith an accessible ban8 designated by the 0R of theco+pensation in cash or in -.P bonds in accordance with this

ct the DR shall take i""ediate possession of the land andshall re%uest the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer!ertificate of Title (T!T) in the na"e of the Repu'lic of the

#hilippines. . . . (e"phasis supplied) 4t is very e&plicit therefro" that the deposit "ust 'e "ade only inEcashE or in E<9# 'ondsE. 1owhere does it appear nor can it 'einferred that the deposit can 'e "ade in any other for". 4f it werethe intention to include a Etrust accountE a"ong the valid "odesof deposit that should have 'een "ade e&press or at least%ualifying words ought to have appeared fro" which it can 'efairly deduced that a Etrust accountE is allowed. 4n su" there is noa"'iguity in +ection :7(e) of R 77,- to warrant an e&pandedconstruction of the ter" EdepositE.

The conclusive effect of ad"inistrative construction is noa'solute. ction of an ad"inistrative agency "ay 'e distur'ed oset aside 'y the *udicial depart"ent if there is an error of law agrave a'use of power or lack of *urisdiction or grave a'use odiscretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of alegislative enact"ent. 1% 4n this regard it "ust 'e stressed that the

function of pro"ulgating rules and regulations "ay 'e legiti"atelye&ercised only for the purpose of carrying the provisions of thelaw into effect. The power of ad"inistrative agencies is thusconfined to i"ple"enting the law or putting it into effect. !orollaryto this is that ad"inistrative regulations cannot e&tend the law anda"end a legislative enact"ent 19 for settled is the rule thaad"inistrative regulations "ust 'e in har"ony with the provisionsof the law. nd in case there is a discrepancy 'etween the 'asiclaw and an i"ple"enting rule or regulation it is the for"er thaprevails. 20

4n the present suit the DR clearly overstepped the li"its of itspower to enact rules and regulations when it issued d"inistrative!ircular 1o. . There is no 'asis in allowing the opening of a trusaccount in 'ehalf of the landowner as co"pensation for hisproperty 'ecause as heretofore discussed +ection :7(e) of R77,- is very specific that the deposit "ust 'e "ade only in Ecash

or in E<9# 'ondsE. 4n the sa"e vein petitioners cannot invoke<R !ircular 1os. / /; and ,0 'ecause these i"ple"entingregulations cannot outweigh the clear provision of the lawRespondent court therefore did not co""it any error in strikingdown d"inistrative !ircular 1o. for 'eing null and void.

#roceeding to the crucial issue of whether or not privaterespondents are entitled to withdraw the a"ounts deposited intrust in their 'ehalf pending the final resolution of the casesinvolving the final valuation of their properties petitioners assertthe negative.

The contention is pre"ised on the alleged distinction 'etween thedeposit of co"pensation under +ection :7(e) of R 77,- and





pay"ent of final co"pensation as provided under +ection : 21 of the sa"e law. ccording to petitioners the right of the landowner to withdraw the a"ount deposited in his 'ehalf pertains only tothe final valuation as agreed upon 'y the landowner the DR andthe <9# or that ad*udged 'y the court. 4t has no reference toa"ount deposited in the trust account pursuant to +ection :7(e) incase of re*ection 'y the landowner 'ecause the latter a"ount isonly provisional and intended "erely to secure possession of theproperty pending final valuation. To further 'olster the contentionpetitioners cite the following pronounce"ents in the case of

Essociation of +"all <andowners in the #hil. 4nc. vs. +ecretary of grarian Refor"E. 22

The last "a*or challenge to !R# is that the landowner isdivested of his property even 'efore actual pay"ent to hi" in fullof *ust co"pensation in contravention of a well;accepted principleof e"inent do"ain.

The !R# <aw for its part conditions the transfer of possessionand ownership of the land to the govern"ent on receipt 'y thelandowner of the corresponding pay"ent or the deposit 'y theDR of the co"pensation in cash or <9# 'onds with anaccessi'le 'ank. Pntil then title also re"ains with the landowner.1o outright change of ownership is conte"plated either.

Aence the argu"ent that the assailed "easures violate dueprocess 'y ar'itrarily transferring title 'efore the land is fully paidfor "ust also 'e re*ected.

1ota'ly however the aforecited case was used 'y respondentcourt in discarding petitionersC assertion as it found that despitethe ErevolutionaryE character of the e&propriation envisionedunder R 77,- which led the +upre"e !ourt in the case of

ssociation of +"all <andowners in the #hil. 4nc. vs. +ecretary of grarian Refor" (:-, +!R @0@) to conclude that Epay"ents of the *ust co"pensation is not always re%uired to 'e "ade fully in"oneyE H even as the +upre"e !ourt ad"its in the sa"e caseEthat the traditional "ediu" for the pay"ent of *ust co"pensationis "oney and no otherE H the +upre"e !ourt in said case did nota'andon the Erecogni2ed rule . . . that title to the property expropriated shall pass fro+ the o#ner to the expropriator only upon full pay+ent of the 9ust co+pensation.E 23 (B"phasissupplied)

e agree with the o'servations of respondent court. The ruling inthe EssociationE case "erely recogni2ed the e&traordinary nature

of the e&propriation to 'e undertaken under R 77,- there'yallowing a deviation fro" the traditional "ode of pay"ent of co"pensation and recogni2ed pay"ent other than in cash. 4t didnot however dispense with the settled rule that there "ust 'e fullpay"ent of *ust co"pensation 'efore the title to the e&propriatedproperty is transferred.

The atte"pt to "ake a distinction 'etween the deposit of co"pensation under +ection :7(e) of R 77,- and deter"inationof *ust co"pensation under +ection : is unaccepta'le. Towithhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the a"ountsalready deposited in their 'ehalf as co"pensation for their properties si"ply 'ecause they re*ected the DRCs valuation andnotwithstanding that they have already 'een deprived of thepossession and use of such properties is an oppressive e&erciseof e"inent do"ain. The irresisti'le e&propriation of privaterespondentsC properties was painful enough for the". 9ut

petitioner DR ru''ed it in all the "ore 'y withholding that whichrightfully 'elongs to private respondents in e&change for thetaking under an authority (the EssociationE case) that ishowever "isplaced. This is "isery twice 'estowed on privaterespondents which the !ourt "ust rectify.

Aence we find it unnecessary to distinguish 'etween provisionalco"pensation under +ection :7(e) and final co"pensation under +ection : for purposes of e&ercising the landownersC right toappropriate the sa"e. The i""ediate effect in 'oth situations isthe sa"e the landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his property for which he should 'e fairly and i""ediatelyco"pensated. >ittingly we reiterate the cardinal rule that withinthe conte&t of the +tateCs inherent power of e"inent do"ain 9ust

co+pensation +eans not only the correct deter+ination of thea+ount to be paid to the o#ner of the land but also the pay+entof the land #ithin a reasonable ti+e fro+ its ta8ing . >ithou

pro+pt pay+ent co+pensation cannot be considered "9ust" fothe property o#ner is +ade to suffer the conse1uence of beingi++ediately deprived of his land #hile being +ade to #ait for adecade or +ore before actually receiving the a+ount necessaryto cope #ith his loss. 24 (B"phasis supplied)

The pro"ulgation of the EssociationE decision endeavored tore"ove all legal o'stacles in the i"ple"entation of the

!o"prehensive grarian Refor" #rogra" and clear the way fothe true freedo" of the far"er. 25 9ut despite this cases involvingits i"ple"entation continue to "ultiply and clog the courtsdockets. 1evertheless we are still opti"istic that the goal ototally e"ancipating the far"ers fro" their 'ondage will 'eattained in due ti"e. 4t "ust 'e stressed however that in thepursuit of this o'*ective vigilance over the rights of thelandowners is e%ually i"portant 'ecause social *ustice cannot 'einvoked to tra"ple on the rights of property owners who undeour !onstitution and laws are also entitled to protection.

JUST COMPENSATION TRIAL WITH COMMISSIONERS

20+ SCRA 19+, 1992

MERALCO !. 6INEDA

"ACTS# #etitioner Manila Blectric !o"pany (MBR<!$) is a do"estic

corporation duly organi2ed and e&isting under the laws o#hilippines. Respondent Aonora'le ?udge Gregorio G. #ineda isi"pleaded in his official capacity as the presiding *udge of the!ourt of >irst 4nstance (now Regional Trial !ourt) of Ri2al 9ranchFF4 #asig Metro Manila. hile private respondents Teofilo

rayon +r. Gil de Gu2"an <ucito +antiago and Teresa 9autistaare owners in fee si"ple of the e&propriated property situated aMalaya #ililla Ri2al.

$n $cto'er / :-0 a co"plaint for e"inent do"ain was filed'y petitioner MBR<!$ against forty;two (0/) defendants withthe !ourt of >irst 4nstance (now Regional Trial !ourt) of Ri2al9ranch FF44 #asig Metro Manila.

The co"plaint alleges that for the purpose of constructing a /@8SV Trans"ission line fro" 9arrio Malaya to Tower 1o. //8 a#ililla Ri2al petitioner needs portions of the land of the privaterespondents consisting of an aggregate area of /@-@/: s%uare"eters. Despite petitionerCs offers to pay co"pensation andatte"pts to negotiate with the respondentsC the parties failed toreach an agree"ent.

#rivate respondents %uestion in their "otion to dis"iss datedDece"'er /- :-0 the petitionerCs legal e&istence and the areasought to 'e e&propriated as too e&cessive.

$n ?anuary - :-, respondents Gil de Gu2"an and Teresa9autista filed a "otion for conte"pt of court alleging a"ong othethings that petitionerCs corporate e&istence had e&pired in :7and therefore it no longer e&ists under #hilippine <aws.

9ut despite the opposition of the private respondents the courissued an $rder dated ?anuary :@ :-, authori2ing the petitioneto take or enter upon the possession of the property sought to 'ee&propriated.

$n ?uly :@ :-7 private respondents filed a "otion fowithdrawal of deposit clai"ing that they are entitled to 'e paid aforty pesos (#08.88) per s%uare "eter or an appro&i"ate su" of#/-/888.88 and prayed that they 'e allowed to withdraw thesu" of #-:--:.,8 fro" petitionerCs deposit;account with the#hilippine 1ational 9ank #asig 9ranch. Aowever respondents"otion was denied in an order dated +epte"'er @ :-7.

4n the intervening period 9ranch FF44 'eca"e vacant when the





presiding ?udge 1elly Valdellon;+olis retired so respondent?udge #ineda acted on the "otions filed with 9ranch FF44.

#ursuant to a govern"ent policy the petitioners on $cto'er @8:- sold to the 1ational #ower !orporation (1apocor) the power plants and trans"ission lines including the trans"ission linestraversing private respondentsC property.

$n >e'ruary :: :8 respondent court issued an $rder appointing the "e"'ers of the 9oard of !o""issioners to "akean appraisal of the properties.

$n ?une , :8 petitioner filed a "otion to dis"iss the co"plainton the ground that i t has lost all its interests over the trans"issionlines and properties under e&propriation 'ecause of their sale tothe 1apocor. 4n view of this "otion the work of the!o""issioners was suspended.

$n ?une :: private respondents filed another "otion for pay"ent. 9ut despite the opposition of the petitioner therespondent court issued the first of the %uestioned $rders datedDece"'er 0 :: granting the "otion for pay"ent of privaterespondents to wit

s prayed for 'y defendants Teofilo rayon <ucito +antiagoTeresa 9autista and Gil de Gu2"an thru counsel Gil de Gu2"anin their Motion for #ay"ent for reasons therein stated this !ourthere'y orders the plaintiff to pay the "ovants the a"ount of #/8088.88 for the e&propriated area of 788 s%uare "eters at

#@.88 per s%uare "eter without pre*udice to the *ustco"pensation that "ay 'e proved in the final ad*udication of thiscase.

The aforesaid su" of #/8088.88 having 'een deposited 'yplaintiff in the #hilippine 1ational 9ank (#asig 9ranch) under +avings ccount 1o. /80 let the Deputy +heriff of this 9ranchMr. +ofronio Villarin withdraw said a"ount in the na"es of Teofilo

rayon <ucito +antiago Teresa 9autista and Gil de Gu2"an thesaid a"ount to 'e delivered to the defendantCs counsel tty. Gilde Gu2"an who shall sign for the receipt thereof.

$n Dece"'er :, :: private respondents filed an $"ni'usMotion praying that they 'e allowed to withdraw an additional su"of #8:/,.,8 fro" petitionerCs deposit;account with the#hilippine 1ational 9ank.

9y order dated Dece"'er /: :: the respondent court granted

the $"ni'us Motion hereunder %uoted as follows cting on the $"ni'us Motion dated Dece"'er :, :: filed 'y tty. Gil de Gu2"an counsel for Teofilo rayon +r. <ucito+antiago Teresita 9autista and for hi"self and it appearing thatthere is deposited in the 'ank in trust for the" the a"ount of #8:/,.,8 to guarantee *ust co"pensation of #/-/888.88there'y leaving a 'alance of #:7:0-,.88 still paya'le to the"the sa"e is here'y GR1TBD.

Mr. 1a2ario 1uevo and Marianita 9urog respectively theManager and !ashier #hilippine 1ational 9ank #asig 9ranch#asig Metro Manila are here'y ordered to allow +heriff +ofronioVillarin to withdraw and collect fro" the 'ank the a"ount of #8:/,.,8 under +avings ccount 1o. /80 and to deliver thesa"e to tty. Gil de Gu2"an upon proper receipt pending finaldeter"ination of *ust co"pensation.

#rivate respondents filed another "otion dated ?anuary :/praying that petitioner 'e ordered to pay the su" of #:7 /88.88. $n ?anuary :/ :/ petitioner filed a "otion for reconsideration

of the $rders dated Dece"'er 0 :: and Dece"'er /: ::and to declare private respondents in conte"pt of court for forgingor causing to 'e forged the receiving sta"p of petitionerCs counseland falsifying or causing to 'e falsified the signature of itsreceiving clerk in their $"ni'us Motion.

4n response to private respondentsC "otion for pay"ent dated?anuary :/ petitioner filed an opposition alleging that privaterespondents are not entitled to pay"ent of *ust co"pensation atthis stage of the proceeding 'ecause there is still no appraisal

and valuation of the property. $n >e'ruary :/ the respondent court denied the petitionerCs

"otion for reconsideration and "otion for conte"pt thedispositive portion of which is hereunder %uoted as follows

Viewed in the light of the foregoing this !ourt here'y ad*udges infavor of defendants Teofilo rayon +r. <ucito +antiago Teresita9autista and tty. Gil de Gu2"an the fair "arket value of theirproperty taken 'y MBR<!$ at #08.88 per s%uare "eter for atotal of #@7-/8.88 this a"ount to 'ear legal interest fro"

>e'ruary /0 :-, until fully paid plus conse%uential da"ages inter"s of attorneyCs fees in the su" of #:8888.88 all these su"sto 'e paid 'y MBR<!$ to said defendants with costs of suit"inus the a"ount of #:8/88.88 already withdrawn 'ydefendants.

>or 'eing "oot and acade"ic the "otions for conte"pt areDB14BDI for lack of "erit the "otion for reconsideration of theorders of Dece"'er 0 :: and Dece"'er /: :: is alsoDB14BD.

>urther"ore the respondent court stressed in said order that Eathis stage the !ourt starts to appoint co""issioners to deter"ine

*ust co"pensation or dispenses with the" and adopts thetesti"ony of a credi'le real estate 'roker or the *udge hi"selwould e&ercise his right to for"ulate an opinion of his own as tothe value of the land in %uestion. 1evertheless if he for"ulatessuch an opinion he "ust 'ase it upon co"petent evidence.E

ISSUE# hether or not the respondent court can dispense with theassistance of a 9oard of !o""issioners in an e&propriationproceeding and deter"ine for itself the *ust co"pensation.

$ELD# The applica'le laws in the case at 'ar are +ections , and o

Rule 7- of the Revised Rules of !ourt. The said sectionsparticularly deal with the ascertain"ent of co"pensation and thecourtCs action upon co""issionersC report to wit

+ec. ,. Ppon the entry of the order of conde"nation the courshall appoint not "ore than three (@) co"petent and disinterestedpersons as co""issioners to ascertain and report to the court the

*ust co"pensation for the property sought to 'e taken. The ordeof appoint"ent shall designate the ti"e and place of the firs

session of the hearing to 'e held 'y the co""issioners andspecify the ti"e within which their report is to 'e filed with thecourt.

+ec. . Ppon the e&piration of the period of ten (:8) days referredto in the preceding section or even 'efore the e&piration of suchperiod 'ut after all the interested parties have filed their o'*ectionsto the report or their state"ent of agree"ent therewith the cour"ay after hearing accept the report and render *udg"ent inaccordance therewithI or for cause shown it "ay reco""it thesa"e to the co""issioners for further report of factsI or it "ay seaside the report and appoint new co""issioners or it "ay accepthe report in part and re*ect it in partI and it "ay "ake such ordeor render such *udg"ent as shall secure to the plaintiff theproperty essential to the e&ercise of his right of conde"nationand to the defendant *ust co"pensation for the property so taken.

e already e"phasi2ed in the case of Municipality of .i?an v

2on* &ose Mar ;arcia (G.R. 1o. 7/78 Dece"'er // : :8+!R ,-7 ,@;,0) the procedure for e"inent do"ain to wit

There are two (/) stages in every action of e&propriation. The firsis concerned with the deter"ination of the authority of the plaintifto e&ercise the power of e"inent do"ain and the propriety of itse&ercise in the conte&t of the facts involved in the suit. 4t ends withan order if not of dis"issal of the action Eof conde"nationdeclaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the propertysought to 'e conde"ned for the pu'lic use or purpose descri'edin the co"plaint upon the pay"ent of *ust co"pensation to 'edeter"ined as of the date of the filing of the co"plaintE. n ordeof dis"issal if this 'e ordained would 'e a final one of course





since it finally disposes of the action and leaves nothing "ore to'e done 'y the !ourt on the "erits. +o too would an order of conde"nation 'e a final one for thereafter as the Rulese&pressly state in the proceedings 'efore the Trial !ourt Enoo'*ection to the e&ercise of the right of conde"nation (or thepropriety thereof) shall 'e filed or heard.E

The second phase of the e"inent do"ain action is concernedwith the deter"ination 'y the !ourt of Ethe *ust co"pensation for the property sought to 'e taken.E This is done 'y the !ourt withthe assistance of not "ore than three (@) co""issioners. The

order fi&ing the *ust co"pensation on the 'asis of the evidence'efore and findings of the co""issioners would 'e final too. 4twould finally dispose of the second stage of the suit and leavenothing "ore to 'e done 'y the !ourt regarding the issue.$'viously one or another of the parties "ay 'elieve the order to'e erroneous in its appreciation of the evidence or findings of factor otherwise. $'viously too such a dissatisfied party "ay seekreversal of the order 'y taking an appeal therefro".

Respondent *udge in the case at 'ar arrived at the valuation of #08.88 per s%uare "eter on a property declared for real estateta& purposes at #/.,8 per hectare on the 'asis of a E?oint Venture

gree"ent on +u'division and Aousing #ro*ectsE e&ecuted 'y .9. Ao"es and private respondents on ?une : :-/. Thisagree"ent was "erely attached to the "otion to withdraw fro"petitionerCs deposit. Respondent *udge arrived at the a"ount of

*ust co"pensation on its own without the proper reception of

evidence 'efore the 9oard of !o""issioners. #rivaterespondents as landowners have not proved 'y co"petentevidence the value of their respective properties at a proper hearing. <ikewise petitioner has not 'een given the opportunity tore'ut any evidence that would have 'een presented 'y privaterespondents. 4n an e&propriation case such as this one where theprincipal issue is the deter"ination of *ust co"pensation a trial'efore the !o""issioners is indispensa'le to allow the parties topresent evidence on the issue of *ust co"pensation. !ontrary tothe su'"ission of private respondents the appoint"ent of at leastthree (@) co"petent persons as co""issioners to ascertain *ustco"pensation for the property sought to 'e taken is a "andatoryre%uire"ent in e&propriation cases. hile it is true that thefindings of co""issioners "ay 'e disregarded and the court "aysu'stitute its own esti"ate of the value the latter "ay only do sofor valid reasons i*e*, where the !o""issioners have applied

illegal principles to the evidence su'"itted to the" or where theyhave disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence or wherethe a"ount allowed is either grossly inade%uate or e&cessive(Manila Railroad !o"pany v. Velas%ue2 @/ #hil. /7). Thus trialwith the aid of the co""issioners is a su'stantial right that "aynot 'e done away with capriciously or for no reason at all.Moreover in such instances where the report of theco""issioners "ay 'e disregarded the trial court "ay "ake itsown esti"ate of value fro" co"petent evidence that "ay 'egathered fro" the record. The aforesaid *oint venture agree"entrelied upon 'y the respondent *udge in the a'sence of any other proof of valuation of said properties is inco"petent to deter"ine

*ust co"pensation. #rior to the deter"ination of *ust co"pensation the property

owners "ay rightfully de"and to withdraw fro" the deposit "ade'y the conde"nor in e"inent do"ain proceedings. Ppon anaward of a s"aller a"ount 'y the court the property owners aresu'*ect to a *udg"ent for the e&cess or upon the award of a larger su" they are entitled to a *udg"ent for the a"ount awarded 'ythe court. Thus when the respondent court granted in the $rdersdated Dece"'er 0 :: and Dece"'er /: :: the "otions of private respondents for withdrawal of certain su"s fro" thedeposit of petitioner without pre*udice to the *ust co"pensationthat "ay 'e proved in the final ad*udication of the case itco""itted no error.

Records specifically MeralcoCs deed of sale dated $cto'er @8:- in favor of 1apocor show that the latter agreed to purchasethe parcels of land already ac%uired 'y Meralco the rightsinterests and ease"ents over those parcels of land which are the

su'*ect of the e&propriation proceedings under !ivil !ase 1o/8/7 (!ourt of >irst 4nstance of Ri2al 9ranch FF44) as well asthose parcels of land occupied 'y Meralco 'y virtue of grant oease"ents of right;of;way (see Rollo pp. @0:;@0/). ThusMeralco had already ceded and in fact lost all its rights andinterests over the aforesaid parcels of land in favor of 1apocor. 4naddition the sa"e contract reveals that the 1apocor waspreviously advised and actually has knowledge of the pendinglitigation and proceedings against Meralco (see Rollo pp. @0/@0@). Aence e find the contention of the petitioner tena'le. 4t is

therefore proper for the lower court to either i"plead the 1apocoin su'stitution of the petitioner or at the very least i"plead thefor"er as party plaintiff.

ll pre"ises considered this !ourt is convinced that therespondent *udgeCs act of deter"ining and ordering the pay"enof *ust co"pensation without the assistance of a 9oard o!o""issioners is a flagrant violation of petitionerCs constitutionaright to due process and is a gross violation of the "andated ruleesta'lished 'y the Revised Rules of !ourt.

GR No. 12999%, D)))r 29, 199%N6C !. $ENSON

"ACTS# $n March /: :8 the 1ational #ower !orporation (1#!

originally instituted with the Regional Trial !ourt Third ?udicia

District 9ranch 07 +an >ernando #a"panga a co"plaint fore"inent do"ain later a"ended on $cto'er :: :8 for thetaking for pu'lic use of five (,) parcels of land owned or clai"ed'y respondents with a total aggregate area of ,@:: s%uare"eters for the e&pansion of the 1#! Me&ico +u';+tation.

Respondents are the registered ownersOclai"ants of the five (,parcels of land sought to 'e e&propriated situated in +an ?oseMatulid Me&ico #a"panga "ore particularly descri'ed asfollows

5#arcels of rice land 'eing <ot : / @ 0 and , of the su'divisionplan #sd;8@;8:-:/: ($<T) and 'eing a portion of <ot /:/ oMe&ico !adastre situated in the 9arangay of +an ?ose MatulidMunicipality of Me&ico province of #a"panga 4sland of <u2on9ounded on the 1orth 'y 9arangay Road !alle +an ?oseI on theBast 'y <ot 7 #sd;8@;8:-:/: ($<T) owned 'y the 1ationa

#ower !orporationI on the +outh 'y <ot :8: #sd;8@;8:-:/:($<T) 'eing an irrigation ditchI on the est 'y <ot :88 #sd;8@;88:-:/: ($<T) 'eing an irrigation ditch and 9arrio roadcontaining an aggregate area of >4>T= B4GAT TA$P+1DTARBB AP1DRBD B<BVB1 (,@::) s%uare "eters whichparcels of land are 'roken down as follows with clai"ants

:. <ot :;[0@,@/ s%. ".; Aenson >a"ily/. <ot /;[7/@ s%. ".; lfredo Tanchiatco encu"'ered with<and 9ank of the #hil. (<9#)@. <ot @;[@8,- s%. ".;9ienvenido David encu"'ered with<9#0. <ot 0;[:0@ s%. ".;Maria 9ondoc !apili encu"'ered with<9#,. <ot ,;[@07: s%. ".;Miguel Manoloto and Aenson >a"ilyTotal [,@:: s%. ".6

and covered 'y Transfer !ertificate of Title 1o. ,,- in the na"e ofAenson et al.I Transfer !ertificate of Title 1o. -:@:OB"ancipation#atent 1o. ;/--/:7 in the na"e of lfredo TanchiatcoI Transfe!ertificate of Title 1o. -:::OB"ancipation #atent 1o. ;/-87 inthe na"e of 9ienvenido DavidI Transfer !ertificate of Title 1o-:8OB"ancipation #atent 1o. ;/-8 in the na"e of Maria 9!apiliI !ertificate of <and Transfer 1o. 0,,8 in the na"e oMiguel !. Manaloto and +u'division #lan #sd;8@;8:-:/: ($<T)which is a su'division of <ot /:/ Me&ico !adastre as surveyedfor ?osefina Satig'ak et al. +aid five (,) parcels of land areagriculturalOriceland covered 'y $peration <and Transfer ($<T) othe Depart"ent of grarian Refor".

#etitioner needed the entire area of the five (,) parcels of landco"prising an aggregate area of ,@:: s%uare "eters for the





e&pansion of its Me&ico +u'division. $n March / :8 petitioner filed an urgent "otion to fi& the

provisional value of the su'*ect parcels of land.@ $n pril /8 :8 respondents filed a "otion to dis"iss.0 They

did not challenge petitioner’s right to conde"n their property 'utdeclared that the fair "arket value of their property was fro"#:8.88 to #/,8.88 per s%uare "eter.

$n ?uly :8 :8 the trial court denied respondents’ "otion todis"iss. The court did not declare that petitioner had a lawful rightto take the property sought to 'e e&propriated. Aowever the courtfi&ed the provisional value of the land at #:88.88 per s%uare"eter for a total area of 7@//8 s%uare "eters of respondents’property to 'e deposited with the #rovincial Treasurer of #a"panga. #etitioner deposited the a"ount on ugust / :8.

$n +epte"'er , :8 the trial court issued a writ of possessionin favor of petitioner and on +epte"'er :: :8 the court’sdeputy sheriff placed petitioner in possession of the su'*ect land.

$n 1ove"'er // :8 and Dece"'er /8 :8 the trial courtgranted the "otions of respondents to withdraw the deposit "ade'y petitioner of the provisional value of their property a"ountingto #,@::88.88 with a 'alance of #7888.88 re"aining withthe #rovincial Treasurer of #a"panga.

$n pril , :: the trial court issued an order appointing three(@) co""issioners to aid the court in the reception of evidence to

deter"ine *ust co"pensation for the taking of the su'*ect property. fter receiving the evidence and conducting an ocular inspectionthe co""issioners su'"itted to the court their individual reports.

!o""isioner Mariano !. Tiglao in his report dated +epte"'er :8 :/ reco""ended that the fair "arket value of the entire7@//8 s%uare "eters property 'e fi&ed at #@,8.88 per s%uare"eter. !o""issioner rnold #. tien2a in his report dated>e'ruary /0 :@ reco""ended that the fair "arket value 'efi&ed at #@-,.88 per s%uare "eter. !o""issioner Victorino$rocio in his report dated pril / :@ reco""ended that thefair "arket value 'e fi&ed at #:-8.88 per s%uare "eter.

Aowever the trial court did not conduct a hearing on any of thereports.

$n May : :@ the trial court rendered *udg"ent fi&ing thea"ount of *ust co"pensation to 'e paid 'y petitioner for the

taking of the entire area of 7@//8 s%uare "eters at #088.88 per s%uare "eter with legal interest thereon co"puted fro"+epte"'er :: :8 when petitioner was placed in possession of the land plus attorney’s fees of #/8888.88 and costs of theproceedings.

4n due ti"e petitioner appealed to the !ourt of ppeals. $n ?uly /@ :- the !ourt of ppeals rendered decision

affir"ing that of the Regional Trial !ourt e&cept that the award of #/8888.88 as attorney’s fees was deleted.

ISSUE# The issue presented 'oils down to what is the *ustco"pensation for the taking of respondents’ property for the e&pansionof the 1#!’s Me&ico +u';station situated in +an ?ose Matulid Me&ico#a"panga.

$ELD# The parcels of land sought to 'e e&propriated are undenia'ly idleundeveloped raw agricultural land 'ereft of any i"prove"ent.B&cept for the Aenson fa"ily all the other respondents weread"ittedly far"er 'eneficiaries under operation land transfer of the Depart"ent of grarian Refor". Aowever the land has 'eenre;classified as residential. The nature and character of the landat the ti"e of its taking is the principal criterion to deter"ine *ustco"pensation to the landowner.

4n this case the trial court and the !ourt of ppeals fi&ed thevalue of the land at #088.88 per s%uare "eter which was theselling price of lots in the ad*acent fully developed su'division the

+anto Do"ingo Village +u'division. The land in %uestionhowever was an undeveloped idle land principally agricultural incharacter though re;classified as residential. Pnfortunately thetrial court after creating a 'oard of co""issioners to help itdeter"ine the "arket value of the land did not conduct a hearingon the report of the co""issioners. The trial court fi&ed the fai"arket value of su'*ect land in an a"ount e%ual to the value olots in the ad*acent fully developed su'division. This finds nosupport in the evidence. The valuation was even higher than thereco""endation of anyone of the co""issioners.

$n the other hand !o""issioner tien2a reco""ended a fai"arket value at #@-,.88 per s%uare "eter. This appears to 'e theclosest valuation to the "arket value of lots in the ad*oining fullydeveloped su'division. !onsidering that the su'*ect parcels oland are undeveloped raw land the price of #@-,.88 per s%uare"eter would appear to the !ourt as the *ust co"pensation for thetaking of such raw land.

!onse%uently we agree with !o""issioner tien2a’s report thathe fair "arket value of su'*ect parcels of land 'e fi&ed a#@-,.88 per s%uare "eter.

e also agree with petitioner that the area of the co""unairrigation canal consisting of 08 s%uare "eters "ust 'ee&cluded fro" the land to 'e e&propriated. To 'egin with it ise&cluded in the a"ended co"plaint. Aence the trial court and the!ourt of ppeals erred in including the sa"e in the area to 'e

taken. The trial court erroneously ordered dou'le pay"ent for @7::s%uare "eters of lot , (portion) in the dispositive part of itsdecision and hence this "ust 'e deleted.

The trial court and the !ourt of ppeals correctly re%uiredpetitioner to pay legal interest on the co"pensation awarded fro"+epte"'er :: :8 the date petitioner was placed in possessionof the su'*ect land less the a"ount respondents had withdrawnfro" the deposit that petitioner "ade with the #rovinciaTreasurer’s $ffice.

e however rule that petitioner is under its charter e&e"pt fro"pay"ent of costs of the proceedings.

G.R. No. 15+093. ")r'8r 2, 200NATIONAL 6OWER COR6ORATION /S. DELA CRU

"ACTS#1#$!$R a govern"ent;owned and controlled corporation filed aco"plaint for e"inent do"ain and e&propriation of an ease"ent oright of way against +pouses 1or'erto and ?osefina Dela !ru2 who areregistered owners of the parcels of land to 'e e&propriated 'y1#$!$R. fter respondents filed their respective answers topetitioner’s !o"plaint petitioner deposited #h# ,-.,8 to cover theprovisional value of the land petitioner then filed an Prgent B&;#arteMotion for the 4ssuance of a rit of #ossession which the trial courtgranted. The pre;trial was ter"inated in so far as respondent >errewas concerned considering that the sole issue was the a"ount of *usco"pensation. 9ased on the analysis of data gathered and "aking theproper ad*ust"ents with respect to location area shape accessi'ilityand the highest and 'est use of the su'*ect properties it is the opinionof herein co""issioners that the fair "arket value of the su'*ect reaproperties is #:8888.88 per s%uare "eter as of this date $cto'er 8,:. #etitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of thea'ove"entioned $rder 'ut said "otion was denied in the trial court’s+ignificantly petitioner did not file a Motion for Reconsideration of the! 1ove"'er : /88/ Decision 'ut it directly filed a petition foreview.

ISSUES#1. hether or not petitioner was denied due process when it was no

allowed to present evidence on the reasona'le value of thee&propriated property 'efore the 9oard of !o""issioners.

2. hether or not the valuation of *ust co"pensation herein was no'ased fro" the evidence on record and other authenticdocu"ents.


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/dec1998/129998.htm%20%5C%20_edn5








$ELD#4t is 'eyond %uestion that petitions for review "ay only raise %uestionsof law which "ust 'e distinctly set forth. !ourt is "andated to onlyconsider purely legal %uestions in this petition unless called for 'ye&traordinary circu"stances. petitioner raises the issue of denial of due process 'ecause it was allegedly deprived of the opportunity topresent its evidence on the *ust co"pensation of properties it wantedto e&propriate and the sufficiency of the legal 'asis or 'ases for thetrial court’s $rder on the "atter of *ust co"pensation. 'ecause this

case involves the e&penditure of pu'lic funds for a clear pu'licpurpose this !ourt will overlook the fact that petitioner did not file aMotion for Reconsideration and 'rush aside this technicality in favor of resolving this case. #etitioner was deprived of due process when itwas not given the opportunity to present evidence 'efore theco""issioners. 4t is undisputed that the co""issioners failed to affordthe parties the opportunity to introduce evidence in their favor andpetitioner was not notified of the co"pletion or filing of theco""issioners’ report and that petitioner was also not given anyopportunity to file its o'*ections to the said report. the fact that no trialor hearing was conducted to afford the parties the opportunity topresent their own evidence should have i"pelled the trial court todisregard the co""issioners’ findings. The legal 'asis for thedeter"ination of *ust co"pensation was insufficient. it is not disputedthat the co""issioners reco""ended that the *ust co"pensation 'epegged at #h# :8888.88 per s%uare "eter. >or co"pensation to 'e

*ust "ust 'e fair not only to the owner 'ut also to the taker. it is clear

that in this case the sole 'asis for the deter"ination of *ustco"pensation was the co""issioners’ ocular inspection of theproperties in %uestion as gleaned fro" the co""issioners’ report.!learly the legal 'asis for the deter"ination of *ust co"pensation inthis case is insufficient as earlier enunciated. This 'eing so the trialcourt’s ruling in this respect should 'e set aside. #etition is granted.

G.R. No. 155+05. S)p:))r 2, 200+LECA REALT COR6ORATION /S. RE6U*LIC

"ACTS##etitioner filed a co"plaint for e"inent do"ain for the taking of so"eportions of their properties. ttached to the co"plaint is was Resolution1o. 0;: of the !ity ppraisal !o""ittee of Mandaluyong which wascreated to appraise the properties that would 'e affected 'y theconstruction of the pro*ect in %uestion. !o""issioners su'"itted their

report dated ?anuary : and reco""ended the fair "arket valueof properties of <eca Realty !orporation and <eeleng Realty 4nc.#,8888 per s%.". the !o""issioners took into consideration thefollowing factors property location identificationJK neigh'orhood dataco""unity facilities and utilities highest and 'est use valuation andreasona'le indication of land values within the vicinity.

ISSUES#1. hether or not the Repu'lic is 'ound and put in estoppel 'y the

gross negligenceO"istake of its agentOfor"er counsel.2. hether the !ourt of ppeals incurred an error of law in affir"ing

the a"ount fi&ed 'y the trial court 'ased on the report of the'oard of co""issioners.

$ELD#There was no reason why the Repu'lic could not have "oved toreconsider the assailed ! Decision or appealed it within the

regle"entary period. These procedural devices (reconsideration andappeal) were not only availa'leI they would have also constituted plainspeedy and ade%uate re"edies for %uestioning the alleged errors inthe ! Decision. #etitions "ust 'e filed within 78 days. 4n the presentcase the #etition was filed after over a year. The rule on non;estoppelof the govern"ent is not designed to perpetrate an in*ustice. There%uest was predicated on the conclusion that the Eco"pensation costsas reco""ended 'y the co""issioners and fi&ed 'y the court in thea'ove;"entioned Decision are reasona'le and accepta'leEI and thatthe E"ove will hasten the legal process there'y shorten the ti"e of theproceedings and stop the running of interest. The "ore critical issue isthe deter"ination of the a"ount of *ust co"pensation for thee&propriated property of <eca in GR :,,78,. The Repu'lic avers that

the values arrived at in the !o""issionersC Report were not supported'y sufficient evidence. <eca alleges that the fair "arket value ascri'edto its property was not sufficient. s 'oth the Repu'lic and <ecacorrectly pointed out however the !o""issionersC Report reliedheavily on newspaper advertise"ents of offers of sale of properties inthe vicinity. 4t "ust 'e noted though that the interest of #etitioner <ecais distinct and separate fro" and will in no way affect the settled rightsand interests of the other parties that did not appeal the *udg"ent ofthe trial court. ABRB>$RB the #etition of <eca Realty !orporationis R$M0$ to the trial court for the proper deter"ination of the

a"ount of *ust co"pensation.

JUST COMPENSATION LEGAL INTEREST FOR

EXPROPRIATION CASES

G.R. No. +0225-2+. M8 %, 1992NATIONAL 6OWER COR6ORATION /S. ANGAS

"ACTS#1ational #ower !orporation a govern"ent;owned and controlledcorporation and the agency through which the govern"ent undertakesthe on;going infrastructure and develop"ent pro*ects throughout thecountry filed two co"plaints for e"inent do"ain against privaterespondents with the !ourt of >irst 4nstance (now Regional Trial !ourtof <anao del +ur. The co"plaint which sought to e&propriate certain

specified lots situated at <i"ogao +aguiaran <anao del +ur was fothe purpose of the develop"ent of hydro;electric power and productionof electricity as well as the erection of such su'sidiary works andconstructions as "ay 'e necessarily connected therewith. aconsolidated decision was rendered 'y the lower court declaring andconfir"ing that the lots "entioned and descri'ed in the co"plaintshave entirely 'een lawfully conde"ned and e&propriated 'y thepetitioner and ordering the latter to pay the private respondents certainsu"s of "oney as *ust co"pensation. #etitioner "oved for areconsideration of the lower courtCs alleging that the "ain decision hadalready 'eco"e final and e&ecutory with its co"pliance of depositingthe su"s of "oney as *ust co"pensation for the lands conde"nedwith legal interest at 7 per annu+I that the said "ain decision can nolonger 'e "odified or changed 'y the lower courtI and that #residentiaDecree 1o. ::7 is not applica'le to this case 'ecause it is rt. //8 othe !ivil !ode which applies.

ISSUE# hether or not in the co"putation of the legal rate of intereson *ust co"pensation for e&propriated lands the law applica'le is

rticle //8 of the !ivil !ode which prescri'es a 7 legal interest rateor !entral 9ank !ircular 1o. 0:7 which fi&ed the legal interest rate a:/ per annu+.

$ELD#the transaction involved is clearly not a loan or for'earance of "oneygoods or credits 'ut e&propriation of certain parcels of land for a pu'licpurpose the pay"ent of which is without stipulation regarding interestand the interest ad*udged 'y the trial court is in the nature of inde"nityfor da"ages. The legal interest re%uired to 'e paid on the a"ount o

*ust co"pensation for the properties e&propriated is "anifestly in thefor" of inde"nity for da"ages for the delay in the pay"ent thereofTherefore since the kind of interest involved in the *oint *udg"ent ofthe lower court sought to 'e enforced in this case is interest 'y way of

da"ages and not 'y way of earnings fro" loans etc. rt. //8 of the!ivil !ode shall apply. ABRB>$RB the petition is GR1TBD. 4t wasdeclared that the co"putation of legal interest at 7 per annu+ is thecorrect and valid legal interest allowed in pay"ents of *usco"pensation for lands e&propriated for pu'lic use to herein privaterespondents 'y the Govern"ent through the 1ational #owe!orporation.

G.R. No. 14+33, &8('8r 13, 2004WCOCO /. &UDGE CAS6ILLO

"ACTS#





>elciano ycoco owned 0.:78 hectares unirrigated anduntenanted rice land; T!T 1o. 1T./870// and voluntarily offeredto sell the land to Depart"ent of grarian Refor" (DR) in linewith the ( !R#) for #:0.M

notice of intention to ac%uire 0.,78 hectares for #: @0/77-.07 'y the DR sent to hi". The a"ount raised to#/,080,.@ and later "odified to #//8:,./ e&cluded theidle areas.

Ae refused and pro"pted the DR to indorse the case to DR9

fi&ing the *ust co"pensation. DR9 re%uested the <9# to open a trust account for ycoco

and deposited the co"pensation offered 'y the DR and theproperties were distri'uted to the 'eneficiaries.

$n pril @8 @ he filed a "anifestation in V$+ case no. /@/ 1B@.

hile !a'anatuan !ourt acting as the +pecial grarian !ourt.

ISSUES#1. hether or not the RT! of !a'anatuan has *urisdiction over the

case.2. hether or not there was a *ust co"pensation offered to the

plaintiff.

$ELD# #oint out that there’s no need for ycoco to present an evidence

in support of the land valuation in as "uch as it is in pu'licknowledge that the prevailing "arket value of agricultural lands in1ueva Bci*a is fro" #:@,888.88 to #:,8888.88 per hectare. +othe curt fi&ed the co"pensation of

#:0/,88.88; per hectare 0.:78; hectares (land si2e)#:@0/8/; total co"pensation \ actual da"ages#/77@/@,.88 for unreali2ed profits and #0-,/:8.88legal interest

This "ust 'e paid 'y DR . DR and <9# filed a separate petition 'efore the ! and

dis"issed on May /-[>inal e&ecution ?une78- and >e'. respectively. The dis"issal pro"pted ycoco to file a petition for "anda"us 'efore +! praying the e&ecution of !a'anatuan

court’s decision and co"pelled ?udge !aspillon to inhi'it hi"self fro" the hearing of the case.

! "odified the decision deducted the co"pensation due toycoco the a"ount corresponding to @.@-/ hectares for it wasfound to have 'een previously sold to Repu'lic.

+ec ,8and ,- of R.. 77,- (!o"prehensive grarian Refor" lawof :)

DR as an ad"inistrative agency cannot 'e granted *urisdictionover the cases of e"inent do"ain and over cri"inal cases. Thevaluation of property in e"inent do"ain is essentially a *udicialfunction which is vested with the +pecial grarian !ourts andcannot lodge with ad"inistrative agencies.

Rule F444 +ec.44 of 1ew Rules of #rocedures of DR9 +ec.44 *ust co"pensation shall not 'e appeala'le to the 9oard

'ut shall 'e 'rought directly to the RT! designated as +pecial grarian !ourt

+o RT! or !a'anatuan has *urisdiction over the case at 'ar 'ecause it is the designated as +!.

RT! should have allowed the parties to present evidences so afair co"pensation shall 'e deter"ined. There are factors to 'econsidered such as the cost of ac%uisition si2e shape locationand ta& declaration for ignoring the said factors re"and of thecase for deter"ination is necessary.

5TA4+ !+B 9B RBM1DBD T$ RT! >$R TABDBTBRM41T4$1 $> ?P+T !$#B1+T4$1.

JUST COMPENSATION WRIT OF POSSESSION

G.R. No. 142304, &'() 20, 2001CIT O" MANILA /. OSCAR SERRANO

"ACTS# $rdinance 1o. -@@ enacted 'y the !ity !ouncil of Manila

authori2ing the e&propriation of certain properties in Manila’s >irsDistrict in Tondo T!T 1os. -87:8,/8: :8,/8/ and :@/-@of the Register of the Deeds of Manila which are to 'e sold to%ualified occupants pursuant to <and Pse Develop"ent #rogra"of the !ity.

<ot :;!$ne of the lots to 'e e&propriated!onsists of @0@.:8 s%uare "eters O - [ produced 0 s%uare"eters for each person!overed 'y T!T 1o. :@/-/ fro" T!T 1o. -87This lot 'elongs to >eli2a De Guia upon her death said lowas transferred to l'erto De Guia and then to Bdgardo deGuia heir of l'erto after the for"er’s death.The said lot was again transferred to <ee Suan Aui;T!T 1o/:-8: and su'se%uently sold to De"etria De Guia L T!T 1o//780.

ISSUE# hether or not the e&propriation of the property is proper inrelation to R.. -/-.

$ELD# $n +ept /7 :- the petitioner filed an a"ended co"plaint for

e&propriation (RT!) to the supposed owners of the lots with T!T1os. -87 (including :;c) :8,/8::8,/8/ and :@/-@ the+erranos heirs of late De"etria De Guia.

RT! issued an order to the petitioner to deposite # :/,/0:.88e%uivalent to the assessed value of the lot and the issuance of awrit of possession in their favor.

! reversed RT!’s decision and rather favored the respondentsin the reason that the petitioner failed to do the other "odes ofac%uisition of property that is to tried first in the city govern"en'efore it can resort to e&propriation under R..-/-

+! reinstated the decision of RT! 'ecause in this case it is veryearly to deter"ine if the petitioner has 'een granted the right toe&propriate the property since what has 'een issued 'y the RT!to the" is *ust a writ of possession which is not a right of anownership. Pnder R.. -/- there are re%uire"ents that thepetitioner’s need to co"plied with 'efore e&propriating a propertyTo deter"ine whether or not the petitioner co"plied it and thee&propriation of the property is proper in relation to R.. -/-further proceeding "ust 'e "ade in RT!.

Thus the case was re"anded 'ack to RT!.

G. R. No. 1++429, D)))r 19, 2005RE6U*LIC /S. GINGOON

"ACTS# dispute occurred after the contract 'etween the govern"ent and#4T!$ has 'een nullified for its 'eing contrary to law and pu'licpolicy. #4T!$ and other investors who funded the facilities for 14 @cannot operate it and the govern"ent as well cannot took it over fodoing so the govern"ent would enrich itself un*ustly 'y the #4T!$and other investor’s e&pense. The govern"ent wanted to e&propriate14 @ 'ut isn’t it illogical that a govern"ent would e&propriate theproperty it already owned3 +o the e&propriation would only 'e li"itedto the facilities and i"prove"ent that have 'een introduced to 14 @with its e%uivalent *ust co"pensation.

ISSUE#





1. hether R.. 1o.-0 or Rule 7- is applica'le in propertye&propriation in the case at 'ar.

2. hether ?udge Gingoyon can 'e co"pelled to inhi'it hi"self inthe case

$ELD# #rior to this case a decision to gan v #4T!$ has 'een

rendered 'y the court the /880 Resolution the govern"entshould fully paid first the owner of the properties su'*ect for e&propriation 'efore it took the properties in its possession and

ownership. This decision is final and e&ecutor. Rule 7- stated

+B!. /. Bntry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authori2edgovern"ent depository. ; Ppon the filing of the co"plaint or at anyti"e thereafter and after due notice to the defendant the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of thereal property involved if he deposits with the authori2edgovern"ent depositary an a"ount e%uivalent to the assessedvalue of the property for purposes of ta&ation to 'e held 'y such'ank su'*ect to the orders of the court. +uch deposit shall 'e in"oney unless in lieu thereof the court authori2es the deposit of acertificate of deposit of a govern"ent 'ank of the Repu'lic of the#hilippines paya'le on de"and to the authori2ed govern"entdepositary.

R.. 1o. -0

+B!. 0. Guidelines for B&propriation #roceedings.; henever it isnecessary to ac%uire real property for the right;of;way site or location for any national govern"ent infrastructure pro*ect throughe&propriation the appropriate proceedings 'efore the proper courtunder the following guidelines

a) Ppon the filing of the co"plaint and after due notice to thedefendant the i"ple"enting agency shall i""ediately pay theowner of the property the a"ount e%uivalent to the su" of (:)one hundred percent (:88) of the value of the property 'asedon the current relevant 2onal valuation of the 9ureau of 4nternalRevenue (94R)I and (/) the value of the i"prove"ents andOor structures as deter"ined under +ection - hereofI . . .c) 4n case the co"pletion of a govern"ent infrastructure pro*ectis of ut"ost urgency and i"portance and there is no e&istingvaluation of the area concerned the i"ple"enting agency shalli""ediately pay the owner of the property its proffered valuetaking into consideration the standards prescri'ed in +ection ,

hereof. Ppon co"pletion with the guidelines a'ove"entioned the court

shall i""ediately issue to the i"ple"enting agency an order totake possession of the property and start the i"ple"entation of the pro*ect.

9efore the court can issue a rit of #ossession the i"ple"entingagency shall present to the court a certificate of availa'ility of funds fro" the proper official concerned. . . .

!learly that applying Rule 7- would 'e a direct re'uke to /880Resolution in gan and the court cannot sanction deviation fro"its own final and e&ecutor orders. 4t would violate /880Resolution. Thus it would 'e R..1o. -0 the applica'le law for the e&propriation; in which the govern"ent "ust pay first the *ustco"pensation to the property owner 'efore it can took and use it.

R.. 1o. -0 well co"ple"ented with /880 Resolution. ?udge Gingoyon cannot 'e co"pelled to inhi'it hi"self for

inco"petency "ay 'e ground for ad"inistrative sanction 'ut notfor inhi'ition which re%uires lack of o'*ectivity or i"partiality tosit on a case.

JUST COMPENSATION EXPROPRIATION OF UTILITIES!

LANDED ESTATES! AND MUNICIPAL PROPERTY

G.R. No. L-12032, A'@'!: 31, 1959CIT O" *AGUIO !. T$E NATIONAL WATERWORS AND

SEWERAGE AUT$ORIT

"ACTS# $n pril /, :,7 a "unicipal corporation filed a co"plaint in the

!ourt of >irst 4nstance of 9aguio for declaratory relief againsdefendant a pu'lic corporation created 'y Repu'lic ct 1o. :@@which contends that said ct does not include within its previewthe 9aguio orkshop +yste". 4n which the said ct isunconstitutional 'ecause it has the effect of depriving plaintiff ofthe ownership control and operation of said waterworks syste"

without co"pensation and without due process of law and that iis oppressive unreasona'le and un*ust to plaintiff and other cities"unicipalities and "unicipal districts si"ilarly situated.

$n May // :,7 defendant filed a "otion to dis"iss on theground that Repu'lic ct 1o. :@@ is a proper e&ercise of thepolice power of the +tate that assu"ing that said cconte"plates an act of e&propriation it is still a constitutionae&ercise of the power of e"inent do"ain that at any rate the9aguio aterworks +yste" is not a private property 'ut a Epu'licworks of pu'lic serviceE over which the <egislature has controand that the provision of the said ct 'eing clear anduna"'iguous there is no necessity for construction.

$n ?une /: :,7 the !ourt acting on the "otion to dis"iss aswell as on the answer and re*oinder filed 'y 'oth parties deniedthe "otion and ordered defendant to file its answer to the

co"plaint. $n ?uly 7 :,7 defendant filed its answer reiteratingand a"plifying the ground already advanced in this "otion todis"iss adding thereto that the action for the declaratory relief isi"proper for the reason that the 9aguio waterworks +yste" hasalready 'een transferred to defendant pursuant to Repu'lic c1o. :@@ or if such has not 'een done there has already 'een a'reach of said ct.

ISSUES#1. #laintiffCs action for Declaratory relief is i"proper 'ecause there

has already 'een a 'reach 'y plaintiff of Repu'lic ct 1o. :@@2. Repu'lic ct 1o. :@@ does not conte"plates the e&ercise of the

power of eli"inate do"ain 'ut the e&ertion of the police power othe +tateI and

3. ssu"ing arguendo that Repu'lic ct 1o. :@@ involves thee&ercise of the power of e"inent do"ain the sa"e does noviolate our !onstitution.

$ELD# The decision "aintain that the property held 'y a "unicipa

corporation units private capacity is not su'*ect to the unrestrictedcontrol of the legislature and the "unicipality cannot 'e deprivedof such property against its will e&cept 'y the e&ercise of e"inendo"ain with pay"ent of full co"pensation. (McUuillin Municipa!orporation /nd Bd. Vol. 4 pp. 7-8;7:).

4n its private capacity a "unicipal corporation is wholly differentThe people of a co"pact co""unity usually re%uire certainconveniences which cannot 'e furnished without a franchise fro"the +tate and which are either unnecessary in the rural districtssuch as a syste" of sewers or parks and open spaces or whichon account of the e&penses it would 'e financially i"possi'le tosupply e&cept where the population is reasona'ly dense such aswater or gas. 9ut in so far as the "unicipality is thus authori2ed toe&ercise the functions of a private corporation it is clothed withthe capacities of a private corporation and "ay clai" its rightsand i""unities even as against the sovereign and is su'*ect tothe lia'ilities of such a corporation even as against third parties(: R.!. <. p. 7)

The atte"pt of appellant in having waterworks considered aspu'lic property su'*ect to the control of !ongress or one whichcan 'e regulated 'y the e&ercise of police power having failedthat %uestion that now arises is Does Repu'lic ct 1o. :@@provide for the auto"atic e&propriation of the waterworks in%uestion in the light of our !onstitution3 4n other words does saidlaw co"ply with the re%uire"ents of section 7 rticle F444 in





relation to section :(/) rticle 444 of our !onstitution3 +ection 7 rticle F444 of our !onstitution provides

+B!. 7. The +tate "ay in the interest of 1ational elfare anddefense esta'lish and operate industries and "eans of transportation and co""unication and upon pay"ent of *ustco"pensation transfer to pu'lic ownership utilities and other private enterprises to 'e operated 'y the Govern"ent.

+ection : (/) rticle 444 of our !onstitution provides(/) #rivate property shall not 'e taken for pu'lic use without *ust

co"pensation. 4t is clear that the +tate "ay in the interest of 1ational welfare

transfer to pu'lic ownership any private enterprise upon pay"entof *ust co"pensation. t the sa"e ti"e one has to 'ear in "indthat no person can 'e deprived of his property e&cept for pu'licuse and upon pay"ent of *ust co"pensation. There is an atte"ptto o'serve this re%uire"ent in Repu'lic ct 1o. :@@ when inproviding for the transfer of appelleeCs waterworks syste" to anational agency it was directed that the transfer 'e "ade uponpay"ent of an e%uivalent value of the property. Aas this 'eeni"ple"ented3 Aas appellant actually transferred to appellee anyasset of the 1+ that "ay 'e considered *ust co"pensationfor the property e&propriated3 There is nothing in the record toshow that such was done. 1either is there anything to this effectin $ffice Me"orandu" 1o. - issued 'y the 1+ ini"ple"entation of the provision of the Repu'lic ct 1o. :@@. The

law speaks of assets of the 1+ 'y they are not specified.hile the ct e"powers the 1+ to contract inde'tednessand issue 'onds su'*ect to the approval of the +ecretary of >inance when necessary for the transaction of its 'usiness (sec./ par. (<) sec. , ct 1o. :@@) no such action has 'een takento co"ply with appellantCs co""it"ent in so far as pay"ent of co"pensation of appellee is concerned. s to when such actionshould 'e taken no one knows. nd unless this aspect of the lawis clarified and appellee is given its due co"pensation appelleecannot 'e deprived of its property even if appellant desires to takeover its ad"inistration in line with the spirit of the law. e aretherefore persuaded to conclude that the law insofar as ite&propriates the waterworks in %uestion without providing for aneffective pay"ent of *ust co"pensation violates our !onstitution.4n this respect the decision of the trial court is correct.

herefore the decision appealed fro" is affir"ed without

pronounce"ent as to costs.G.R. No. L-24440, M8r? 2%, 19+%T$E 6RO/INCE O" AM*OANGA DEL NORTE !. CIT O"AM*OANGA

"ACTS# #rior to its incorporation as a chartered city the Municipality of

a"'oanga used to 'e the provincial capital of the thena"'oanga #rovince. $n :/ $cto'er :@7 !o""onwealth ct@ was approved converting the Municipality of a"'oanga intoa"'oanga !ity. +ection ,8 of the ct also provided thatE'uildings and properties which the province shall a'andon uponthe transfer of the capital to another place will 'e ac%uired andpaid for 'y the !ity of a"'oanga at a price to 'e fi&ed 'y the

uditor General.E The properties and 'uildings referred toconsisted of ,8 lots and so"e 'uildings constructed thereonlocated in the !ity of a"'oanga and covered individually 'yTorrens certificates of title in the na"e of a"'oanga #rovince.The lots are utili2ed as the !apitol +ite (: lot) +chool site (@ lots)Aospital site (@ lots) <eprosariu" (@ lots) !uruan school (: lot)Trade school (: lot) 9urleigh school (/ lots) 'urleigh ( lots) highschool playground (/ lots) hydro;electric site (: lot) san ro%ue (:lot) and another /@ vacant lots. 4n :0, the capital of a"'oanga #rovince was transferred to Dipolog and on :7 ?une:0 R /7 created the "unicipality of Molave and "aking itthe capital of a"'oanga #rovince. $n /7 May :0 the

ppraisal !o""ittee for"ed 'y the uditor General pursuant to! @ fi&ed the value of the properties and 'uildings in %uestionleft 'y a"'oanga #rovince in a"'oanga !ity at

#:/0/00.88. Aowever on :0 ?uly :,: a !a'inet Resolutionwas passed conveying all the said ,8 lots and 'uildings thereonto a"'oanga !ity for #:.88 effective as of :0, when theprovincial capital of the a"'oanga #rovince was transferred toDipolog.

$n 7 ?une :,/ R -:: was approved dividing the province ofa"'oanga into a"'oanga del 1orte and a"'oanga del +ur

s to how the assets and o'ligations of the old province were to'e divided 'etween the two new ones +ection 7 of the lawprovided that 5upon the approval of the ct the funds assets and

other properties and the o'ligations of the province of a"'oangashall 'e divided e%uita'ly 'etween the #rovince of a"'oangadel 1orte and the #rovince of a"'oanga del +ur 'y the#resident of the #hilippines upon the reco""endation of the

uditor General.E $n :: ?anuary :,, the uditor Generaapportioned the assets and o'ligations of the defunct #rovince oa"'oanga apportioning ,0.@ for a"'oanga del 1orte and0,.7: for a"'oanga del +ur. $n :- March :, the B&ecutive+ecretary 'y order of the #resident issued a ruling holding thaa"'oanga del 1orte had a vested right as owner (should 'e co;owner pro;indiviso) of the properties "entioned in +ection ,8 of! @ and is entitled to the price thereof paya'le 'y a"'oanga!ity. This effectively revoked the !a'inet Resolution of :0 ?uly:,:. The +ecretary of >inance then authori2ed the!o""issioner of 4nternal Revenue to deduct an a"ount e%ual to/, of the regular internal revenue allot"ent for the !ity of

a"'oanga for the %uarter ending @: March :78 then for the%uarter ending @8 ?une :78 and again for the first %uarter of thefiscal year :78;:7:. The deductions all aggregating#,-@[email protected] was credited to the province of a"'oanga del 1ortein partial pay"ent of the #-80//88, due it.

Aowever on :- ?une :7: R @8@ was approved a"ending+ection ,8 of ! @ 'y providing that Eall 'uildings propertiesand assets 'elonging to the for"er province of a"'oanga andlocated within the !ity of a"'oanga are here'y transferred freeof charge in favor of the said !ity of a"'oanga.E $n :/ ?uly:7: the +ecretary of >inance ordered the !o""issioner o4nternal Revenue to stop fro" effecting further pay"ents toa"'oanga del 1orte and to return to a"'oanga !ity the su"of #,-@[email protected] taken fro" it out of the internal revenue allot"enof a"'oanga del 1orte. a"'oanga !ity ad"its that since theenact"ent of R @8@ #0@8@8.:: of the #,-@[email protected] has already

'een returned to it.ISSUES#1. hether or not Repu'lic ct @8@ 'e declared unconstitutional fo

depriving plaintiff province of property without due process and *ust co"pensation

2. hether or not the !ity of a"'oanga 'e ordered to continuepaying the 'alance of #-80//8.8, in %uarterly install"ents o/, of its internal revenue allot"ents to a"'oanga del 1orte.

$ELD# ABRB>$RB *udg"ent is here'y rendered declaring Repu'lic

ct 1o. @8@ unconstitutional insofar as it deprives plaintifa"'oanga del 1orte of its private properties consisting of ,8parcels of land and the i"prove"ents thereon under certificatesof title (B&hi'its EE to E;0E) in the na"e of the defunct provinceof a"'oangaI ordering defendant !ity of a"'oanga to pay tothe plaintiff the su" of #-80//8.8, pay"ent thereof to 'ededucted fro" its regular %uarterly internal revenue allot"ene%uivalent to /, thereof every %uarter until said a"ount shalhave 'een fully paidI ordering defendant +ecretary of >inance todirect defendant !o""issioner of 4nternal Revenue to deduc/, fro" the regular %uarterly internal revenue allot"ent fodefendant !ity of a"'oanga and to re"it the sa"e to plaintifa"'oanga del 1orte until said su" of #-80//8.8, shall have'een fully paidI ordering plaintiff a"'oanga del 1orte to e&ecutethrough its proper officials the corresponding pu'lic instru"endeeding to defendant !ity of a"'oanga the ,8 parcels of landand the i"prove"ents thereon under the certificates of title(B&hi'its EE to E;0E) upon pay"ent 'y the latter of the





aforesaid su" of #-80//8.8, in fullI dis"issing the counterclai"of defendant !ity of a"'oangaI and declaring per"anent thepreli"inary "andatory in*unction issued on ?une :7/pursuant to the order of the !ourt dated ?une 0 :7/. 1o costsare assessed against the defendants.

4t is +$ $RDBRBD.





- DUE PROCESS -

PURPOSE OF GUARANTY

110 US 51+, 1%%4$URTADO /S CALI"ORNIA(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

MEANING OF LIFE! LIBERTY! AND PROPERTY

431 SCRA 534C$A/E /S. ROMULO(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

233 SCRA 1+3LI*ANAN /S. SANDIGAN*AAN(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

%+ SCRA 25, 19%/ILLEGAS /S. $U C$ONG TSAI 6AO $O(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

39 6?il ++0 No. 140% M8r? , 1919RU*I /S. 6RO/INCIAL *OARD O" MINDORO

"ACTS# The provincial 'oard of Mindoro adopted resolution 1o. /,

wherein non;!hristian inha'itants (uncivili2ed tri'es) will 'edirected to take up their ha'itation on sites on unoccupied pu'liclands. 4t is resolved that under section /8-- of the d"inistrative!ode 88 hectares of pu'lic land in the sitio of Tig'ao on 1au*an<ake 'e selected as a site for the per"anent settle"ent of Mangyanes in Mindoro. >urther Mangyans "ay only solicitho"esteads on this reservation providing that said ho"estead

applications are previously reco""ended 'y the provincialgovernor.

4n that case pursuant to +ection /:0, of the Revised d"inistrative !ode all the Mangyans in the townships of 1au*anand #ola and the Mangyans east of the 9aco River includingthose in the districts of Dulangan and Ru'iCs place in !alapanwere ordered to take up their ha'itation on the site of Tig'ao1au*an <ake. lso that any Mangyan who shall refuse to co"plywith this order shall upon conviction 'e i"prisoned not e&ceed insi&ty days in accordance with section /-, of the revised

d"inistrative !ode. +aid resolution of the provincial 'oard of Mindoro were clai"ed as

necessary "easures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro as well as the protection of pu'lic forests in which theyroa" and to introduce civili2ed custo"s a"ong the".

4t appeared that Ru'i and those living in his rancheria have notfi&ed their dwelling within the reservation of Tig'ao and are lia'leto 'e punished.

4t is alleged that the Manguianes are 'eing illegally deprived of their li'erty 'y the provincial officials of that province. Ru'i and hisco"panions are said to 'e held on the reservation esta'lished atTig'ao Mindoro against their will and one Da'alos is said to 'eheld under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at!alapan for having run away for" the reservation.

ISSUES# 1. hether or 1ot +ection /:0, of the d"inistrative !ode deprives

a person of his l i'erty32. Thus whether or not +ection /:0, of the d"inistrative !ode o

::- is constitutional3

$ELD# The !ourt held that section /:0, of the d"inistrative !ode does

not deprive a person of his li'erty of a'ode and does not deny tohi" the e%ual protection of the laws and that confine"ent inreservations in accordance with said section does not constituteslavery and involuntary servitude. The !ourt is further of the

opinion that section /:0, of the d"inistrative !ode is alegiti"ate e&ertion of the police power. +ection /:0, of the

d"inistrative !ode of ::- is constitutional. ssigned as reasons for the action (:) atte"pts for the

advance"ent of the non;!hristian people of the provinceI and (/the only successfully "ethod for educating the Manguianes wasto o'lige the" to live in a per"anent settle"ent. The +olicitor;General adds the followingI (@) The protection of the Manguianes(0) the protection of the pu'lic forests in which they roa"I (,) thenecessity of introducing civili2ed custo"s a"ong the Manguianes

$ne cannot hold that the li'erty of the citi2en is unduly interferedwithout when the degree of civili2ation of the Manguianes isconsidered. They are restrained for their own good and thegeneral good of the #hilippines.

5<i'erty regulated 'y lawE 4"plied in the ter" is restraint 'y law

for the good of the individual and for the greater good of thepeace and order of society and the general well;'eing. 1o "ancan do e&actly as he pleases.

1one of the rights of the citi2en can 'e taken away e&cept 'y dueprocess of law.

Therefore petitioners are not unlawfully i"prisoned or restrainedof their li'erty. Aa'eas corpus can therefore not issue.

VOID FOR VAGUENESS"OVERBREADTH

292 SCRA 141 7199%*LAS O6LE /S RU*EN TORRES

"ACTS# $n Dece"'er :/ :7 #resident >idel V. Ra"os issued

d"inistrative $rder @8 entitled 5doption of 1ational and!o"puteri2ed 4dentification Reference +yste"6. The purposes othe said order are (a) it will provide the >ilipino and foreignresidents with the convenience to transact 'usinesses with 'asicservice and social security providers and other govern"eninstru"entalities (') it will reduce if not totally eradicate fraudulentransactions and "isrepresentations 'ecause it will re%uire aco"puteri2ed syste" to properly and efficiently identify personseeking 'asic services on social security.

#etitioner +enator 9las $ple prays to invalidate .$. @8 for twovital constitutional grounds (a) it is a usurpation of power o!ongress to legislate (') it intrudes the citi2enry’s protected 2oneof privacy.

ISSUE# hether or not d"inistrative $rder @8 is unconstitutional fo'eing over'readth3

$ELD# The +upre"e !ourt ruled that it is inargua'le that the 'roadness

vagueness and over'readth of .$. @8 will put the people’s righto privacy in clear and present danger.

d"inistrative $rder @8 does not state (a) what specific'iological characteristics will 'e gathered (') what particula'io"etrics technology will 'e e"ployed (c) whether data is li"itedto use for identification purposes only (d) how data will 'e handled(e)who shall control and access the data.





Thus .$ @8 does not assure the individual of a reasona'lee&pectation of privacy 'ecause as technology advances thelevel of reasona'le e&pected privacy decreases.

G.R. No. 14%5+0 No))r 19, 2001&OSE6$ E&ERCITO ESTRADA /S. SANDIGAN*AAN

"ACTS# The $ffice of the $"'uds"an accuses #resident ?oseph B*ercito

Bstrada together with ?inggoy Bstrada !harlie tong ngBdward +erapio =olanda T. Ricaforte l"a lfaro Bleuterio Tanand Delia Ra*sas of the cri"e of plunder defined and penali2edunder R.. 1o. -88 as a"ended 'y +ec. :/ R.. 1o. -7,.

During the ter" of #resident Bstrada he together with theindividuals "entioned a'ove wilfully unlawfully and cri"inallya"ass accu"ulate and ac%uire 'y hi"self directly or indirectlyill;gotten wealth a"ounting to four 'illion ninety seven "illioneight hundred four thousand one hundred seventy three pesosand seventeen centavos (08-80:-@.:-) there'y un*ustlyenriching hi"self or the"selves at the e&pense and to theda"age of the >ilipino people and the Repu'lic of the #hilippines.

Pnder R -88 5n ct Defining and #enali2ing the !ri"e of #lunder6 as a"ended 'y R -7, +ection / the cri"e of plunder is defined as an act of any pu'lic officer who 'y hi"self or inconnivance with "e"'ers of his fa"ily relatives 'y affinity or

consanguinity 'usiness associates su'ordinates or other persons a"asses accu"ulates or ac%uires ill;gotten wealththrough a co+bination or a series of overt or cri+inal actsdescri'ed in +ection :(d) hereof in the aggregate a"ount or totalvalue of at least fifty "illion pesos (,8888888) and shall 'epunished 'y reclusion perpetua to death.

+ection :. & & & & (d) E4ll;gotten wealthE "eans any assetproperty 'usiness enterprise or "aterial possession of anyperson within the purview of +ection Two (/) hereof ac%uired 'yhi" directly or indirectly through du""ies no"inees agentssu'ordinates andOor 'usiness associates 'y any co"'ination or series of the following "eans or si"ilar sche"es

(:) Through "isappropriation conversion "isuseor "alversation of pu'lic funds or raids on the pu'lictreasuryI

(/) 9y receiving directly or indirectly any

co""ission gift share percentage kick'acks or anyother for" of pecuniary 'enefit fro" any person andOor entity in connection with any govern"ent contract or pro*ect or 'y reason of the office or position of the pu'licoffice concernedI

(@) 9y the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets 'elonging to the 1ationalGovern"ent or any of its su'divisions agencies or instru"entalities or govern"ent owned or controlledcorporations and their su'sidiariesI

(0) 9y o'taining receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock e%uity or any other for" of interest or participation including the pro"ise of futuree"ploy"ent in any 'usiness enterprise or undertakingI

(,) 9y esta'lishing agricultural industrial or co""ercial "onopolies or other co"'inations andOor i"ple"entation of decrees and orders intended to 'enefitparticular persons or special interestsI or

(7) 9y taking advantage of official position authorityrelationship connection or influence to un*ustly enrichhi"self or the"selves at the e&pense and to the da"ageand pre*udice of the >ilipino people and the Repu'lic of the#hilippines.

#etitioner Bstrada %uestions the validity of the law for it is void for vagueness. Ae 'ewails the failure of the law to provide for thestatutory definition of the ter"s and 5co"'ination6 and 5series6 inthe key phrase 5a co"'ination or a series of overt or cri"inalacts6 found in +ection : par. d and the word 5pattern6 in +ection0.

ISSUE# hether or not the #lunder <aw is unconstitutional for it suffersfro" the vice of vagueness3

$ELD# The +upre"e !ourt ruled that a statute or act "ay 'e said to 'e

vague when it lacks co"prehensi'le standards that "en oco""on intelligence "ust necessarily guess at its "eaning anddiffer in its application. 4n such instance the statute is repugnanto the !onstitution in two (/) respects ; it violates due process for

failure to accord persons especially the parties targeted 'y it fainotice of what conduct to avoidI and it leaves law enforcersun'ridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and 'eco"es anar'itrary fle&ing of the Govern"ent "uscle. 9ut the doctrine doesnot apply as against legislations that are "erely couched ini"precise language 'ut which nonetheless specify a standardthough defectively phrasedI or to those that are apparentlya"'iguous yet fairly applica'le to certain types of activities. Thefirst "ay 'e EsavedE 'y proper construction while no challenge"ay 'e "ounted as against the second whenever directedagainst such activities. ith "ore reason the doctrine cannot 'einvoked where the assailed statute is clear and free fro"a"'iguity as in this case.

The test in deter"ining whether a cri"inal statute is void founcertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definitewarning as to the proscri'ed conduct when "easured 'y co""on

understanding and practice. 4t "ust 'e stressed however that theEvaguenessE doctrine "erely re%uires a reasona'le degree ocertainty for the statute to 'e upheld ; not a'solute precision or"athe"atical e&actitude as petitioner see"s to suggest>le&i'ility rather than "eticulous specificity is per"issi'le as longas the "etes and 'ounds of the statute are clearly delineated. nact will not 'e held invalid "erely 'ecause it "ight have 'een"ore e&plicit in its wordings or detailed in its provisions especiallywhere 'ecause of the nature of the act it would 'e i"possi'le toprovide all the details in advance as in all other statutes.

GR No. 11390, M8 3, 200+DA/ID /S. ARROO(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

GR No. 12+%5%, S)p:))r 1+, 2005

ONG /S. SANDIGAN*AAN

"ACTS#!ongress"an 9onifacio Gallego e&ecuted a co"plaint againspetitioner $ng a for"er !o""issioner of the 94R clai"ing thapetitioner has a"assed properties worth disproportionately "ore thanhis lawful inco"e. The Director of the >act >inding !o""ittee of theoffice of the $"'uds"an ordered the conduct of investigation on the"atterI of which petitioner was re%uired to su'"it counter affidavit andcontroverting evidence. #etitioner filed a counter;affidavit su'"ittinghis +tate"ents of ssets and <ia'ilities inco"e ta& return 'ankcertificates showing that he o'tained a loan fro" llied 9anking!orporation certificate fro" +GV and co"pany and other docu"entse&plaining the sources of funds with which he ac%uired the %uestionedassets. $"'uds"an finds and reco""end for recovery of ill;gottenwealth under Ra :@- in relation to R’s @8: and 7--8 against $ngand all other person’s concerned.

ISSUES#1. $1 the right to preli"inary investigation is withheld 'y R :@-

fro" a co;respondent 1elly $ng who is not herself a pu'lic officeor e"ployee.

2. $1 petitioner is correct in his contention that the office of the$"'uds"an is dis%ualified to file a petition for forfeitureconsidering of the duality of function as investigator andprosecutor of the case.

3. $1 petitioner is correct in the contention that R:@- isunconstitutional since it violates the presu"ption of innocenceand the right against self incri"ination.





$ELD#1. 1o even if R :@- appears to 'e directed only against the

pu'lic officer or e"ployee who has ac%uired during hisincu"'ency an a"ount of property which is "anifestly out of proportion to his salary and his other lawful inco"e and theinco"e fro" legiti"ately ac%uired property the reality thst theapplication of the law is such that the con*ugal share of 1elly $ngstands to 'e su'*ective to the penalty of forfeiture grants her theright in line with the due process clause of the constitution to apreli"inary investigation.

2. 1o +upre"e !ourt declared that the office of the $"'uds"anhas the correlative powers to investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill;gotten andOor une&plained wealth.

3. 1o the court ruled that petitioner cannot invoked constitutionalassurance against self incri"ination 'ecause such right is aprohi'ition against the use of physical or "oral co"pulsion toe&tort co""unications to the accused. 4n this case petitionersare not co"pelled to present the"selves as witnesses in re'uttingthe presu"ption esta'lished 'y law. They "ay presentdocu"ents evidencing the purported 'ank loans "oney "arketplace"ents and other fund sources in their defense.

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS - PUBLIC REQUIREMENT

14+ SCRA 44+, 19%+

TANADA /S. TU/ERA(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

2+3 SCRA 421, 199+6ITC /S. ANGELES(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

GR No. 1409+, &8('8r 15, 2002RE6U*LIC /S. ETELCOM(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS - IMPARTIAL COURT OR

TRIBUNAL

141 SCRA 30, 19%+TANADA /S. 6AEC(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

119 SCRA 353, 19%2ANALDO /S. CLA/E(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

GR No. 159190, &'() 30, 2005TE&ANO /S. OM*UDSMAN(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

23 US 510, 199TUME /S. O$IO(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

2+2 SCRA 452, 199+6EO6LE /S. COURT O" A66EALS(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

2+% SCRA 332, 199TA*UENA /S. SANDIGAN*AAN(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS - PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS - NOTICE & HEARING

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS - OPPORTUNITY TO BE

HEARD

GR No. 102%%, S)p:))r 22, 200+*UDIONGAN /S. DE LA CRU(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

G.R. No. 114944. &'() 19, 2001ROAS /S /ASFUE

"ACTS# co"plaint was filed 'y the then D4<G +ecretary Rafael lunan

444 'efore the $"'uds"an against certain officers of the#hilippine 1ational #olice including herein petitioners #oliceGeneral Manuel !. Ro&as and #olice !olonel h"ed +. 1acpil foviolation of +ection @(e) of Repu'lic ct 1o. @8: (nti Graft and!orrupt #ractices ct). This was after the !o""ission on udidiscovered the irregularities in the 'idding awarding andpurchasing of si&ty fire trucks.

fter a review of the preli"inary investigation conducted an4nfor"ation was filed 'y the $"'uds"an 'efore the+andigan'ayan which e&cluded herein petitioners and threeothers a"ong the accused.

Aowever upon "otion a reinvestigation was conducted 'y the$ffice of the +pecial #rosecutor. ithout any notice to oparticipation of the petitioners the $ffice of the +pecia#rosecutor issued the first assailed $rder dis"issing the chargesagainst Generals >lores and Tanchanco and reco""ending thathe petitioners together with #O<t. !ol. ?ulian Sairan 'e likewiseindicted.

#etitioners Ro&as and 1acpil together with Sairan filed a Motionfor Reconsideration however it was disapproved. Thus the $fficeof the $"'uds"an filed an "ended 4nfor"ation with responden+andigan'ayan i"pleading petitioners as additional accused.

ISSUE# hether or not the petitioners’ indict"ent on reinvestigation

was without notice nor participation of petitioners hence null and voidfor 'eing violative of their constitutional right to due process.

$ELD# 1either do the lack of notice to or participation of petitioners a

the reinvestigation render the %uestioned issuances of responden$ffice of the $"'uds"an null and void. This was fir"ly settled inthe recent case of $spinosa v* Office of the O+buds+an wherewe held as follows ;;

&&&. nd even without such notice we agree with theo'servations of the +andigan'ayan that 5under the Rules o#rocedures of the $ffice of the $"'uds"an Jd"inistrative $rde1o. 8-K particularly +ec. - in relation to +ec. 0 whileco"plainants in preli"inary investigation 'efore the $"'uds"anactively participated therein their participation is no longeaccorded to the" as a "atter of right in the stage of ther)i()!:i@8:io(.6 4n ad"inistrative proceedings "oreovertechnical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly appliedad"inistrative due process cannot 'e fully e%uated with dueprocess in its strict *udicial sense. (underscoring ours)

t any rate petitioners cannot argue that they have 'eendeprived of due process. T?) r'l) i! )ll )!:8li!?)< :?8: <')pro)!! i! !8:i!>i)< ?)( :?) p8r:i)! 8r) 8>>or<)< >8ir 8(<r)8!o(8l) oppor:'(i: :o );pl8i( :?)ir !i<) o> :?)o(:ro)r! or 8( oppor:'(i: :o o) >or 8 r)o(!i<)r8:io(o> :?) 8:io( or r'li(@ opl8i()< o> . 4n the case at 'ar therecord clearly shows that petitioners not only filed their respective!ounter;ffidavits during the preli"inary investigation they also





filed separate Motions for Reconsideration of the $cto'er ::@ $rder of the $"'uds"an i"pleading the" as accused in!ri"inal !ase 1o. :,7.

A.M. No. RT&-02-1+4. &8('8r 22, 2004MARO$OM*SAR /S &UDGE ADIONG

"ACTS# Aerein co"plainant 9ailinang #. Maroho"'sar was the defendant

in a civil case for 5in*unction with prayer for preli"inary in*unction6

filed 'y =as"ira #angandapun %uestioning the legality of Maroho"'sar’s appoint"ent as provincial social welfare officer Vof the D+D;RMM. #rior to Maroho"'sar’s appoint"ent#angandapun used to occupy said position as officer in charge.

?udge diong issued the te"porary restraining order. During thehearing on the application for the issuance of a writ of preli"inaryin*unction none of the lawyers appeared. Aence respondentconsidered it su'"itted for resolution and issued the preli"inaryin*unction the following day.

co"plaint was thereafter filed against ?udge +antos 9. diongof the RT! 9ranch Marawi !ity <anao del +ur Maroho"'sar for gross ignorance of the law a'use of discretion and conductun'eco"ing of a *udge in connection with his issuance of ate"porary restraining order and a preli"inary restraining order inthe civil case involving herein co"plainant.

ISSUE# hether or not the co"plainant was denied due process'ecause the preli"inary in*unction was issued without hearing.

$ELD#

I( 8ppli8:io(! >or pr)lii(8r i(='(:io(, :?) <'8l

r)'ir))(: o> prior (o:i) 8(< ?)8ri(@ )>or) i(='(:io(8 i!!') ?8! ))( r)l8;)< :o :?) poi(: :?8: (o: 8ll p):i:io(!>or pr)lii(8r i(='(:io( ())< '(<)r@o 8 :ri8l-:p) ?)8ri(@,i: )i(@ <o:ri(8l :?8: 8 >or8l or :ri8l-:p) ?)8ri(@ i! (o:, 8:8ll :i)! 8(< i( 8ll i(!:8()!, )!!)(:i8l :o <') pro)!!. Theessence of due process is that a party is afforded a reasona'leopportunity to 'e heard and to present any evidence he "ay havein support of his defense. 4n the present case co"plainant wasa'le to "ove for a reconsideration of the order in %uestion henceher right to due process was not in anyway transgressed. e

have ruled that a party cannot clai" that he has 'een denied dueprocess when he has availed of the opportunity to present hisposition.

H1%0 SCRA 21% G.R. NO.%4%1% 1% DEC 19%96$ILCOMSAT /S. ALCUA

"ACTS# Aerein petitioner #hilippine !o""unications +atellite

!orporation is engaged in providing for services involvingteleco""unications. !harging rates for certain specified lines thatwere reduced 'y order of herein respondent ?ose lcua2!o""issioner of the 1ational Teleco""unications !o""ission.The rates were ordered to 'e reduced 'y fifteen percent (:,)due to B&ecutive $rder 1o. ,07 which granted the 1T! the power to fi& rates. +aid order was issued without prior notice andhearing.

ISSUE# hether or 1ot B.$. ,07 is unconstitutional 'ecause it violatesprocedural due process for having 'een issued without prior notice andhearing and that the rate reduction it i"poses is un*ust unreasona'leand confiscatory thus constitutive of a violation of su'stantive dueprocess.

$ELD# The order in %uestion which was issued 'y respondent lcua2 no

dou't contains all the attri'utes of a %uasi;*udicial ad*udication.>ore"ost is the fact that said order pertains e&clusively topetitioner and to no other. >urther it is pre"ised on a finding of

fact although patently superficial that there is "erit in a reductionof so"e of the rates charged; 'ased on an initial evaluation opetitionerCs financial state"ents;without affording petitioner the'enefit of an e&planation as to what particular aspect or aspectsof the financial state"ents warranted a corresponding ratereduction. 1o rationali2ation was offered nor were the attendingcontingencies if any discussed which pro"pted respondents toi"pose as "uch as a fifteen percent (:,) rate reduction. 4t is nofar;fetched to assu"e that petitioner could 'e in a 'etter positionto rationali2e its rates vis;a;vis the via'ility of its 'usiness

re%uire"ents. The rates it charges result fro" an e&haustive anddetailed study it conducts of the "ulti;faceted intricacies attendanto a pu'lic service undertaking of such nature and "agnitude. eare therefore inclined to lend greater credence to petitionerCsratiocination that an i""ediate reduction in its rates wouldadversely affect its operations and the %uality of its service to thepu'lic considering the "aintenance re%uire"ents the pro*ects istill has to undertake and the financial outlay involved. 1ota'lypetitioner was not even afforded the opportunity to cross;e&a"inethe inspector who issued the report on which respondent 1T!'ased its %uestioned order.

hile respondents "ay fi& a te"porary rate pending finadeter"ination of the application of petitioner !'? r8:)->i;i(@or<)r, :)por8r :?o'@? i: 8 ), i! (o: );)p: >ro :?)!:8:':or pro)<'r8l r)'ir))(:! o> (o:i) 8(< ?)8ri(@, 8!)ll 8! :?) r)'ir))(: o> r)8!o(8l)()!!. ssu"ing tha

such power is vested in 1T! i: 8 (o: );)ri!) :?) !8) i(8( 8ri:r8r 8(< o(>i!8:or 8(()r . !ategori2ing such anorder as te"porary in nature does not perforce entail theapplica'ility of a different rule of statutory procedure than wouldotherwise 'e applied to any other order on the sa"e "atteunless otherwise provided 'y the applica'le law.

I: i! :?'! l)8r :?8: i:? r)@8r< :o r8:)->i;i(@, r)!po(<)(: ?8!

(o 8':?ori: :o 8J) !'? or<)r i:?o': >ir!: @ii(@p):i:io()r 8 ?)8ri(@, ?):?)r :?) or<)r ) :)por8r op)r8()(:, 8(< i: i! i8:)ri8l ?):?)r :?) !8) i! 8<)'po( 8 opl8i(:, 8 !'8r i()!:i@8:io(, or 'po( :?)oi!!io(K! o( o:io( 8! i( :?) pr)!)(: 8!).

ABRB>$RB the writ prayed for is GR1TBD and the order orespondents is here'y +BT +4DB.

101 6?il %33 7195

SUNTA /S. 6EO6LE

"ACTS# $n or a'out ?une /: :,0 B"ilio +untay took licia 1u'la fro"

+t. #aulCs !olleges in Uue2on !ity with lewd design and took herso"ewhere near the P.#. co"pound in Dili"an Uue2on !ity andwas then a'le to have carnal knowledge with her. licia 1u'la is a"inor of :7 years. licia’s father Dr. ntonio 1u'la filed averified co"plaint against accused in the $ffice of the !ity

ttorney of Uue2on !ity. The co"plaint was dis"issed for lack o"erit.

$n ?anuary :8 :,, the petitioner applied for and was granted apassport 'y the Depart"ent of >oreign ffairs. Ae left the#hilippines for +an >rancisco where he enrolled in school.

$n @: ?anuary :,, the offended girl su'scri'ed and swore to a

co"plaint charging the petitioner with seduction which was filed inthe !ourt of >irst 4nstance of Uue2on !ity after preli"inaryinvestigation had 'een conducted. $n >e'ruary :,, theprivate prosecutor filed a "otion praying the !ourt to issue anorder Edirecting such govern"ent agencies as "ay 'e concernedparticularly the 1ational 9ureau of 4nvestigation and theDepart"ent of >oreign ffairs for the purpose of having theaccused 'rought 'ack to the #hilippines so that he "ay 'e dealwith in accordance with law.E

Aence this petition to annul the order.

ISSUES#1. $1 the !ourt’s order for the cancellation of the petitioner’s





passport is illegal.2. $1 the +ecretary for >oreign ffairs can e&ercise his discretion

of cancelling the passport without hearing.

$ELD# The petitionerCs contention cannot 'e sustained. The petitioner is

charged with seduction. nd the order of the respondent !ourtdirecting the Depart"ent of >oreign ffairs Eto take proper stepsin order that the accused . . . "ay 'e 'rought 'ack to the#hilippines so that he "ay 'e dealt with in accordance with lawE

is not 'eyond or in e&cess of its *urisdiction. 4n issuing the order in %uestion the respondent +ecretary was convinced that a"iscarriage of *ustice would result 'y his inaction and as heissued it in the e&ercise of his sound discretion he cannot 'een*oined fro" carrying it out.

Aearing would have 'een proper and necessary if the reason for the withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear 'utdou'tful. 9ut where the holder of a passport is facing a cri"inal acharge in our courts and left the country to evade cri"inalprosecution the +ecretary for >oreign ffairs in the e&ercise of his discretion to revoke a passport already issued cannot 'e heldto have acted whi"sically or capriciously in withdrawing andcancelling such passport. Due process does not necessarily"ean or re%uire a hearing. hen discretion is e&ercised 'y anofficer vested with it upon an undisputed fact such as the filing of a serious cri"inal charge against the passport holder hearing

"ay'e dispensed with 'y such officer as a prere%uisite to thecancellation of his passportI lack of such hearing does not violatethe due process of law clause of the !onstitutionI and thee&ercise of the discretion vested in hi" cannot 'e dee"edwhi"sical and capricious of 'ecause of the a'sence of suchhearing. 4f hearing should always 'e held in order to co"ply withthe due process of law clause of the !onstitution then a writ of preli"inary in*unction issued ex parte would 'e violative of thesaid clause.

The petition is denied.

% SCRA 244 719+3DE *ISS$O6 /S GALANG "ACTS# #etitioner;appellee George de 9isschop an "erican citi2en was

allowed to stay in this country for three years as the prearrangede"ployee of the 9iss"ag #roduction 4nc. of which he ispresident and general "anager. Ae applied for e&tension of staywith the 9ureau of 4""igration in a letter dated :8 ?uly :,. 4nview however of confidential and da"aging reports of 4""igration $fficer 9en*a"in de Mesa to the effect that the9iss"ag #roduction 4nc. is "ore of a ga"'ling front than theenterprise for pro"otion of local and i"ported shows that itpurports to 'e and that de 9isschop is suspect of having evadedpay"ent of his inco"e ta&.

The !o""issioner of 4""igration advised hi" that his applicationfor e&tension of stay as a prearranged e"ployee has 'een denied'y the 9oard of !o""issioners and that he should depart within, days.

De 9isshop filed the present case for prohi'ition to desist fro"

arresting and detaining hi".

ISSUE# $1 the !o""issioners of 4""igration are re%uired 'y law toconduct for"al hearings on all applications for e&tension of stay of aliens.

$ELD# The ad"inistration of i""igration laws is the pri"ary and

e&clusive responsi'ility of the B&ecutive 'ranch of thegovern"ent. B&tension of stay of aliens is purely discretionary onthe part of the i""igration authorities. +ince !o""onwealth ct1o. 7:@ otherwise known as the #hilippine 4""igration ct of :08 is silent as to the procedure to 'e followed in these cases

) 8r) i(li()< :o 'p?ol< :?) 8r@')(: :?8: o'r:! ?8) (o ='ri!<i:io( :o r)i) :?) p'r)l 8<i(i!:r8:i) pr8:i) oii@r8:io( 8':?ori:i)! o> (o: @r8(:i(@ >or8l ?)8ri(@! i()r:8i( 8!)! 8! :?) ir'!:8()! 8 8rr8(:, >or r)8!o(!o> pr8:i8ili: 8(< );p)<i)(. This would not violate the dueprocess clause if we take into account that in this particular casethe letter of appellant;co""issioner advising de 9isschop todepart in , days is a "ere for"ality a preli"inary step andtherefore far fro" final 'ecause as alleged in paragraph - oappellantCs answer to the co"plaint the Ere%uire"ent to leave

'efore the start of the deportation proceedings is only an adviceto the party that unless he departs voluntarily the +tate will 'eco"pelled to take steps for his e&pulsion. I: i! 8lr)8< 8 !)::l)<r'l) i( :?i! ='ri!<i:io( :?8: 8 <8 i( o'r: i! (o: 8 8::)r ori@?: i( 8<i(i!:r8:i) pro))<i(@!.

The fact should not 'e lost sight of that we are dealing with anad"inistrative proceeding and not with a *udicial proceeding. s?udge !ooley the leading "erican writer on !onstitutional <awhas well said due process of law is not necessarily *udiciaprocessI "uch of the process 'y "eans of which the Govern"enis carried on and the order of society "aintained is purelye&ecutive or ad"inistrative which is as "uch due process of lawas is *udicial process. hile a day in court is a "atter of right in

*udicial proceedings in ad"inistrative proceedings it is otherwisesince they rest upon different principles. . . . 4n certainproceedings therefore of all ad"inistrative character it "ay 'e

stated without fear of contradiction that the right to a notice andhearing are not essential to due process of law.

1+1 SCRA 232 719%%/AR ORIENT S$I66ING CO., INC. /S. AC$ACOSO

"ACTS# The petitioners filed a co"plaint with the orkersC ssistance and

d*udication $ffice #hilippine $verseas B"ploy"en d"inistration (#$B) against the private respondents Bdgar T9unyog Vedasto 1avarro Bugenio !apalad Raul Tu"asis

ntonio Tanioan !elestino !ason Danilo Manela and Ro'ertoGenesis crew "e"'ers of the M#V E+ilver ReeferE for havingallegedly violated their !ontracts of B"ploy"ent with thepetitioners which supposedly resulted in da"ages arising fro" theinterdiction of the vessel 'y the 4nternational Transport orkers

>ederation (4T>) at Siel !anal Ger"any in March :7. fter *oinder of the issues the case was heard on March 0 :-where the parties agreed to su'"it their respective positionpapers and thereafter the case would 'e su'"itted for decision$nly the private respondents su'"itted a position paper.

#u'lic respondent rendered *udg"ent and dis"issed the case foso"e of the e"ployeesI other e"ployees were entitled topay"ents 'y the co"plainant. copy of the decision was sent 'yregistered "ail and delivered 'y the post"an to the petitionerscounsel at his address through the receptionist. ccording to

ttorney >igura he did not receive the envelope containing thedecision

#etitioners allegedly learned a'out the decision only when the wriof e&ecution was served. $n 1ove"'er /@:- petitionersthrough new counsel filed an Curgent Motion to Recall rit oB&ecutionC on the ground that the decision had not 'een received'y the petitioners hence it was not yet final and e&ecutory.

Aence this petition to annul the *udg"ent 'y pu'lic respondenand the writ of e&ecution 'e set aside.

ISSUE# $1 the petitioner was denied due process of law 'ecause d"inistrator resolved the case without any for"al hearing.

$ELD# B%ually un"eritorious is the petitioners Callegation that they were

denied due process 'ecause the decision was rendered without afor"al hearing. T?) )!!)() o> <') pro)!! i! !ipl 8(oppor:'(i: :o ) ?)8r< or, 8! 8ppli)< :o 8<i(i!:r8:i)





pro))<i(@!, 8( oppor:'(i: :o );pl8i( o()K! !i<) or 8(oppor:'(i: :o !))J 8 r)o(!i<)r8:io( o> :?) 8:io( or r'li(@opl8i()< o>.

The fact is that at the hearing of the case on March 0 :- itwas agreed 'y the parties that they would file their respective"e"oranda and thereafter consider the case su'"itted for decision. This procedure is authori2ed 'y law to e&pedite thesettle"ent of la'or disputes. Aowever only the privaterespondents su'"itted "e"oranda. The petitioners did not. $n?une :8 :- the respondents filed a "otion to resolve. The

petitionersC counsel did not oppose either the EMotion to ResolveEor the respondents EMotion for B&ecution of DecisionE dated$cto'er : :- 'oth of which were furnished the" throughcounsel. 4f it were true as they now contend that they had 'eendenied due process in the for" of a for"al hearing they shouldhave opposed 'oth "otions.

The petition for certiorari is denied for lack of "erit.

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS - ADMINISTRATIVE DUE

PROCESS

HGR 4+49+, 2 ")r'8r 1940ANG TI*A /S CIR

"ACTS# ng Ti'ay has filed an opposition 'oth to the "otion for

reconsideration of the !4R and to the "otion for new trial of the1ational <a'or Pnion.

The +upre"e !ourt found it not necessary to pass upon the"otion for reconsideration of the +olicitor;General as it found nosu'stantial evidence to indicate that the e&clusion of the la'orers here was due to their union affiliation or activity. The!ourt granted the "otion for a new trial and the entire record of this case shall 'e re"anded to the !4R with instruction that itreopen the case receive all such evidence as "ay 'e relevantand otherwise proceed in accordance with the re%uire"ents setforth.

6ri(ipl)! )?i(< :?) 8!)#

1. T?) Co'r: o> I(<'!:ri8l R)l8:io(! D)p8r:'r) >ro ri@i<

o()p: o> !)p8r8:io( o> po)r!The !ourt of 4ndustrial Relations is a special court whosefunctions are specifically stated in the law of its creation (!:8@). 4t is "ore an ad"inistrative 'oard than a part of theintegrated *udicial syste" of the nation. 4t is not intended to'e a "ere receptive organ of the Govern"ent. Pnlike a courtof *ustice which is essentially passive acting only when its

*urisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that arepresented to it 'y the parties litigant the function of the!ourt of 4ndustrial Relations as will appear fro" perusal of its organic law is "ore active affir"ative and dyna"ic. 4t notonly e&ercises *udicial or %uasi*udicial functions in thedeter"ination of disputes 'etween e"ployers ande"ployees 'ut its functions are far "ore co"prehensive ande&tensive. 4t has *urisdiction over the entire #hilippines toconsider investigate decide and settle any %uestion "atter

controversy or dispute arising 'etween andOor affectinge"ployers and e"ployees or la'orers and landlords andtenants or far";la'orers and regulate the relations 'etweenthe" su'*ect to and in accordance with the provisions of ! :8@ (section :). 4t shall take cogni2ance for purposes of prevention ar'itration decision and settle"ent of anyindustrial or agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause astrike or lockout arising fro" differences as regardswageshares or co"pensation hours of la'or or conditions of tenancy or e"ploy"ent 'etween e"ployers and e"ployeesor la'orers and 'etween landlords and tenants or far";la'orers provided that the nu"'er of e"ployees la'orers or tenants or far";la'orers involved e&ceeds thirty and such

industrial or agricultural dispute is su'"itted to the !ourt 'ythe +ecretary of <a'or or 'y any or 'oth of the parties to thecontroversy and certified 'y the +ecretary of <a'or ase&isting and proper to 'e death with 'y the !ourt for thesake of pu'lic interest. (+ection i'id.) 4t shall 'eforehearing the dispute and in the course of such hearingendeavor to reconcile the parties and induce the" to settlethe dispute 'y a"ica'le agree"ent. (#aragraph / section 0i'id.) hen directed 'y the #resident of the #hilippines itshall investigate and study all pertinent facts related to the

industry concerned or to the industries esta'lished in adesignated locality with a view to deter"ining the necessityand fairness of fi&ing and adopting for such industry olocality a "ini"u" wage or share of la'orers or tenants or a"a&i"u" 5canon6 or rental to 'e paid 'y the 5in%uilinos6 otenants or lessees to landowners. (+ection , i'id.) 4n fine it"ay appeal to voluntary ar'itration in the settle"ent oindustrial disputesI "ay e"ploy "ediation or conciliation forthat purpose or recur to the "ore effective syste" of officiainvestigation and co"pulsory ar'itration in order todeter"ine specific controversies 'etween la'or and capitain industry and in agriculture. There is in reality here a"ingling of e&ecutive and *udicial functions which is adeparture fro" the rigid doctrine of the separation ogovern"ental powers.

2. T?) CIR >r)) >ro ri@i<i: o> )r:8i( pro)<'r)r)'ir))(:!, ': (o: >r)) :o i@(or) or <i!r)@8r<

>'(<8)(:8l 8(< )!!)(:i8l r)'ir))(:! o> <') pro)!!i(oli(@ pro))<i(@! o> 8<i(i!:r8:i) ?8r8:)r . Thefact however that the !4R "ay 'e said to 'e free fro" therigidity of certain procedural re%uire"ents does not "eanthat it can in *usticia'le cases co"ing 'efore it entirelyignore or disregard the funda"ental and essentiare%uire"ents of due #rocess in trials and investigations oan ad"inistrative character.

3. C8r<i(8l pri8r ri@?:! r)!p):)< i( 8<i(i!:r8:i)pro))<i(@! G'i<)li()!a. Ri@?: :o 8 ?)8ri(@ ?i? i(l'<)! :?) ri@?: o> :?)p8r: i(:)r)!:)< or 8>>):)< :o pr)!)(: ?i! o( 8!) 8(<!'i: )i<)() i( !'ppor: :?)r)o> . The li'erty andproperty of the citi2en shall 'e protected 'y the rudi"entaryre%uire"ents of fair play.'. The :ri'(8l '!: o(!i<)r :?) )i<)() pr)!)(:)<8>:)r :?) p8r: i! @i)( 8( oppor:'(i: :o pr)!)(: ?i!8!) 8(< :o 8<<') )i<)() :)(<i(@ :o )!:8li!? :?)ri@?:! ?i? ?) 8!!)r:!. The right to adduce evidencewithout the corresponding duty on the part of the 'oard toconsider it is vain. +uch right is conspicuously futile if theperson or persons to who" the evidence is presented canthrust it aside without notice or consideration.c. ile the duty to deli'erate does not i"pose theo'ligation to decide right i: <o)! ipl 8 ())!!i: ?i?8((o: ) <i!r)@8r<)<, (8)l, :?8: o> ?8i(@!o):?i(@ :o !'ppor: i:! <)i!io(. decision witha'solutely nothing to support it is a nullity a place whendirectly attached. This principle e"anates fro" the "orefunda"ental principle that the genius of constitutionagovern"ent is contrary to the vesting of unli"ited poweanywhere. <aw is 'oth a grant and a li"itation upon power.d. No: o(l '!: :?)r) ) !o) )i<)() :o !'ppor: 8

>i(<i(@ or o(l'!io( ': :?) )i<)() '!: )!'!:8(:i8l.6 +u'stantial evidence is "ore than a "erescintilla. 4t "eans such relevant evidence as a reasona'le"ind "ight accept as ade%uate to support a conclusion.6e. T?) <)i!io( '!: ) r)(<)r)< o( :?) )i<)()pr)!)(:)< 8: :?) ?)8ri(@, or 8: l)8!: o(:8i()< i( :?)r)or< 8(< <i!lo!)< :o :?) p8r:i)! 8>>):)<.f. T?) CIR or 8( o> i:! ='<@)!, :?)r)>or), '!: 8: o(i:! or ?i! o( i(<)p)(<)(: o(!i<)r8:io( o> :?) l8 8(<>8:! o> :?) o(:ro)r!, 8(< (o: !ipl 8)p: :?)i)! o> 8 !'or<i(8:) i( 8rrii(@ 8: 8 <)i!io(. g. The !4R should in all controversial %uestions r)(<)i:! <)i!io( i( !'? 8 8(()r :?8: :?) p8r:i)! :o :?)





pro))<i(@ 8( J(o :?) 8rio i!!')! i(ol)<, 8(< :?)r)8!o(! >or :?) <)i!io(! r)(<)r)<. The perfor"ance of this duty is insepara'le fro" the authority conferred upon i t.

4. N) :ri8l @r8(:)< '(<)r ir'!:8()!The interest of *ustice would 'e 'etter served if the "ovant isgiven opportunity to present at the hearing the docu"entsreferred to in his "otion and such other evidence as "ay 'erelevant to the "ain issue involved. The legislation whichcreated the !ourt of 4ndustrial Relations and under which itacts is new. The failure to grasp the funda"ental issue

involved is not entirely attri'uta'le to the parties adverselyaffected 'y the result.

SCRA 321, 19MONTEMAOR /S ARANETA UNI/ERSIT "OUNDATION

"ACTS##etitioner was a professor at the raneta Pniversity >oundation. $n-OO-0 he was found guilty of "aking ho"ose&ual advances on one<eonardo De <ara 'y a faculty investating co""ittee. $n ::OO-0another co""ittee was appointed to investigate another charge of asi"ilar nature against petitioner. #etitioner through counsel asked for the postpone"ent of the hearing set for ::O: and : :-0 'ut the"otion was denied. The co""ittee then proceeded to hear thetesti"ony of the co"plainants and on :/O,O-0 su'"itted its reportreco""ending the separation of petitioner fro" the Pniversity. $n:/O:/O-0 the Pniversity applied wO the 1<R! for clearance to

ter"inate petitionerCs e"ploy"ent. Meanwhile petitioner filed aco"plaint wO the 1<R! for reinstate"ent and 'ackwages. ?udge"entwas rendered in petitionerCs favor 'ut on appeal to the +ec. of <a'orthe latter found petitionerCs dis"issal to 'e *ustified. Aence thispetition for certiorari.

ISSUE# hether or not there was a violation of due process.

$ELD#The !onstitution assures to workers security of tenure. 4n the case of petitioner this guarantee is reinforced 'y the provision on acade"icfreedo". 4n denying petitionerCs "otion for postpone"ent of thehearing the co""ittee did not accord procedural due process to thepetitioner. This was however re"edied at the "ediation conferencecalled at the Dept. of <a'or during wOc petitioner was heard on hisevidence. There he was given the fullest opportunity to present hiscase. >urther"ore with regards to petitioner’s filing of M>Rcontending that the hearing in the 1<R! did not confor" to their re%uire"ents of due process as the witnesses against hi" were notcalled so that petitioner could cross;e&a"ine the" this cannot 'egiven credit. #etitioner did not o'*ect to the presentation of thetesti"ony of the co"plainant and the witnesses at the schoolinvestigation and did not assert his right to cross;e&a"ine the".#etitioner waived his right to confront the witnesses relying solely onthe strength of his evidence. 1or was it incu"'ent on resp. to presentthe witnesses in the 1<R!. #etitionerCs only right is to 'e heard#etition dis"issed.

11 SCRA 31, 19+4MERALCO /S 6SC

"ACTS# Meralco "ade several applications for the revision and reduction

of its rate which were approved 'y the !o""ission. $n ?une :,0 upon petition of Dr. #edro Gil the !o""ission re%uestedthe uditor General to cause an audit and e&a"ination of MeralcoCs 'ooks of accounts. 4t was then e&a"ined and a reportwas su'"itted to the co""ission.

Aearing was reset fro" May @8 :,7 to ?une // :,7. $n saiddate the parties appeared and tty. Venancio <. de #eraltaTechnical ssistant and !hief of the >inance and Rate Division of the !o""ission who was duly authori2ed to receive the evidenceof the parties announced that the hearing was an Einfor"alhearingE and its purpose was to hear any re"arks or state"entsof the parties and to define the issues Eso that at the hearing we

know e&actly what are disputed at this infor"al hearingE. fter reports had 'een su'"itted with regards to the auditing

Meralco was given 'y the !o""ission a period of @8 days withinwhich to file an answer specifying its o'*ections to the report ofthe G$.

ithout having (:) first reset the said @ cases for hearingI (/)ithout having given the Meralco an opportunity as re%uested 'yit to cross;e&a"ine the officers of the G$ who prepared thereport dated May :: :,7 on which report the !o""ission

'ased its decisionI and (@) ithout having given the Meralco anopportunity as re%uested 'y it to present evidence in support ofits answer to refute the facts alleged in said report andcontroverted 'y Meralco on Dece"'er /- :,- the said!o""ission handed down a decision wherein Meralco isre%uired to reduce its present authori2ed rates effective &anuary(, ()@A 'ased on the authori2ed rates.

Aence the present petition for review with preli"inary in*unctionwhich was issued 'y this !ourt

ISSUE# hether or 1ot there was a violation of due process thus thedecision of the court is considered void.

$ELD# The record shows that no hearing was held. $n ?une // :,7 parties appeared 'efore Ettorney Vivencio <

#eralta Technical ssistant and !hief >inance and Rate

Division #u'lic +ervice !o""ission who was duly authori2ed toreceive the evidence of the partiesE and the record shows thathe hearing held 'efore the said !o""issioner was "erely aninfor"al hearing 'ecause using his own words E4 said at the'eginning that this is only preli"inary 'ecause 4 want that theparties could co"e to so"e kind of understanding.

The record further shows that after the Epreli"inary hearingE held

on &une BB, ()@6, no other hearing #as held I the cases werenever set for hearingI and Meralco was not given an opportunityto present evidence to rebut the audit report

T?) <)i!io( :?)r)>or) 8! ('ll 8(< oi< ?8i(@ ))(

r)(<)r)< without 8( ?)8ri(@ :?) Coi!!io( o'l< (o8li<l 8J) findings o> >8: i:?o': 8>>or<i(@ p):i:io()r :?)ri@?: :o cross-examine and confront witnesses, 8! )ll 8! :?)ri@?: :o pr)!)(: i:! )i<)() :?) <)i!io( o(:8i()< >i(<i(@!

o(:r8r :o l8 8(< 8: 8( ))(:, :?) <)i!io( 8! 8!)<o( obsolete 8ll)@8:io(! o> >8: and since the su'"ission of theaudit report of the G$ on whose allegations the decision waspredicated there had occurred recent develop"ents which hadsu'stantially altered the situation of the Meralco and which haveto 'e taken into account 'y the !o""ission in fi&ing *ust andreasona'le rates

4t should 'e re"e"'ered that there should 'e no short cuts in thedisposition of the ti"e;honored principle that no one should 'edeprived of his life li'erty and property without due process olaw. !onsidering the fact that the reduction of rates herein sough"ight involve huge a"ounts of "oney and the errors alleged tohave 'een co""itted if true would affect likewise not only theright of the petitioner 'ut also pu'lic interest it would have 'een a'etter part of valor and wisdo" to have delayed a little 'it the finaresolution of the controversy

EBven if the !o""ission is not 'ound 'y the rules of *udiciaproceedings it "ust show its head to the constitutional "andatethat no person shall 'e deprived of right without due process olawE which 'inds not only the govern"ent of the Repu'lic 'ualso each and everyone of its 'ranches agencies etc. EDueprocess of law guarantees notice and opportunities to be heard topersons who would 'e affected 'y the order or act conte"plated.

145 SCRA 100, 19%+ATENEO !. CA

"ACTS#


http://www.shvoong.com/tags/petitioner/

http://www.shvoong.com/tags/petitioner/




!ar"elita Mateo a waitress inside the university charged ?uanRa"on Guan2on a 'oarder and first year student of theuniversity with un'eco"ing conduct co""itted on Dece"'er :/:7- at a'out ,:, in the evening at the !ervini AallCs cafeteria

EMr. Guan2on a 'oarder at !ervini was asking for Csiopao.C 4was at the counter and 4 told hi" that the CsiopaoC had still to 'eheated and asked hi" to wait for a while. Then Mr. Guan2onstarted "u"'ling 'ad words directed to "e in the hearingpresence of other 'oarders. 4 asked hi" to stop cursing and he

told "e that was none of "y 'usiness. +ince he see"edi"patient 4 was going to give 'ack his "oney without anyconte"pt. Ae retorted that he did not like to accept the "oney. Aegot "adder and started to curse again. Then he threatened tostrike "e with his fist. 4 tried to avoid this. 9ut then he actuallystruck "e in "y left te"ple. 9efore he could strike again hisfellow 'oarders held hi" and Dr. 9ella and <eyes coa&ed hi" tostopI 4 got hold of a 'ottle so 4 could dodge hi". 4t was then that>r. !a"p'ell arrived. The incident was hidden fro" >r. !a"p'ell'y the 'oarders. 4 could not tell hi" "yself as 4 had gone into thekitchen crying 'ecause 4 was hurt.E

The university conducted an investigation of the slapping incident.9ased on the investigation results ?uan Ra"on was dis"issedfro" the university. This triggered the filing of a co"plaint for da"ages 'y his parents against the university in the then !ourt of >irst 4nstance of 1egros $ccidental at 9acolod !ity. The

co"plaint states that ?uan Ra"on was e&pelled fro" schoolwithout giving hi" a fair trial in violation of his right to due processand that they are pro"inent and well known residents of 9acolod!ity with the uncere"onious e&pulsion of their son causing the"actual "oral and e&e"plary da"ages as well as attorneyCs fees.

4n its answer the university denied the "aterial allegations of theco"plaint and *ustified the dis"issal of ?uan Ra"on on theground that his un'eco"ing 'ehavior is contrary to good "oralsproper decoru" and civility that such 'ehavior su'*ected hi" asa student to the universityCs disciplinary regulationsC action andsanction and that the university has the sole prerogative andauthority at any ti"e to drop fro" the school a student found to 'eundesira'le in order to preserve and "aintain its integrity anddiscipline so indispensa'le for its e&istence as an institution of learning.

fter due trial the lower court ruled in favor of the Guan2ons and

ordered the university to pay the" #/.88 (actual da"ages)I#,8888.88 ("oral da"ages)I #,888.88 (attorneyCs fees) and topay the costs of the suit

Ppon appeal to the !ourt of ppeals 'y the university the trialcourtCs decision was initially reversed and set aside. Theco"plaint was dis"issed.

Aowever upon "otion for reconsideration filed 'y the Guan2onsthe appellate court reversed its decision and set it aside through aspecial division of five. 4n the resolution issued 'y the appellatecourt the lower courtCs decision was reinstated. The "otion for reconsideration had to 'e referred to a special division of five inview of the failure to reach unani"ity on the resolution of the"otion the vote of the regular division having 'eco"e / to :.

The petitioner now asks to review and reverse the resolution of the division of five

ISSUES#1. $1 ?uan Ra"on Guan2on was not accorded due process of

law2. $1 respondent’s co"plaint for recovery of da"ages was

pre"ature 'ecause ad"inistrative re"edies have not yet 'eene&hausted

3. $1 private respondents are entitled to da"ages

$ELD# #etition granted in favor of teneo. ! ruling reversed.1. 1o he was accorded due process.

E;)p:io(! :o :?) r'l) o( >i(8li: o> >8:'8l >i(<i(@! o> :ri8l

o'r:! 8(< 8<i(i!:r8:i) 8@)(i)! The appellate court resolution invoked the rule that findings o

facts 'y ad"inistrative officers in "atters falling within theico"petence will not generally 'e reviewed 'y the courts and theprinciple that findings of facts of the trial court are entitled to greaweight and should not 'e distur'ed on appeal.

The court does not agree. T?) !:8:))(: r)@8r<i(@ :?) >i(8li:

@i)( :o >8:'8l >i(<i(@! o> :ri8l o'r:! 8(< 8<i(i!:r8:i):ri'(8l! i! orr): 8! 8 @)()r8l pri(ipl). $o))r, i: i!

!'=): :o )ll )!:8li!?)< );)p:io(!. "8:'8l >i(<i(@! o>:ri8l o'r:! 8r) <i!r)@8r<)< ?)( - 71 :?) o(l'!io( i! 8>i(<i(@ @ro'(<)< o( !p)'l8:io(!, !'ri!)!, 8(<o(=):'r)! 72 :?) i(>)r)()! 8<) 8r) 8(i>)!:li!:8J)(, 8!'r<, or ipo!!il) 73 :?)r) i! 8 @r8) 8'!) o<i!r):io( 74 :?)r) i! 8 i!8ppr)?)(!io( o> >8:! 8(< 75:?) o'r:, i( 8rrii(@ 8: i:! >i(<i(@!, )(: )o(< :?) i!!')!o> :?) 8!) 8(< :?) !8) 8r) o(:r8r :o :?) 8<i!!io(! o>:?) p8r:i)! or :?) )i<)() pr)!)(:)<.

si"ilar rule applies to ad"inistrative agencies. * r)8!o( o

:?)ir !p)i8l J(ol)<@) 8(< );p)r:i!), ) or<i(8ril 8or<r)!p): i> (o: >i(8li: :o >8:'8l >i(<i(@! o> 8<i(i!:r8:i):ri'(8l!. $o))r, :?)r) 8r) );)p:io(! :o :?i! r'l) 8(<

='<ii8l po)r 8!!)r:! i:!)l> ?)())r 71 :?) >8:'8l >i(<i(@!8r) (o: !'ppor:)< )i<)() 72 ?)r) :?) >i(<i(@! 8r)i:i8:)< >r8'<, ipo!i:io(, or oll'!io( 73 ?)r) :?)

pro)<'r) ?i? l)< :o :?) >8:'8l >i(<i(@! i! irr)@'l8r 74?)( p8lp8l) )rror! 8r) oi::)< or ?)( 8 @r8) 8'!)o> <i!r):io(, 8ri:r8ri()!!, or 8priio'!()!! i! 8(i>)!:

W? ?) i! <)))< :o ?8) ))( 8or<)< <') pro)!!

hen the letter;co"plaint was read to ?uan Ra"on he ad"ittedthe altercation with the waitress and his slapping her on the faceRev. elsh (Dean of "en) did not stop with the ad"ission. Aeinterviewed Bric Tagle Danny Go Ro'erto 9eri'er and ?oseReyes friends of ?uan Ra"on who were present during theincident.

The 9oard of Discipline was "ade up of distinguished "e"'ersof the faculty ;>r. >rancisco #ere2 9iology Depart"ent !hair"anDr. "ando !apawan a !he"istry professorI ssistant Dean#iccio of the !ollegeI and Dr. Reyes of the sa"e !ollege. Thereis nothing in the records to cast any dou't on their co"petence

and i"partiality insofar as this disciplinary investigation isconcerned. ?uan Ra"on hi"self appeared 'efore the 9oard of Discipline. Ae

ad"itted the slapping incident then 'egged to 'e e&cused so hecould catch the 'oat for 9acolod !ity. ?uan Ra"on thereforewas given notice of the proceedingsI he actually appeared topresent his sideI the investigating 'oard acted fairly ando'*ectivelyI and all re%uisites of ad"inistrative due process were"et.

The clai" that there was no due process 'ecause the privaterespondents the parents of ?uan Ra"on were not given anynotice of the proceedings will also not stand. ?uan Ra"on who athe ti"e was : years of age was already a college studentintelligent and "ature enough to know his responsi'ilities. 4n factin the interview with Rev. elsh he even asked if he would 'ee&pelled 'ecause of the incident. Ae was fully cogni2ant of the

gravity of the offense he co""itted. hen infor"ed a'out theDece"'er : :7- "eeting of the 9oard of Discipline he wasasked to seek advice and assistance fro" his guardian and orparents. ?uan Ra"on is assu"ed to have reported this serious"atter to his parents. The fact that he chose to re"ain silent anddid not infor" the" a'out his case was not the fault of thepetitioner university.

Moreover, not#ithstanding the non3participation of the private

respondents, the university, as stated earlier, undertoo8 a fair andob9ective investigation of the slapping incident* ue process inad+inistrative proceedings also re1uires consideration of theevidence presented and the existence of evidence to support the

UNI/ERSIT O" SAN CARLOS ROOM 410+0




decision 42alili v* Court of :ndustrial Relations, (6 SCR0 ((B5* !ar"elita Mateo was not entirely 'la"eless for what happened to

her 'ecause she also shouted at ?uan Ra"on and tried to hit hi"with a card'oard 'o& top 'ut this did not *ustify ?uan Ra"onCsslapping her in the face. The evidence clearly shows that thealtercation started with ?uan Ra"onCs utterance of the offensivelanguage E'ilat ni 'ayE an 4longo phrase which "eans se& organof a wo"an. 4t was 'ut nor"al on the part of Mateo to react to thenasty re"ark. Moreover Ro'erto 9eri'er a friend of ?uan Ra"onwho was present during the incident told Rev. elsh during the

investigation of the case that ?uan Ra"on "ade threateninggestures at Mateo pro"pting her to pick up a card'oard 'o& topwhich she threw at ?uan Ra"on. The incident was in pu'lic thusadding to the hu"iliation of !ar"elita Mateo. There #as"unbeco+ing conduct" and pursuant to the Rules of isciplineand Code of $thics of the university, specifically under the ()6D3()6) Catalog containing the rules and acade+ic regulation4$xhibit ()5, this offense constituted a ground for dis+issal fro+the college* The action of the petitioner is sanctioned by la#*Section (7D of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schoolsrecognizes violation of disciplinary regulations as valid ground for refusing re3enroll+ent of a student 4Tangonan v* Pa?o, (D SCR0B'@5*

.efore &uan Ra+on #as ad+itted to enroll, he received 4(5 the

College of 0rts and Sciences 2andboo8 containing the general regulations of the school and the ()6D3()6) catalog of the

College of 0rts and Sciences containing the disciplinary rules and acade+ic regulations and 4B5 a copy of the Rules and Regulations of the Cervini3$lizo 2alls of the petitioner university one of the provisions of #hich is as follo#s! under the title "ining Roo+" 3"The 8itchen help and server should al#ays be treated #ith civility*" Miss Mateo #as e+ployed as a #aitress and

precisely because of her service to boarders, not to +ention her sex, she deserved +ore respect and gracious treat+ent*

The petitioner is correct in stating that there #as a serious error of

la# in the appellate courtEs ruling on due process*

2. 1o co"plaint was not pre"ature. The petitioner raises the issue of Ee&haustion of ad"inistrative

re"ediesE in view of its pending appeal fro" the decision of theMinistry of Bducation to the #resident of the #hilippines. 4t argues

that the private respondentsC co"plaint for recovery of da"agesfiled in the lower court was pre"ature. The issue raised in court was whether or not the private

respondents can recover da"ages as a result of the dis"issal of their son fro" the petitioner university. This is a purely legal%uestion and nothing of an ad"inistrative nature is to or can 'edone. The case was 'rought pursuant to the law on da"agesprovided in the !ivil !ode. The *urisdiction to try the case 'elongsto the civil courts.

3. 1o there is no 'asis for recovery of da"ages. There is no 'asis for the recovery of da"ages. ?uan Ra"on was

afforded due process of law. The penalty is 'ased on reasona'lerules and regulations applica'le to all students guilty of the sa"eoffense. Ae never was out of school. 9efore the decision could 'ei"ple"ented ?uan Ra"on asked for an honora'le dis"issal

which was granted. Ae then enrolled at the De la +alle Pniversityof 9acolod !ity and later transferred to another ?esuit school.Moreover his full and co"plete tuition fees for the secondse"ester were refunded through the representation of Mr. Ro"eoGuan2on ?uan Ra"onCs father.

There was no 'ad faith on the part of the university. 4n fact thecollege authorities deferred any undue action until a definitivedecision had 'een rendered. The whole procedure of thedisciplinary process was get up to protect the privacy of thestudent involved. There is a'solutely no indication of "alicefraud and i"proper or wilful "otives or conduct on the part of the

teneo de Manila Pniversity in this case.

1+1 SCRA , 19%%ALCUA !. 6S*A

"ACTS# +tudents and so"e teachers of #+9 rallied and 'arricaded the

school 'ecause they wanted to ad"in to hear their grievanceswith regards to 5not 'eing a'le to participate in the policy;"akingof the school6 despite the regulations set 'y the ad"in withregards to protest actions

During the regular enroll"ent period petitioners and othestudents si"ilarly situated were allegedly 'lacklisted and deniedad"ission for the second se"ester of school year :7;:-.

!ourt ordered the school authorities to create a speciainvestigating co""ittee to conduct an investigation who "adereco""endations which the school adopted

lot of procedural crap petitioners and respondents filing andanswering the co"plaints

#etitioners clai" that they have 'een deprived of due processwhen they were 'arred fro" re;enroll"ent and for intervenorsteachers whose services have 'een ter"inated as faculty"e"'ers on account of their participation in the de"onstration oprotest charged 'y respondents as EanarchicE rallies and aviolation of their constitutional rights of e&pression and asse"'ly.

#etitioners allege that they have 'een deprived of procedural due

process which re%uires that there 'e due notice and hear hearingand of su'stantive due process which re%uires that the person or'ody to conduct the investigation 'e co"petent to act and decidefree fro" 'ias or pre*udice.

ISSUES#1. hether or not there has 'een deprivation of due process 32. $1 there was conte"pt of !ourt 'y the respondents

$ELD#1. 1$. there was no deprivation of due process. There is no e&isting contract 'etween the two parties. #ar :@- of

Manual of Regulations for #rivate +chools states that when acollege student registers in a school it is understood that he isenrolling for the entire se"ester. <ikewise it is provided in theManual that the Ewritten contractsE re%uired for college teachers

are for Cone se"ester. after the close of the first se"ester the#+9;U! no longer has any e&isting contract either with thestudents or with the intervening teachers. 4t is a ti"e;honoredprinciple that contracts are respected as the law 'etween thecontracting parties The o(:r8: ?8i(@ ))( :)ri(8:)<, :?)r)i! (o or) o(:r8: :o !p)8J o>. The !?ool 8((o: )op)ll)< :o )(:)r i(:o 8(o:?)r o(:r8: i:? !8i< !:'<)(:!8(< :)8?)r!. EThe courts 'e they the original trial court or theappellate court have no power to "ake contracts for the parties.E

The !ourt has stressed that <') pro)!! i( <i!ipli(8r 8!)!

i(oli(@ !:'<)(:! <o)! (o: )(:8il pro))<i(@! 8(< ?)8ri(@!!iil8r :o :?o!) pr)!ri)< >or 8:io(! 8(< pro))<i(@! i(o'r:! o> ='!:i). +tandards of procedural due process are

a. the students "ust 'e i(>or)< i( ri:i(@ of the nature andcause of any accusation against the"I

'. they shall have the ri@?: :o 8(!)r :?) ?8r@)! againsthe" with the assistance of counsel if desiredc. they shall 'e i(>or)< o> :?) )i<)() against the"Id. they shall have the ri@?: :o 8<<') )i<)() in their own'ehalf ande.the )i<)() '!: ) <'l o(!i<)r)< 'y the investigatingco""ittee or official designated 'y the school authorities tohear and decide the case.

#rinted Rules and Regulations of the #+9;U.!. were distri'utedat the 'eginning of each school

Bnroll"ent in the #+9 is o(:r8:'8l in nature and uponad"ission to the +chool the S:'<)(: i! <)))< :o ?8) 8@r))<





:o i(< ?i!)l> :o 8ll r'l)!r)@'l8:io(! pro"ulgated 'y theMinistry of Bducation !ulture and +ports. >urther"ore he agreesthat he "ay 'e re%uired to i:?<r8 >ro :?) S?ool 8: 8(:i) >or r)8!o(! <)))< !'>>ii)(:l !)rio'! 'y the +chool

d"inistration. #etitioners clearly violated the rules set out 'y the school with

regard to the protest actions. 1ecessary action was taken 'y theschool when the court issued a te"porary "andatory in*unction toaccept the petitioners for the first se" N the creation of aninvestigating 'ody.

The !ourt to insure that full *ustice is done 'oth to the studentsand teachers on the one hand and the school on the otherordered an investigation to 'e conducted 'y the schoolauthorities in the resolution of 1ove"'er :/ :7.

>indings of the investigating co""ittee:. students disrupted classes/. petitioners involved were found to 'e acade"ically

deficient N the teachers are found to have co""ittedvarious acts of "isconduct.

The right of the school to refuse re;enroll"ent of students for acade"ic delin%uency and violation of disciplinary regulations hasalways 'een recogni2ed 'y this !ourt Thus :?) Co'r: ?8! r'l)<:?8: :?) !?oolK! r)>'!8l i! !8(:io()< l8 . +ec. :8- of theManual of Regulations for #rivate +chools considers acade"icdelin%uency and violation of disciplinary regulations vs as valid

grounds for refusing re;enroll"ent of students. The opposite viewwould do violence to the acade"ic freedo" en*oyed 'y the schooland enshrined under the !onstitution.

!ourt ordinarily accords respect if not finality to factual findings of ad"inistrative tri'unals unless :. the factual findings are not supported 'y evidenceI/. where the findings are vitiated 'y fraud i"position or collusionI@. where the procedure which led to the factual findings isirregularI0. when palpa'le errors are co""ittedI or,. when a grave a'use of discretion ar'itrariness or capriciousness is "anifest.

I()!:i@8:io( o(<':)< 8! >8ir, op)(, );?8'!:i) 8(<

8<)'8:).

2.

1o. The urgent "otion of petitioners and intervenors to citerespondents in conte"pt of court is likewise untena'le.

No <)>i8() o> 8':?ori: 'y "ere filing of M$R co2 respondentschool e&plained that the i(:)r)(or! )r) 8:'8ll r)i(!:8:)<as such faculty "e"'ers after the issuance of the te"porary"andatory in*unction.

R)!po(<)(: !?ool ?8! >'ll opli)< i:? i:! <':i)! '(<)r

:?) :)por8r 8(<8:or i(='(:io( The school "anifestedthat while the investigation was going on the intervenors;faculty"e"'ers were teaching and it was only after the investigationthat the reco""endations of the !o""ittee were adopted 'y theschool and the latter "oved for the dis"issal of the case for having 'eco"e "oot and acade"ic.

GR No. %931, M8 30, 1990NON !. DANES

"ACTS# #etitioner students of Ma'ini !olleges were not allowed to re;

enroll 'ecause they participated in student "ass actions againsttheir school the preceding se"

$n >e' // : the date of the resu"ption of classes at Ma'ini!ollege petitioners continued their rally picketing even thoughwithout any renewal per"it physically coercing students not toattend their classes there'y disrupting the scheduled classes anddepriving a great "a*ority of students of their right to 'e present intheir classes

Together with the a'ove"entioned fact the lower courconsidered that in signing their enroll"ent for"s they waived theprivilege to 'e re;enrolled. 5The Ma'ini !ollege reserves the righto deny ad"ission of students &&& whose activities undulydisrupts or interfere with the efficient operation of the college &&&6

4n addition the students signed pledges saying they respect theial"a "atter that they will conduct the"selves in a "anner thatwould not put the college in a 'ad light.

?udge Da"es’ decision considering these facts said that what the

students assert is a "ere privileges not a legal right. RespondenMa'ini !ollege is free to ad"it or not to ad"it the petitioners fore;enroll"ent in view of the acade"ic freedo" en*oyed 'y theschool.

ISSUE$ELD# $1 the doctrine laid down in lcua2 insofar as iallowed schools to 'ar the re;ad"ission or re;enroll"ent of students onthe ground of ter"ination of contract should 'e reversed. The read"ission or re;enroll"ent of students on the ground of ter"ination ofcontract should 'e reversed. ]=B+

RATIO# 4n lcua2 it was said that enroll"ent is a written contract for one

se"ester and contracts are respected as the law 'etween thecontracting parties. t the end of each se" the contract isdee"ed ter"inated.

Aowever this case is not a si"ple case a'out a school refusingre;ad"ission. The refusal to read"it or to re;enroll petitioners wasdecided upon and i"ple"ented 'y school authorities as areaction to student "ass action.

This is a case that focuses on the right to speech and asse"'lyas e&ercised 'y students vis;];vis the right of school officials todiscipline the".

The student does not shed his constitutionally protected rights at

the schoolgate* 4n protesting grievances disorder is "ore or lesse&pected 'ecause e"otions run high. That the protection to thecognate rights of speech and asse"'ly guaranteed 'y the !onstis si"ilarly availa'le to students is well;settled in our *urisdictionRight to discipline cannot override constitutional safeguards!iting Mala'anan and Villar the court reiterated that the e&erciseof the freedo" of asse"'ly could not 'e a 'asis for 'arring

students fro" enrolling. Pnder acade"ic freedo" students "y 'e'arred fro" re;enroll"ent 'ased on acade"ic deficiencies.

Per+issible li+itations on student exercise of constitutional rights

#ithin the school* !onstitutional freedo" of free speech andasse"'ly also not a'solute. Aowever i"position of disciplinarysanctions re%uires o'servance of procedural due process andpenalty i"posed "ust 'e proportionate to the offense co""itted(procedural due process right to 'e infor"ed in writing right toans the charges right to 'e infor"ed of the charges against the"right to adduce evidence and for this evidence to 'e dulyconsidered)

The nature of contract bet#een a school and its students is not

an ordinary contract but is i+bued #ith public interest* The !onstallows the +tate supervisory and regulatory powers over aeducational institutions. Jsee art F4V sec:;/ 0(:) K. ccording to

par :8- and :@- of the respondent school’s "anual a student isenrolled not *ust for one se" 'ut for the entire period necessaryfor the student to co"plete hisOher course. 9# 'lg /@/ gives thestudents the right to continue their course up to graduation.

0cade+ic freedo+ not a ground for denying studentsF rights* 4nVillar :?) ri@?: o> 8( i(!:i:':io( o> ?i@?)r l)8r(i(@ :o !)88<)i !:8(<8r<! 8((o: ) ':ili)< :o <i!rii(8:)8@8i(!: !:'<)(:! ?o );)ri!) :?)ir o(!:i:':io(8l ri@?:! :o!p))? 8(< 8!!)l, >or o:?)ri!) :?)r) ill ) 8 iol8:io(o> :?)ir ri@?: :o )'8l pro:):io(.

+chool said "ost of the" had failing grades anyway. 4n answerstudents say they are graduating students and if there are any





deficiencies these do not warrant non;read"ission. lso there are"ore students with sores deficiencies who are re;ad"itted. ndso"e of the petitioners had no failing "arks.

The court held that the students were denied due process in thatthere was no due investigation. 4n fact it would appear fro" thepleadings that the decision to refuse the" re;enroll"ent 'ecauseof failing grades was a "ere afterthought.

Discipline "ay 'e warranted 'ut penalty shld 'e co""ensurate tothe offense co""itted with due process.

9ut penalty if any is deserved should not any"ore 'e enforced.Moot and acade"ic. They’ve already suffered enough.





- TAXATION -

PURPOSE

G.R. No. L-2%%9+ ")r'8r 1, 19%%COMMISSIONER O" INTERNAL RE/ENUE /S. ALGUE

"ACTS#

The #hilippine +ugar Bstate Develop"ent !o"pany (#+BD!)appointed lgue 4nc. as its agent authori2ing it to sell its landfactories and oil "anufacturing process. The Vegeta'le $il 4nvest"ent!orporation (V$4!#) purchased #+BD! properties. >or the sale

lgue received a co""ission of #:/,888 and it was fro" thisco""ission that it paid Guevara et. al. organi2ers of the V$4!##-,888 in pro"otional fees. 4n :7, lgue received an assess"entfro" the !o""issioner of 4nternal Revenue in the a"ount of #@:@., as delin%uency inco"e ta& for years :, a"d :,.

lgue filed a protest or re%uest for reconsideration which was not actedupon 'y the 9ureau of 4nternal Revenue (94R). The counsel for lguehad to accept the warrant of distrant and levy. lgue however filed apetition for review with the !oourt of Ta& ppeals.

ISSUE# hether the assess"ent was reasona'le.

$ELD# Ta&es are the life'lood of the govern"ent and so should 'e

collected without unnecessary hindrance. Bvery person who isa'le to pay "ust contri'ute his share in the running of thegovern"ent. The Govern"ent for his part is e&pected to respondin the for" of tangi'le and intangi'le 'enefits intended to i"provethe lives of the people and enhance their "oral and "aterialvalues. This sy"'iotic relationship is the rationale of ta&ation andshould dispel the erroneous notion that is an ar'itrary "ethod of e&action 'y those in the seat of power.

Ta& collection however should 'e "ade in accordance with lawas any ar'itrariness will negate the very reason for govern"entitself. >or all the aweso"e power of the ta& collector he "ay still'e stopped in his tracks if the ta&payer can de"onstrate that thelaw has not 'een o'served. Aerein the clai"ed deduction(pursuant to +ection @8 JaK J:K of the Ta& !ode and +ection -8 J:K

of Revenue Regulation / as to co"pensation for personalservices) had 'een legiti"ately 'y lgue 4nc. 4t has further proventhat the pay"ent of fees was reasona'le and necessary in l ight of the efforts e&erted 'y the payees in inducing investors (in V$4!#)to involve the"selves in an e&peri"ental enterprise or a 'usinessre%uiring "illions of pesos.

The assess"ent was not reasona'le.

1 SCRA 2, 19%9COMMISSIONER /S. MAASIAR(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

TAX EXEMPTIONS

33 6$IL 21, 191+ MCA /S. CIR(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

51 6$IL 352, 192*IS$O6 O" NUE/A SEGO/IA /S 6RO/INCIAL *OARD(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

14 SCRA 292, 19+5LLADOC /S CIR(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

10 SCRA 104, 19%1T$E 6RO/INCE O" A*RA /S $ONORA*LE $AROLD M$ERNANDO

"ACTS# 4n this case the provincial city assessor of 'ra filed a certiorar

and "anda"us against the ruling "ade 'y ?udge Aarold MAernando of the !ourt of >irst 4nstance of 'ra it was 'ecauserespondent denied a "otion for declaratory relief 'y Ro"an!atholic 9ishop of 9angued desirous of 'eing e&e"pted fro" a

real estate ta& followed 'y a su""ary *udg"ent granting suche&e"ption without even hearing the side of the petitioner#etitioner further argued that clearly the *udge ignored thepertinent provisions of the Rules of !ourt and disregards the'asic laws of procedure and 'asic provisions of due process inthe constitution. The i"portant argu"ent "ade 'y the petitioner isthat the *udge failed to a'ide 'y the provisions of #residentiaDecree 1o. 070 which states thatE 1o court shall entertain anysuit assailing the validity of a ta& assessed under this !ode untilthe ta&payer shall have paid under protest the ta& assessedagainst hi" nor shall any court declare any ta& invalid 'y reasonof irregularities or infor"alities in the proceedings of the officerscharged with the assess"ent or collection of ta&es or of failure toperfor" their duties within this ti"e herein specified for theiperfor"ance unless such irregularities infor"alities or failureshall have i"paired the su'stantial rights of the ta&payerI no

shall any court declare any portion of the ta& assessed under theprovisions of this !ode invalid e&cept upon condition that theta&payer shall pay the *ust a"ount of the ta& as deter"ined 'ythe court in the pending proceeding.E

The *udge responded 'y saying there is no dispute that theproperties including their procedure are actually, directly andexclusively used by the Ro+an Catholic .ishop of .angued, :ncfor religious or charitable purposes.E

$ELD# The +upre"e !ourt ruled that the petition 'e granted since the

*udge would not have "ade such a grave "istake if he had only"ade a clear distinction 'etween the present provisions of theconstitution to the provisions of the :@, constitution regardingta& e&e"ptions on land 'uildings and i"prove"ents. The "aindifference is that in order for a land 'uilding or i"prove"ent to

'e ta& e&e"pt there "ust 'e and e&clusive actual and direct useof the enu"erated for religious or charita'le purposes. 4t is also arule that ta& e&e"ption is not favored nor presu"ed so that ifgranted it "ust 'e strictly construed against the ta&payer

ffir"atively put the law frowns on e&e"ption fro" ta&ationhence an e&e"pting provision should 'e construed strictissi+

9uris The petition was also *ustly invoked on the grounds for the

protection of due process to clearly show i f the respondents reallydid not violate any constitutional provisions in regards to ta&e&e"ption 'ut instead what respondent *udge did was directlyruled on the case of declaratory relief on the 'asis that it wase&clusive actual and directly as sources of support of the parishpriest and his helpers and also of private respondent 9ishop asco"pared to the "otion to dis"iss the case due to lack o

*urisdiction since the validity of a ta& assess"ent "ay 'e

%uestioned 'efore the <ocal 9oard of ssess"ent ppeals andnot with a court. There was also "ention of a lack of a cause ofaction 'ut only 'ecause in its view declaratory relief is notproper as there had 'een 'reach or violation of the right ogovern"ent to assess and collect ta&es on such property. 4clearly appears therefore that in failing to accord a hearing topetitioner #rovince of 'ra and deciding the case i""ediately infavor of private respondent respondent ?udge failed to a'ide 'ythe constitutional co""and of procedural due process.

1+2 SCRA 10+, 19%%A*RA /ALLE COLLEGE, INC. /S. $ON. &UAN 6. AFUINO





"ACTS# This is a case for a review or certiorari on the decision "ade 'y

the defunct !ourt of >irst 4nstance of 'ra 9ranch 4 dated ?une:0 :-0 rendered in !ivil !ase 1o. 7,7. 4n this case the courtdecided that the sei2ure and sale 'y the Municipal Treasurer of 9angued 'ra and #rovincial Treasurer of the said province of the lot and 'uilding of 'ra Valley !ollege 4nc. to 'e valid sincethe said school was not ta& e&e"pt. hat transpired was theschool was issued a 51otice of +ei2ure6 of the lot and 'uilding of the school covered 'y $riginal !ertificate of Title 1o. U;@ duly

registered in the na"e of petitioner for failure to pay the a"ountof #,:08.@: 'ack ta&es 'y the respondent The E1otice of +aleEwas caused to 'e served upon the petitioner 'y the respondenttreasurers on ?uly :-/ for the sale at pu'lic auction of saidcollege lot and 'uilding which sale was held on the sa"e date.Dr. #aterno Millare then Municipal Mayor of 9angued 'raoffered the highest 'id of #7888.88 which was duly accepted.The certificate of sale was correspondingly issued to hi".

fter the sale Dr. #aterno filled a case for the dis"issal of thecase and after e&change of pleadings the court ordered therespondent treasurers to deliver the proceeds of the auction sale.>inally the parties involved entered into a +tipulation of >actsad"inistered 'y the court dis"issing the notice of sei2ure andnotice of sale in favor of Dr. #aterno and relieving hi" of all the'ack ta&es of the school upon the pay"ent of the auction price.

Despite the +tipulation of >acts the trial courts found out that theschool was recogni2ed 'y the govern"ent offering #ri"ary Aigh+chool and !ollege courses and has a population of "ore than:88888 students all in allI that the school was situated right in theheart of town of 9angued 'ra a few "eters fro" the pla2a anda'out :/8 "eters fro" the !ourt of >irst 4nstance 'uildingI thatthe ele"entary pupils are housed in a two;storey 'uilding acrossthe streetI that the high school and college students are housed inthe "ain 'uildingI that the Director with his fa"ily is in the secondfloor of the "ain 'uildingI and that the annual gross inco"e of theschool reaches "ore than one hundred thousand pesos. 4n lightof the evidences it was left after the courts to deter"ine whether the said school was exclusively for educational purposes*

The succeeding #rovincial >iscal Aon. ?ose . +olo"on and his ssistant Aon. Busta%uio . Montero filed a Me"orandu" for the Govern"ent on March /, :-0 and a +upple"ental

Me"orandu" on May - :-0 wherein they opined Ethat 'asedon the evidence the laws applica'le court decisions and *urisprudence the school 'uilding and school lot used for educational purposes of the 'ra Valley !ollege 4nc. aree&e"pted fro" the pay"ent of ta&es.

The trial court disagreed 'ecause of the use of the second floor 'y the Director of petitioner school for residential purposes. Aethus ruled for the govern"ent and rendered the assailed decision.

fter having 'een granted 'y the trial court ten (:8) days fro" ugust 7 :-0 within which to perfect its appeal petitioner instead availed of the instant petition for review on certiorari withprayer for preli"inary in*unction 'efore this !ourt which petitionwas filed on ugust :- :-0. 4n the resolution dated ugust :7:-0 this !ourt resolved to give DPB !$PR+B to the petitionRespondents were re%uired to answer said petition. Thepetitioners raised the argu"ents that the courts a %uo :. "adean error in sustaining a valid sei2ure and sale of the college lotand 'uilding used for educational purpose /. Made an error indeclaring that the college was not e&clusively for educationalpurposes "erely 'ecause the college president resides in it @."ade an error in declaring the college not ta& e&e"pt fro"property ta&es and in ordering petitioner to pay #,:08.@: asrealty ta&es. 0. "ade an error in ordering the confiscation of the#7888.88 deposit "ade in the court 'y petitioner as pay"ent of the #,:08.@: realty ta&es.

ISSUE# hether 'ra Valley !ollege 4nc. su'*ect to ta& e&e"ption asstated in the constitution that a school should 'e 5e&clusively for educational purpose6 despite the proof that there are other purposeattached to the lot and 'uilding such as a residence of the !ollege

president3

$ELD# 4n the case at 'ar the +upre"e !ourt used +ection // paragraph

@ rticle V4 of the then :@, #hilippine !onstitution whiche&pressly grants e&e"ption fro" realty ta&es for E!e"eterieschurches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto andall lands 'uildings and i"prove"ents used exclusively foreligious charita'le or educational purposes ... Relative thereto+ection ,0 paragraph c !o""onwealth ct 1o. 0-8 as

a"ended 'y Repu'lic ct 1o. 08 otherwise known as the ssess"ent <aw provides that churches and parsonages oconvents appurtenant thereto and all lands 'uildings andi"prove"ents used exclusively for religious charita'le scientificor educational purposes

The +upre"e court ruled that the e&e"ption in favor of propertyused e&clusively for charita'le or educational purposes is Cnoli"ited to property actually indispensa'le 'ut e&tends to facilitieswhich are incidental to and reasona'ly necessary for theacco"plish"ent of said purposes and that while this !ourt allowsa "ore li'eral and non;restrictive interpretation of the phraseEe&clusively used for educational purposesE as provided for in

rticle V4 +ection // paragraph @ of the :@, #hilippine!onstitution reasona'le e"phasis has always 'een "ade thae&e"ption e&tends to facilities which are incidental to andreasona'ly necessary for the acco"plish"ent of the "ain

purposes. hile the use of the second floor of the "ain 'uilding in the case

at 'ar for residential purposes of the Director and his fa"ily they"ay find *ustification under the concept of incidental use, which isco"pli"entary to the "ain or pri"ary purposeHeducational thelease of the first floor thereof to the 1orthern Marketing!orporation cannot 'y any stretch of the i"agination 'econsidered incidental to the purpose of education.

Pnder the :@, !onstitution the trial court correctly arrived at theconclusion that the school 'uilding as well as the lot where it is'uilt should 'e ta&ed not 'ecause the second floor of the sa"e is'eing used 'y the Director and his fa"ily for residential purposes'ut 'ecause the first floor thereof is 'eing used for co""erciapurposes. Aowever since only a portion is used for purposes ofco""erce it is only fair that half of the assessed ta& 'e returned

to the school involved. #RBM4+B+ !$1+4DBRBD the decision of the !ourt of >irs4nstance of 'ra 9ranch 4 is here'y >>4RMBD su'*ect to the"odification that half of the assessed ta& 'e returned to thepetitioner

101 6$IL 3%+, 195AMERICAN *I*LE SOCIET !. CIT O" MANILA

"ACTS# 4n this case the plaintiff is a foreign non;stock religious

"issionary organi2ation duly registered in the #hilippines anddoing 'usiness through its agency here in Manila. 4n the course otheir "inistry their #hilippine agency has 'een distri'uting andselling 'i'les andOor gospel portions thereof (e&cept during the?apanese occupation) throughout the #hilippines and translating

the sa"e into several #hilippine dialect Ppon knowledge theacting !ity Treasurer of the !ity of Manila infor"ed plaintiff that iwas conducting the 'usiness of general "erchandise since1ove"'er :0, without providing itself with the necessaryMayorCs per"it and "unicipal license re%uiring the plaintiff tosecure within three days the corresponding per"it and licensefees together with co"pro"ise covering the period fro" the 0th%uarter of :0, to the /nd %uarter of :,@ in the total su" o#,/:.0, To avoid the closing of its 'usiness as well as furthefines and penalties in the pre"ises on $cto'er /0 :,@ plaintifpaid to the defendant under protest the said per"it and licensefees in the afore"entioned a"ount giving at the sa"e ti"enotice to the !ity Treasurer that suit would 'e taken in court to





%uestion the legality of the ordinances under which the said feeswere 'eing collected which was done on the sa"e date 'y filingthe co"plaint that gave rise to this action. The plaintiff prays that

*udg"ent 'e rendered declaring the said Municipal $rdinance 1o.@888 as a"ended and $rdinances 1os. /,/ @8/ and @@70illegal and unconstitutional and a refund should 'e "ade 'y thedefendant of the pay"ents "ade and the legal costs. Thedefendant replied that "aintaining in turn that said ordinanceswere enacted 'y the Municipal 9oard of the !ity of Manila 'yvirtue of the power granted to it 'y section /000 su'section (";/)

of the Revised d"inistrative !ode superseded on ?une ::0 'y section : su'section (:) of Repu'lic ct 1o. 08known as the Revised !harter of the !ity of Manila and prayingthat the co"plaint 'e dis"issed with costs against plaintiff. Thisanswer was replied 'y the plaintiff reiterating theunconstitutionality of the often;repeated ordinances

9efore the trial the party su'"itted a stipulation of facts statingthe sales "ade 'y the petitioner fro" :0, to :,@. hen thecase was set for hearing the plaintiff argued that it never "adeany profit fro" the sale of its 'i'les which are disposed of for aslow as one third of the cost and that in order to "aintain itsoperating cost it o'tains su'stantial re"ittances fro" its 1ew =orkoffice and voluntary contri'utions and gifts fro" certain churches'oth in the Pnited +tates and in the #hilippines which areinterested in its "issionary work. The defendant answered thatdue to the cross;e&a"ination of the lone witness of plaintiff it was

proven that the clai" of plaintiff that if having no profit fro" thesales is evidently untena'le. This "ade the *udge to dis"iss thecase for lack of "erit on the grounds thatfro" the repealedsection (";/) of the Revised d"inistrative !ode and therepealing portions (o) of section : of Repu'lic ct 1o. 08although they see"ingly differ in the way the legislative intent ise&pressed yet their "eaning is practically the sa"e for thepurpose of ta&ing the "erchandise "entioned in said legalprovisions and that the ta&es to 'e levied 'y said ordinances is inthe nature of percentage graduated ta&es (+ec. @ of $rdinance1o. @888 as a"ended and +ec. : Group / of $rdinance 1o./,/ as a"ended 'y $rdinance 1o. @@70).

1ot satisfied with the decision they took up the "atter to the!ourt of ppeals which was certified to the +upre"e !ourt wherethe petitioner argued these points :. 4n holding that $rdinances1os. /,/ and @888 as respectively a"ended are not

unconstitutional /. 4n holding that su'section ";/ of +ection /000of the Revised d"inistrative !ode under which $rdinances 1os./,/ and @888 were pro"ulgated was not repealed 'y +ection: of Repu'lic ct 1o. 08I @. 4n not holding that an ordinanceproviding for ta&es 'ased on gross sales or receipts in order to'e valid under the new !harter of the !ity of Manila "ust first 'eapproved 'y the #resident of the #hilippinesI and 0. 4n holdingthat as the sales "ade 'y the plaintiff;appellant have assu"edco""ercial proportions it cannot escape fro" the operation of said "unicipal ordinances under the cloak of religious privilege.

ISSUE# hether or not the ordinances of the !ity of Manila 1os.@888 as a"ended and /,/ @8/ and @@70 are constitutional andvalidI and (/) whether the provisions of said ordinances are applica'leor not to the case at 'ar.

$ELD#

4n the case at 'ar the +upre"e court held that that $rdinance 1o.@888 cannot 'e considered unconstitutional even if applied toplaintiff +ociety. 9ut as $rdinance 1o. /,/ of the !ity of Manilaas a"ended is not applica'le to plaintiff;appellant and defendant;appellee is powerless to license or ta& the 'usiness of plaintiff +ociety involved herein for as stated 'efore it would i"pair plaintiffCs right to the free e&ercise and en*oy"ent of its religiousprofession and worship as well as its rights of disse"ination of religious 'eliefs e find that $rdinance 1o. @888 as a"ended isalso inapplica'le to said 'usiness trade or occupation of theplaintiff.

herefore and on the strength of the foregoing considerations

e here'y reverse the decision appealed fro" sentencingdefendant return to plaintiff the su" of #,:.0, unduly collectedfro" it. ithout pronounce"ent as to costs. 4t is so ordered.

DOUBLE TAXATION

95 6$IL 4+, 19546UNALAN /S MUNICI6AL *OARD O" MANILA

(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

LICENSE FEES

GR No. 1044%, A'@'!: 30, 1956$SICAL T$ERA6 ORG. /S MUNICI6AL *OARD(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

UNI/ERSIT O" SAN CARLOS ROOM 410++




- EQUAL PROTECTION -

SEXUAL DISCRIMNINATION

1+3 SCRA 3%+, 19%%6$ILI66INE ASSOCIATION O" SER/ICE E6ORTERS !. DRILON

"ACTS# The Depart"ent of <a'or and B"ploy"ent issued Depart"ent

$rder 1o. : +eries of : in the character of EGP4DB<41B+G$VBR141G TAB TBM#$RR= +P+#B1+4$1 $>DB#<$=MB1T $> >4<4#41$ D$MB+T4! 1D A$P+BA$<D$RSBR+6.

The petitioner #hilippine ssociation of +ervice B&porters 4nc.(#+B4 for short) a fir" Eengaged principally in the recruit"ent of >ilipino workers "ale and fe"ale for overseas place"entEchallenges its !onstitutional validity.

$n May /, : the +olicitor General on 'ehalf of therespondents +ecretary of <a'or and d"inistrator of the#hilippine $verseas B"ploy"ent d"inistration filed a !o""entinfor"ing the !ourt that on March : the respondent <a'or +ecretary lifted the deploy"ent 'an in the states of 4ra% ?ordan

Uatar !anada Aongkong Pnited +tates 4taly 1orway ustriaand +wit2erland. ^ 4n su'"itting the validity of the challengedEguidelinesE the +olicitor General invokes the police power of the#hilippine +tate.

ISSUE#$1 Depart"ent $rder 1o. : in the nature of a police power "easureis valid under the !onstitution assailing

• Ediscri"ination against "ales or fe"alesIE• that it Edoes not apply to all >ilipino workers 'ut only to

do"estic helpers and fe"ales with si"ilar skillsIE• and that it is violative of the right to travel• it is held likewise to 'e an invalid e&ercise of the law"aking

power police power 'eing legislative and not e&ecutive incharacter.

$ELD# The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the

contested "easure should 'e nullified. There is no %uestion thatDepart"ent $rder 1o. : applies only to Efe"ale contractworkersE 'ut it does not there'y "ake an undue discri"ination'etween the se&es. 4t is well;settled that Ee%uality 'efore the lawEunder the !onstitution does not i"port a perfect 4dentity of rightsa"ong all "en and wo"en. 4t ad"its of classifications providedthat (:) such classifications rest on su'stantial distinctionsI (/)they are ger"ane to the purposes of the lawI (@) they are notconfined to e&isting conditionsI and (0) they apply e%ually to all"e"'ers of the sa"e class.

s a "atter of *udicial notice the !ourt is well aware of theunhappy plight that has 'efallen our fe"ale la'or force a'roadespecially do"estic servants a"id e&ploitative working conditions"arked 'y in not a few cases physical and personal a'use. Thesordid tales of "altreat"ent suffered 'y "igrant >ilipina workerseven rape and various for"s of torture confir"ed 'y testi"oniesof returning workers are co"pelling "otives for urgentGovern"ent action. s precisely the caretaker of !onstitutionalrights the !ourt is called upon to protect victi"s of e&ploitation. 4nfulfilling that duty the !ourt sustains the Govern"entCs efforts.

The conse%uence the deploy"ent 'an has on the right to traveldoes not i"pair the right. The right to travel is su'*ect a"ongother things to the re%uire"ents of Epu'lic safetyE Eas "ay 'eprovided 'y law.E Depart"ent $rder 1o. : is a validi"ple"entation of the <a'or !ode in particular its 'asic policy toEafford protection to la'orE pursuant to the respondent

Depart"ent of <a'orCs rule;"aking authority vested in it 'y the<a'or !ode. The petitioner assu"es that it is unreasona'lesi"ply 'ecause of its i"pact on the right to travel 'ut as we havestated the right itself is not a'solute. The disputed $rder is avalid %ualification thereto.

1either is there "erit in the contention that Depart"ent $rder 1o: constitutes an invalid e&ercise of legislative power. 4t is true thapolice power is the do"ain of the legislature 'ut it does not "eanthat such an authority "ay not 'e lawfully delegated. s we have"entioned the <a'or !ode itself vests the Depart"ent of <a'or

and B"ploy"ent with rule"aking powers in the enforce"enwhereof.

E#rotection to la'orE does not signify the pro"otion oe"ploy"ent alone. hat concerns the !onstitution "orepara"ountly is that such an e"ploy"ent 'e a'ove all decent

*ust and hu"ane. 4t is 'ad enough that the country has to sendits sons and daughters to strange lands 'ecause it cannot satisfytheir e"ploy"ent needs at ho"e. Pnder these circu"stances theGovern"ent is duty;'ound to insure that our toiling e&patriateshave ade%uate protection personally and econo"ically whileaway fro" ho"e. 4n this case the Govern"ent has evidence anevidence the petitioner cannot seriously dispute of the lack orinade%uacy of such protection and as part of its duty it hasprecisely ordered an indefinite 'an on deploy"ent.

The non;i"pair"ent clause of the !onstitution invoked 'y the

petitioner "ust yield to the loftier purposes targetted 'y theGovern"ent. 31 >reedo" of contract and enterprise like all othefreedo"s is not free fro" restrictions "ore so in this *urisdictionwhere laissez faire has never 'een fully accepted as a controllingecono"ic way of life.

#etition dis"issed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

99 6$IL, 1%5+6EO6LE !. $ERNANDE

"ACTS# This is a case of kidnapping with "urder involving the Auks

"e"'ers of the Auk'ong Mapagpalaya ng 9ayan the "ilitaryar" of the !o""unist #arty of the #hilippines. !ounsel for >austino del Mundo alias !o""ander +u"ulong

ad"its that the said accused ordered the killing of the victi"Marciano T. Miranda 0: the 'arrio captain of 9arrio 9alitucanMagalang #a"panga who was an alleged ar"y infor"er andwho was opposed to the candidacy of Rogelio Tiglao a provincia'oard "e"'er.

The kidnapping and killing were politically "otivated. Mirandarefused to support Tiglao the candidate for !ongress"an of theAuks. Ae supported Rafael <a2atin the 1acionalista candidate.

ISSUE# Del Mundo contends that he should 'e convicted only ofho"icide and sentenced to reclusion te"poral "ediu" and that thetrial court erred in convicting hi" of the said co"ple& cri"e and insentencing hi" to reclusion perpetua.

$ELD# Del Mundo did not testify in his defense. s already stated the

trial court convicted hi" of kidnapping with "urder together with#angilinan Macasa%uit and !a'rera sentenced hi" to reclusionperpetua and ordered hi" to pay an inde"nity of #:-888 toMirandaCs heirs. Macalino and Meneses were ac%uitted. +alasdied during the pendency of the case. $nly Del Mundo appealedAis counsel de oficio contends that there was no intention todeprive Miranda of his li'erty and no pre"editated plan to kill hi"

That contention is not well;taken. The fact is that Miranda wasforci'ly re"oved fro" his 'arrio and deprived of his li'erty for





several hours and was then 'rought to another place where hewas killed. hile under interrogation his grave was already 'eingprepared. The fatal 'low which was inflicted upon hi" causedhi" to fall into his grave.

e find that there was a conspiracy to li%uidate Miranda and thatthe kidnapping was utili2ed as a "eans to attain that o'*ective.>ro" the surrounding circu"stances it "ay'e inferred that DelMundo "aster"inded the kidnapping or induced it and that aso'served 'y the +olicitor General the killing was intended toterrori2e the supporters of <a2atin.

Miranda was a pu'lic officer. Ais kidnapping is covered 'y article/7-(0) of the Revised #enal !ode which i"poses the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death for that offense.

The killing of Miranda was "urder 'ecause his hands were 'oundwhen he was "ortally assaulted (P.+. vs. Blicanal @, #hil. /8and other cases).

Bven without taking into account evident pre"editation the deathpenalty has to 'e i"posed 'ecause article 0 of the Revised#enal !ode re%uires that the graver penalty for kidnapping whichis "ore serious than "urder has to 'e "eted out to Del Mundo

Aowever inas"uch as Del Mundo is now seventy;eight (-)years old the death penalty cannot 'e i"posed upon hi".

ABRB>$RB the trial courtCs *udg"ent is "odified in the sensethat the death penalty i"posa'le on Del Mundo is co""uted to

reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in article08. 4n all other respects the trial courtCs *udg"ent is affir"ed.

%5 6$IL +4%, 19506EO6LE !. ISNAIN

"ACTS# ccused was caught in the act of stealing coconut while his two

other co"panions "anaged to ran away. ccused ad"itted to co""itting the said cri"e

ISSUE# The only %uestion raised with "uch earnestness 'y hisattorney de oficio is that article @:8 of the Revised #enal !odeclassifying as %ualified theft the stealing of coconut is unconstitutional'ecause it punishes the larceny of such products "ore heavily than the

taking away of si"ilar produce such as rice and sugar and there'ydenies hi" the e%ual protection of the laws.

$ELD# 4n the "atter of theft of coconuts the purpose of the heavier

penalty is to encourage and protect the develop"ent of thecoconut industry as one of the sources of our national econo"y.@Pnlike rice and sugar cane far"s where the range of vision isuno'structed coconut groves can not 'e efficiently watched'ecause of the nature of the growth of coconut treesI and withouta special "easure to protect this kind of property it will 'e as ithas 'een in the past the favorite resort of thieves.0 There istherefore so"e reason for the special treat"ent accorded theindustryI and as it can not 'e said that the classification is entirelywithout 'asis the plea of unconstitutionality "ust 'e denied

The cri"e is punished 'y article @8 paragraph , in connection

with article @:8 of the Revised #enal !ode as a"ended 'y!o""onwealth ct 1o. 0:-. (Repu'lic ct 1o. :/8 enacted after the offense is not applica'le.) The penalty is prision correccional to its full e&tent. pplying the 4ndeter"inate +entence law theappellant should 'e sentenced to i"prison"ent for not less than 0years and / "onths of arresto +ayor nor "ore than 0 years and /"onths of prision correccional. Thus "odified the appealeddecision will 'e affir"ed with costs. so ordered.

GR No. 1301+, D)))r 09, 199%C$A/ES /S. 6CGG

"ACTS#

#etitioner >rancisco 4. !have2 as Eta&payer citi2en and for"egovern"ent official who initiated the prosecution of the Marcosesand their cronies who co""itted un"itigated plunder of the pu'lictreasury and the syste"atic su'*ugation of the countryCsecono"yE alleges that what i"pelled hi" to 'ring this action wereseveral news reports 'annered in a nu"'er of 'roadsheetsso"eti"e in +epte"'er :-. These news ite"s referred to (:)the alleged discovery of 'illions of dollars of Marcos assetsdeposited in various coded accounts in +wiss 'anksI and (/) thereported e&ecution of a co"pro"ise 'etween the govern"en

(through #!GG) and the Marcos heirs on how to split or sharethese assets.

#etitioner invoking his constitutional right to infor"ation and thecorrelative duty of the state to disclose pu'licly all its transactionsinvolving the national interest de"ands that respondents "akepu'lic any and all negotiations and agree"ents pertaining to#!GGCs task of recovering the MarcosesC ill;gotten wealth. Aeclai"s that any co"pro"ise on the alleged 'illions of ill;gottenwealth involves an issue of Epara"ount pu'lic interestE since ihas a Ede'ilitating effect on the countryCs econo"yE that would 'egreatly pre*udicial to the national interest of the >ilipino people.

ISSUE# $1 the govern"ent through the #residential !o""issionon Good Govern"ent (#!GG) 'e re%uired to reveal the proposedter"s of a co"pro"ise agree"ent with the Marcos heirs as regardstheir alleged ill;gotten wealth.

$ELD# 4n general writings co"ing into the hands of pu'lic officers in

connection with their official functions "ust 'e accessi'le to thepu'lic consistent with the policy of transparency of govern"entaaffairs. This principle is ai"ed at affording the people anopportunity to deter"ine whether those to who" they haveentrusted the affairs of the govern"ent are honesty faithfully andco"petently perfor"ing their functions as pu'lic servantsPndenia'ly the essence of de"ocracy lies in the free flow othoughtI 'ut thoughts and ideas "ust 'e well;infor"ed so that thepu'lic would gain a 'etter perspective of vital issues confrontingthe" and thus 'e a'le to critici2e as well as participate in theaffairs of the govern"ent in a responsi'le reasona'le andeffective "anner.

ith such pronounce"ents of our govern"ent whose authoritye"anates fro" the people there is no dou't that the recovery ofthe MarcosesC alleged ill;gotten wealth is a "atter of pu'licconcern and i"'ued with pu'lic interest. e "ay also add thaEill;gotten wealthE 'y its very nature assu"es a pu'lic character!learly the assets and properties referred to supposedlyoriginated fro" the govern"ent itself. To all intents and purposestherefore they 'elong to the people. s such upon reconveyancethey will 'e returned to the pu'lic treasury su'*ect only to thesatisfaction of positive clai"s of certain persons as "ay 'ead*udged 'y co"petent courts. nother declared overridingconsideration for the e&peditious recovery of ill;gotten wealth isthat it "ay 'e used for national econo"ic recovery. The foregoingdis%uisition settles the %uestion of whether petitioner has a right torespondentsC disclosure of any agree"ent that "ay 'e arrived aconcerning the MarcosesC purported ill;gotten wealth. #etitiongranted.

111 SCRA 433, 19%2NUNE /S. SANDIGAN*AAN

"ACTS# #etitioner in this certiorari and prohi'ition proceeding assails the

validity of the #residential Decree creating the +andigan'ayanAe was accused 'efore such respondent !ourt of estafa throughfalsification of pu'lic and co""ercial docu"ents co""itted inconnivance with his other co;accused all pu'lic officials inseveral cases. Ppon 'eing arraigned he filed a "otion to %uashon constitutional and *urisdictional grounds. Respondent !ourdenied such "otion. There was a "otion for reconsideration filed

UNI/ERSIT O" SAN CARLOS ROOM 410+%




the ne&t dayI it "et the sa"e fate. Aence this petition for certiorariand prohi'ition

ISSUE# $1 #residential Decree 1o. :07 as a"ended creating therespondent !ourt is violative of the due process and e%ual protectionclauses of the !onstitution.

$ELD# To assure that the general welfare 'e pro"oted which is the end

of law a regulatory "easure "ay cut into the rights to li'erty and

property. Those adversely affected "ay under suchcircu"stances invoke the e%ual protection clause only if they canshow that the govern"ental act assailed far fro" 'eing inspired'y the attain"ent of the co""on weal was pro"pted 'y the spiritof hostility or at the very least discri"ination that finds no supportin reason. To %uote fro" the Tuason decision anew Ethat the lawsoperate e%ually and unifor"ly on all persons under si"ilar circu"stances or that all persons "ust 'e treated in the sa"e"anner the conditions not 'eing different 'oth in the privilegesconferred and the lia'ilities i"posed. >avoritis" and unduepreference cannot 'e allowed. >or the principle is that e%ualprotection and security shall 'e given to every person under circu"stances which if not 4dentical are analogous.

The pre"ise underlying petitionerCs contention on this point is setforth in his "e"orandu" thus E :. The +andigan'ayanproceedings violates petitionerCs right to e%ual protection

'ecause ; appeal as a "atter of right 'eca"e "ini"i2ed into a"ere "atter of discretionI ; appeal likewise was shrunk andli"ited only to %uestions of law e&cluding a review of the factsand trial evidenceI and ; there is only one chance to appealconviction 'y certiorari to the +upre"e !ourt instead of thetraditional two chancesI while all other estafa indictees areentitled to appeal as a "atter of right covering 'oth law and factsand to two appellate courts i.e. first to the !ourt of ppeals andthereafter to the +upre"e !ourt.E that is hardly convincingconsidering that the classification satisfies the test re%uiring that itE"ust 'e 'ased on su'stantial distinctions which "ake realdifferencesI it "ust 'e ger"ane to the purposes of the lawI it "ustnot 'e li"ited to e&isting conditions only and "ust apply e%uallyto each "e"'er of the class. The !onstitution specifically"entions the creation of a special court the +andigan'ayanprecisely in response to a pro'le" the urgency of which cannot

'e denied na"ely dishonesty in the pu'lic service. 4t follows thatthose who "ay thereafter 'e tried 'y such court ought to have'een aware as far 'ack as ?anuary :- :-@ when the present!onstitution ca"e into force that a different procedure for theaccused therein whether a private citi2en as petitioner is or apu'lic official is not necessarily offensive to the e%ual protectionclause of the !onstitution. ABRB>$RB the petition isdis"issed.

GR No. 142030, April 21, 2005GALLARDO /S. 6EO6LE

"ACTS# tty. Victor dela +erna for and in 'ehalf of the #u'lic Aealth

orkers (#As) of 9ansalan Davao del +ur filed with the $fficeof the $"'uds"an;Mindanao a sworn letter;co"plaint chargingherein petitioners Mayor Gallardo the vice "ayor +anggunian9ayan "e"'ers all pu'lic officers of the Municipality of 9ansalan Davao del +ur with violation of +ection @(e) of Repu'lic ct 1o. @8: for their alleged refusal to appropriate inthe "unicipal 'udget the a"ount representing pay"ent of the"andatory statutory o'ligations of the Municipality of 9ansalanaccruing to the co"plaining #As in the nature of unpaid salarydifferential and "agna carta 'enefits.

The infor"ation filed with the +andigan'ayan stated that hereinpetitioners caused undue in*ury to the #u'lic Aealth orkers(#As) of the Municipality of 9ansalan 'y refusing to perfor"their duties to include an appropriation in the "unicipal 'udget for the pay"ent of the "andatory statutory o'ligations of the

Municipality of 9ansalan due to the co"plaining #As in thenature of unpaid salary differential and "agna carta 'enefits inthe aggregate a"ount of #@@@-.:8.

#etitioners filed a Motion for Reinvestigation. The +andigan'ayangranted the "otion. special prosecutor reco""ended thedis"issal of the case 'ut $"'uds"an niano . Desiertodisapproved the reco""endation. The +andigan'ayan deniedpetitioners’ "otion.

ISSUE# $1 the petitioners are denied due process and not accorded

the e%ual protection of laws.

$ELD# #etitioners clai"ed that they were denied due process 'ecause

$"'uds"an niano . Desierto disapproved thereco""endation of the special prosecutor.

The $"'uds"an contrary to the investigating prosecutor’sconclusion was of the conviction that petitioners are pro'a'lyguilty of the offense charged and for this he is not re%uired toconduct an investigation anew. hatever course of action that the$"'uds"an "ay take whether to approve or to disapprove thereco""endation of the investigating prosecutor is 'ut ane&ercise of his discretionary powers 'ased upon constitutiona"andate.J:-K Generally courts should not interfere in suche&ercise.

The e%ual protection clause re%uires that the law operatesunifor"ly on all persons under si"ilar circu"stances or that alpersons are treated in the sa"e "anner the conditions not 'eingdifferent 'oth in privileges conferred and the lia'ilities i"posed. 4allows reasona'le classification. 4f the classification ischaracteri2ed 'y real and su'stantial differences one class "ay'e treated differently fro" another. +i"ply 'ecause therespondent $"'uds"an dis"issed so"e cases allegedly si"ilato the case at 'ar is not sufficient to i"pute ar'itrariness ocaprice on his part a'sent a clear showing that he gravelya'used his discretion in pursuing the instant case. The$"'uds"an dis"issed those cases 'ecause he 'elieved therewere no sufficient grounds for the accused therein to undergotrial. $n the other hand he reco""ended the filing oappropriate infor"ation against petitioners 'ecause there area"ple grounds to hold the" for trial. Ae was only e&ercising his

power and discharging his duty 'ased upon the constitutiona"andate of his office. ABRB>$RB the petition is D4+M4++BDfor lack of "erit

PUBLIC POLICY

HG.R. No. 1529. A'@'!: 9, 2005.6$ILI66INE NATIONAL *AN !. GIO/ANNI 6ALMA ET AL.

"ACTS# #19 was for"erly a govern"ent owned and controlled

corporation 'ut on /7 May :7 it was already privati2ed andincorporated as a private co""ercial 'ank.

R.. 7-, Cn ct #rescri'ing a Revised !o"pensation and#osition !lassification +yste" in the Govern"entC took effect on :

?uly : covering all govern"ent owned corporations. +ection:/ thereof provides for the consolidation of allowances andadditional co"pensation into standardi2ed salary rates 'ucertain additional co"pensation were e&e"pted fro"consolidation. 4n the present case the +alary +tandardi2ation<aw clearly provides that the clai"ed 'enefits shall continue to 'egranted only to e"ployees who were Eincu"'entsE as of ?uly ::.

EThe Depart"ent of 9udget and Manage"ent (D9M) issued!orporate !o"pensation !ircular 1o. :8 (D9M;!!! 1o. :8) toi"ple"ent R.. 7-,. $n :/ ugust : the +upre"e !ourt inthe case of Rodolfo +. de ?esus et al. of the <ocal ater Ptilities

d"inistration (<P) vs. !o""ission on udit held that D9M





!!! 1o. :8 was ineffective due to its non;pu'lication in the$fficial Ga2ette or in a newspaper of general circulation.

E4n view of the declaration "ade 'y the +upre"e !ourt in thea'ove;"entioned case a petition for "anda"us was filed 'yrespondents on /8 Dece"'er :. Respondents alleged thatthey are e"ployees hired 'y #19 on various dates after @8 ?une:I that fro" the dates of their respective appoint"ents until :?anuary :- they were un*ustly deprived and denied of theallowances 'eing en*oyed 'y other e"ployees of #19. ccordingto respondents the declaration that D9M;!!! 1o. :8 was

ineffective paved the way to their entitle"ent to theallowancesOfringe 'enefits. The withholding of their entitle"ent tothe sa"e 'enefits is an unfair discri"ination and a violation of respondentsC rights to the e%ual protection clause of the!onstitution since incu"'ents or e"ployees of #19 who werealready in the service as of : ?uly : received the 'enefits andallowances. To rectify the in*ustice against respondents issuedGeneral !ircular 1o. :;@:/O- on :0 March :- e&tending the'enefits to respondents effective : ?anuary :-. 9utRespondents contend that e&tending to the" theallowancesOfringe 'enefits "eant that they are entitled to thepay"ent of the sa"e and hence they should 'e given their allowances reckoned not only fro" : ?anuary :- 'ut fro" thedate of their respective appoint"ent to which #19 did not accedeto. The trial court ruled in favor of the Respondents and the !ourtof ppeals denied petitioner’s appeal. Thus this instant petition.

ISSUE# hether or not respondents are entitled to the %uestionedfringe 'enefits

$ELD# The respondents were not entitled to the 'enefits 'ecause they

were hired only after ?P1B @8 :. n incu"'ent is a personwho is in present possession of an office.

>inally to e&plain what ?uly : : pertained to we held in theprior cases as follows The date ?uly : : 'eco"es crucialonly to deter"ine that as of said date the officer was anincu"'ent and was receiving the RT for purposes of entitlinghi" to its continued grant.E Respondents were not dee"edincu"'ents as defined 'y settled *urisprudence. #etitioner wascorrect in contending that 'y e&tending the assailed 'enefits torespondents on ?anuary : :- it was not there'y ad"itting that

the latter were priorly entitled to the". 4t contends that itsprivati2ation on May /- :7 ena'led it to grant 'enefits as itdee"ed fit. 4t could not have granted the" while it was still agovern"ent agency 'ecause R 7-, 'arred such grant as anillegal dis'urse"ent of pu'lic funds. 4t allegedly accorded the"those 'enefits not 'ecause it had finally acceded to their interpretation of the law 'ut 'ecause it was only then that H as aprivate entity H it could legally do so.

The collateral attack on the constitutionality of R 7-, due toalleged violation of the e%ual protection clause cannot prosper'ecause constitutionality issues "ust 'e pleaded directly H notcollaterally. >urther"ore the constitutional issue was not raised inthe trial courtI hence it cannot now 'e availed of on appeal to this!ourt. 9esides the argu"ents of respondents rest upon thevalidity of +ection :/ of R 7-,. Aow then can they nowchallenge the very 'asis of their argu"ents3

law is dee"ed valid unless declared null and void 'y aco"petent courtI "ore so when the issue has not 'een dulypleaded in the trial court. The %uestion of constitutionality "ust 'eraised at the earliest opportunity. Respondents not only failed tochallenge the constitutionality of R 7-,I worse they used it inseeking co"pensation fro" petitioner. The settled rule is thatcourts will not anticipate a %uestion of constitutional law inadvance of the necessity of deciding it.

ABRB>$RB the #etition is GR1TBD.

HG.R. No. 14%20%. D)))r 15, 2004.CENTRAL *AN 7(o *8(@Jo S)(:r8l (@ 6ilipi(8! EM6LOEES

ASSOCIATION, INC., !. *ANGO SENTRAL NG 6ILI6INAS 8(<:?) EECUTI/E SECRETAR

"ACTS# l"ost eight years after the effectivity of R.. 1o. -7,@ or the 1ew!entral 9ank ct petitioner !entral 9ank B"ployees ssociation 4nc.filed a petition for prohi'ition against respondents 9angko +entral ng#ilipinas (9+#) and the B&ecutive +ecretary of the $ffice of the#resident to restrain the" fro" further i"ple"enting the last proviso in+ection :,(c) rticle 44 of R.. 1o. -7,@ on the ground that it is

unconstitutional 'ecause the classification of 9+# e"ployees provided'y law is unreasona'le ar'itrary capricious and violative of the e%uaprotection clause of the !onstitution. The thrust of petitionerCschallenge is that the assailed proviso "akes an unconstitutional cu'etween two classes of e"ployees in the 9+# vi2 (:) the 9+# officersor those e&e"pted fro" the coverage of R.. 1o. 7-, or the +alary+tandardi2ation <aw (++<) (e&e"pt class)I and (/) the rank;and;file(+alary Grade J+GK : and 'elow) or those not e&e"pted fro" thecoverage of the ++< (non;e&e"pt class). #etitioner contended that theclassification is Ea classic case of class legislationE allegedly not 'asedon su'stantial distinctions which "ake real differences 'ut solely onthe +G of the 9+# personnelCs position. #etitioner further contendedthat the assailed proviso is also violative of the e%ual protection clause'ecause after it was enacted the charters of the Govern"ent +ervice4nsurance +yste" <and 9ank of the #hilippines Develop"ent 9ank othe #hilippines and +ocial +ecurity +yste" were also a"ended andtheir respective personnel were all e&e"pted fro" the coverage of the

++<. Thus within the class of rank;and;file personnel of Govern"en>inancial 4nstitutions (G>4) the 9+# rank;and;file e"ployees are alsodiscri"inated upon.

ISSUE# hether or not a provision of law initially valid can 'eco"esu'se%uently unconstitutional on the ground that its continuedoperation would violate the e%ual protection of the law

$ELD# +upre"e !ourt held that with the passage of the su'se%uent laws

a"ending the charter of seven (-) other govern"ental financiainstitutions (G>4s) the continued operation of the last proviso o+ection :,(c) rticle 44 of R.. 1o. -7,@ constitutes invidiousdiscri"ination on the /0 rank;and;file e"ployees of the 9+#.

The +upre"e !ourt struck down the assailed proviso and held

that with the passage of the su'se%uent laws a"ending thecharter of seven (-) other govern"ental financial institutions(G>4s) the continued operation of the last proviso of +ection:,(c) rticle 44 of Repu'lic ct (R..) 1o. -7,@ constitutesinvidious discri"ination on the /0 rank;and;file e"ployees ofthe 9angko +entral ng #ilipinas. The disparity of treat"en'etween 9+# rank;and;file and the rank;and;file of the otheseven G>4s definitely 'ears the un"istaka'le 'adge of invidiousdiscri"ination. 1o one can with candor and fairness deny thediscri"inatory character of the su'se%uent 'lanket and totae&e"ption of the seven other G>4s fro" the ++< when such waswithheld fro" the 9+#. likes are 'eing treated as unalikeswithout any rational 'asis. The !ourt e"phasi2ed that the e%uaprotection clause does not de"and a'solute e%uality 'ut ire%uires that all persons shall 'e treated alike under likecircu"stances and conditions 'oth as to privileges conferred andlia'ilities enforced. >avoritis" and undue preference cannot 'e

allowed. >or the principle is that e%ual protection and securityshall 'e given to every person under circu"stances which if notidentical are analogous. 4f law 'e looked upon in ter"s of 'urdenor charges those that fall within a class should 'e treated in thesa"e fashionI whatever restrictions cast on so"e in the group ise%ually 'inding on the rest. ith the lack of real and su'stantiadistinctions that would *ustify the une%ual treat"ent 'etween therank;and;file of 9+# fro" the seven other G>4s it is clear that theenact"ent of the seven su'se%uent charters has rendered thecontinued application of the challenged proviso anathe"a to thee%ual protection of the law and the sa"e should 'e declared asan outlaw.

herefor the continued operation and i"ple"entation of the lasUNI/ERSIT O" SAN CARLOS ROOM 410

0




proviso of +ection :,(c) rticle 44 of Repu'lic ct 1o. -7,@ is heldunconstitutional.

HG.R. No. 5+515. April 3, 19%1.UNITED DEMOCRATIC O66OSITION 7UNIDO, !. COMMISSIONON ELECTIONS

"ACTS##etitioner Pnited De"ocratic $pposition (P14D$) in two letter;re%uests to the !o""ission on Blections (!$MB<B!) dated March :8

and :-:: asked for e&actly the sa"e opportunity the sa"e pri"eti"e and the sa"e nu"'er of television and radio stations all over thecountry to 'e used in its ca"paign for E1$E votes in the ple'iscite for the a"end"ents to the :-@ !onstitution proposed 'y the 9atasang#a"'ansa as that utili2ed 'y #resident Marcos in his nationwideE#ulong;#ulong sa #anguloE in ca"paigning for E=B+E votes on theproposed constitutional a"end"ents. The !o""ission in itsResolution of March : :: denied petitionerCs Ede"andCC 'eing of the view that the #residentCs re"arks on the proposed a"end"ents inthe fore"entioned radio;television progra" carried live 'y twenty;si&(/7) television and two hundred forty;eight (/0) radio stationsthroughout the country were initiated under his leadership and capacityas #residentOpri"e Minister in the e&ercise of his constitutionalprerogative to deter"ine the progra" and guidelines of national policypursuant to rticle 4F +ection / of the !onstitution and not as the headof any political party. #etitionerCs Motion for reconsideration provedfutile hence this present action assailing the !o"elecCs resolutions as

contrary to the !onstitution un*ust unfair and ine%uita'le for violatingthe 'asic principles of e%uality good faith and fair play the sa"e notconducive to insure a free orderly and honest elections.

ISSUE# hether or not !$MB<B! violated the e%ual protection clausefor denying P14D$ the sa"e air ti"e in Media as that of the #residentin ca"paigning for the 51$6 votes in the ple'iscite for the a"end"entsto the :-@ !ontstitution.

$ELD#The +upre"e !ourt in dis"issing the appeal held that when the#resident spoke in the nation;wide progra" E#ulong;#ulong sa#anguloE on March /: :: he did so in his capacity as #resident;#ri"e Minister and not as the head of the S9<I and that what petitioner asks cannot 'e granted for 'eing 'eyond what the charter the lawsand pertinent !o"elec regulations conte"plate for 'eing "ore thanwhat the opposition is duly entitled vis;a;vis the duty o'ligation andOor privilege inherent in the head of state to directly dialogue with thesovereign people when the occasion de"ands for 'eing i"practicalunder prevailing circu"stance and for its failure to *oin in the petitionthe television and radio stations as indispensa'le parties there'ydepriving the !ourt of *urisdiction to act.

ppeal dis"issed.

22 SCRA 03 719936&A /S 6RADO(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

24% SCRA 00, 1995OLI/ARE /S. SANDIGAN*AAN(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

GR No. 12410, &8('8r 20, 1999

TIU /S. COURT O" A66EALS(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

G.R. No. 13252. &'l 29, 2005COCONUT OIL RE"INERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ): 8l !. RU*ENTORRES, 8! E;)':i) S)r):8r, ): 8l

"ACTS#$n March :@ :/ R 1o. -//- was enacted providing for a"ongother things the sound and 'alanced conversion of the !lark and+u'ic "ilitary reservations and their e&tensions into alternativeproductive uses in the for" of special econo"ic 2ones in order topro"ote the econo"ic and social develop"ent of !entral <u2on in

particular and the country in general. The law contains provisions onta& e&e"ptions for i"portations of raw "aterials capital ande%uip"ent. fter which the #resident issued several B&ecutive $rdersas "andated 'y the law for the i"ple"entation of R -//-. Aereinpetitioners contend the validity of the ta& e&e"ption provided for in thelaw.

ISSUE# hether or not the B&ecutive $rders issued 'y #resident fothe i"ple"entation of the ta& e&e"ptions constitutes e&ecutivelegislation.

$ELD# To li"it the ta&;free i"portation privilege of enterprises located

inside the special econo"ic 2one only to raw "aterials capitaand e%uip"ent clearly runs counter to the intention of the<egislature to create a free port where the 5free flow of goods orcapital within into and out of the 2ones6 is insured.The phrase 5ta& and duty;free i"portations of raw "aterialscapital and e%uip"ent6 was "erely cited as an e&a"ple oincentives that "ay 'e given to entities operating within the 2one#u'lic respondent +9M correctly argued that the "a&i"e&pressio unius est e&clusio alterius on which petitionersi"pliedly rely to support their restrictive interpretation does noapply when words are "entioned 'y way of e&a"ple. 4t is o'viousfro" the wording of R 1o. -//- particularly the use of thephrase 5such as6 that the enu"eration only "eant to illustrate

incentives that the ++B is authori2ed to grant in line with its'eing a free port 2one. The !ourt finds that the setting up of such co""ercia

esta'lish"ents which are the only ones duly authori2ed to selconsu"er ite"s ta& and duty;free is still well within the policyenunciated in +ection :/ of R 1o. -//- that 5. . .the +u'ic+pecial Bcono"ic one shall 'e developed into a self;sustainingindustrial co""ercial financial and invest"ent center togenerate e"ploy"ent opportunities in and around the 2one andto attract and pro"ote productive foreign invest"ents.6 Aoweverthe !ourt reiterates that the second sentences of paragraphs :./and :.@ of B&ecutive $rder 1o. -; allowing ta& and duty;freere"oval of goods to certain individuals even in a li"ited a"ountfro" the +ecured rea of the ++B are null and void for 'eingcontrary to +ection :/ of R 1o. -//-. +aid +ection clearlyprovides that 5e&portation or re"oval of goods fro" the territory o

the +u'ic +pecial Bcono"ic one to the other parts of the#hilippine territory shall 'e su'*ect to custo"s duties and ta&esunder the !usto"s and Tariff !ode and other relevant ta& laws othe #hilippines.6

G.R. No. 12%%45. &'() 1, 2000ISAE . $o(. L)o(8r<o A. F'i!'i(@

"ACTS##rivate respondent 4nternational +chool 4nc. is a do"estic educationainstitution esta'lished pri"arily for dependents of foreign diplo"aticpersonnel and other te"porary residents. The school hires 'oth foreignand local teachers as "e"'ers of its faculty classifying the" asforeign;hires and local;hires. The local;hire faculty "e"'ers of said4nternational +chool "ostly >ilipinos co"plained against the 'ettetreat"ent of their colleagues who have 'een hired a'road. These

foreign;hires en*oy certain 'enefits not accorded the local;hires whichinclude housing transportation shipping costs ta&es ho"e leavetravel allowance and a salary rate /, higher than that of the local;hires. #etitioner clai"s that the point;of;hire classification e"ployed 'ythe school is discri"inatory to >ilipinos and that the grant of highersalaries to foreign;hires constitutes racial discri"ination.

ISSUE# hether or not the classification e"ployed 'y the respondenschool constitutes racial discri"ination.

$)l<# =B+. The !onstitution in the rticle on +ocial ?ustice and Au"an

Rights e&horts !ongress to Egive highest priority to the enact"enUNI/ERSIT O" SAN CARLOS ROOM 410

1




of "easures that protect and enhance the right of all people tohu"an dignity reduce social econo"ic and political ine%ualities.EThe very 'road rticle : of the !ivil !ode re%uires every personEin the e&ercise of his rights and in the perfor"ance of his dutiesJtoK act with *ustice give everyone his due and o'serve honestyand good faith.E

The !onstitution also directs the +tate to pro"ote Ee%uality of e"ploy"ent opportunities for all.E +i"ilarly the <a'or !odeprovides that the +tate shall Eensure e%ual work opportunitiesregardless of se& race or creed.E 4t would 'e an affront to 'oth

the spirit and letter of these provisions if the +tate in spite of itspri"ordial o'ligation to pro"ote and ensure e%ual e"ploy"entopportunities closes its eyes to une%ual and discri"inatory ter"sand conditions of e"ploy"ent.

4n this case the point;of;hire classification e"ployed 'yrespondent school to *ustify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign;hires and local hires is an invalid classification. There isno reasona'le distinction 'etween the services rendered 'yforeign;hires and local;hires. The practice of the +chool of according higher salaries to foreign;hires contravenes pu'licpolicy and certainly does not deserve the sy"pathy of this !ourt.

The foregoing provisions i"pregna'ly institutionali2e in this *urisdiction the long honored legal truis" of Ee%ual pay for e%ualwork.E #ersons who work with su'stantially e%ual %ualificationsskill effort and responsi'ility under si"ilar conditions should 'e

paid si"ilar salaries. This rule applies to the +chool itsEinternational characterE notwithstanding. 4f an e"ployer accordse"ployees the sa"e position and rank the presu"ption is thatthese e"ployees perfor" e%ual work. This presu"ption is 'orne'y logic and hu"an e&perience. 4f the e"ployer pays onee"ployee less than the rest it is not for that e"ployee to e&plainwhy he receives less or why the others receive "ore. That would'e adding insult to in*ury. The e"ployer has discri"inated againstthat e"ployeeI it is for the e"ployer to e&plain why the e"ployeeis treated unfairly.

GR. No. 1430+. &'() 10, 20036$ILRECA !. DILG

"ACTS#$n May /@ /88@ a class suit was filed 'y petitioners in their own'ehalf and in 'ehalf of other electric cooperatives organi2ed and

e&isting under #D /7 which are "e"'ers of petitioner #hilippineRural Blectric !ooperatives ssociation 4nc. (#A4<RB!). The other petitioners electric cooperatives of gusan del 1orte (1B!$) 4loilo :(4<B!$ :) and 4sa'ela : (4+B<!$ :) are non;stock non;profit electriccooperatives organi2ed and e&isting under #D /7 as a"ended andregistered with the 1ational Blectrification d"inistration (1B).Pnder +ec. @ of #D /7 electric cooperatives shall 'e e&e"pt fro"the pay"ent of all 1ational Govern"ent local govern"ent and"unicipal ta&es and fee including franchise fling recordation licenseor per"it fees or ta&es and any fees charges or costs involved in anycourt or ad"inistrative proceedings in which it "ay 'e party.>ro" :-:to :- in order to finance the electrification pro*ectsenvisioned 'y #D /7 as a"ended the #hilippine Govern"ent actingthrough the 1ational Bcono"ic council and the 1B entered into si&loan agree"ents with the govern"ent of the Pnited +tates of "ericathrough the Pnited +tates gency for 4nternational Develop"ent(P+4D) with electric cooperatives as 'eneficiaries. The loanagree"ents contain si"ilarly worded provisions on the ta& applicationof the loan and any property or co""odity ac%uired through theproceeds of the loan.#etitioners allege that with the passage of the <ocal Govern"ent !odetheir ta& e&e"ptions have 'een validly withdrawn. #articularlypetitioners assail the validity of +ec. :@ and /@0 of the said code.+ec. :@ provides for the withdrawal of ta& e&e"ption privilegesgranted to all persons whether natural or *uridical e&cept cooperativesduly registered under R 7@ while +ec. /@0 e&e"pts the sa"ecooperatives fro" pay"ent of real property ta&.

ISSUES#1. $1 the <ocal Govern"ent !ode (under +ec. :@ and /@0)

violated the e%ual protection clause since the provisions undulydiscri"inate against petitioners who are duly registeredcooperatives under #D /7 as a"ended and no under R 7@or the !ooperatives !ode of the #hilippines3

2. 4s there an i"pair"ent of the o'ligations of contract under theloan entered into 'etween the #hilippine and the P+Govern"ents3

$ELD#1. 1o. The guaranty of the e%ual protection clause is not violated 'y

a law 'ased on a reasona'le classification. !lassification to 'ereasona'le "ust (a) rest on su'stantial classificationsI ('ger"ane to the purpose of the lawI c) not li"ited to the e&istingconditions onlyI and (d) apply e%ually to all "e"'ers of the sa"eclass. e hold that there is reasona'le classification under the<ocal Govern"ent !ode to *ustify the different ta& treat"en'etween electric cooperatives covered 'y #D /7 and electriccooperatives under R 7@.>irst su'stantial distinctions e&ist 'etween cooperatives unde#D /7 and those under R 7@. 4n the for"er the govern"enis the one that funds those so;called electric cooperatives whilein the latter the "e"'ers "ake e%uita'le contri'ution as sourceof funds.a. !apital !ontri'utions 'y Me"'ers L 1owhere in #D /7 does ire%uire cooperatives to "ake e%uita'le contri'utions to capital#etitioners the"selves ad"it that to %ualify as a "e"'er of anelectric cooperative under #D /7 only the pay"ent of a #,.88

"e"'ership fee is re%uired which is even refunda'le the "o"enthe "e"'er is no longer interested in getting electric service fro"the cooperative or will transfer to another place outside the areacovered 'y the cooperative. Aowever under the !ooperative!ode the articles of cooperation of a cooperative applying forregistration "ust 'e acco"panied with the 'onds of theaccounta'le officers and a sworn state"ent of the treasureelected 'y the su'scri'ers showing that at least /, of theauthori2ed share capital has 'een su'scri'ed and at least /, othe total su'scription has 'een paid and in no case shall the paidup share capital 'e less than #/888.88.'. B&tent of Govern"ent !ontrol over !ooperatives L The e&tenof govern"ent control over electric cooperatives covered 'y #D/7 is largely a function of the role of the 1B as a pri"arysource of funds of these electric cooperatives. "end"ents werepri"arily geared to e&pand the powers of 1B over the electriccooperatives to ensure that loans granted to the" would 'erepaid to the govern"ent. 4n contrast cooperatives under R7@ are envisioned to 'e self;sufficient and independenorgani2ations with "ini"al govern"ent intervention or regulation.+econd the classification of ta&;e&e"pt entities in the <ocaGovern"ent !ode is ger"ane to the purpose of the law. The!onstitutional "andate that 5every local govern"ent unit shalen*oy local autono"y6 does not "ean that the e&ercise of thepower 'y the local govern"ents is 'eyond the regulation o!ongress. +ec. :@ of the <G! is indicative of the legislativeintent to vet 'road ta&ing powers upon the local govern"ent unitsand to li"it e&e"ptions fro" local ta&ation to entities specificallyprovided therein.>inally +ec. :@ and /@0 of the <G! per"it reasona'leclassification as these e&e"ptions are not li"ited to e&istingconditions and apply e%ually to all "e"'ers of the sa"e class.

2. 1o. 4t is ingrained in *urisprudence that the constitutiona

prohi'ition on the i"pair"ent of the o'ligations of contracts doesnot prohi'it every change in e&isting laws. To fall within theprohi'ition the change "ust not only i"pair the o'ligation of thee&isting contract 'ut the i"pair"ent "ust 'e su'stantialMoreover to constitute i"pair"ent the law "ust affect a changein the rights of the parties with reference to each other and nowith respect to non;parties.The %uoted provision under the loan agree"ent does not purporto grant any ta& e&e"ption in favor of any party to the contractincluding the 'eneficiaries thereof. The provisions si"ply shift theta& 'urden if any on the transactions under the loan agree"entsto the 'orrower andOor 'eneficiary of the loan. Thus thewithdrawal 'y the <ocal Govern"ent !ode under +ec. :@ and





/@0 of the ta& e&e"ptions previously en*oyed 'y petitioners doesnot i"pair the o'ligation of the 'orrower the lender or the'eneficiary under the loan agree"ents as in fact no ta&e&e"ption is granted therein.

GR No!. 133+40, 133++1 8(< 13914, 25 No))r 2005,RODOL"O S. *ELTRAN !. SECRETAR O" $EALT$

"ACTS# Repu'lic ct 1o. --: or the 1ational 9lood +ervices ct of :0

was enacted into law on pril / :0. The ct seeks to providean ade%uate supply of safe 'lood 'y pro"oting voluntary 'looddonation and 'y regulating 'lood 'anks in the country. 4t wasapproved 'y then #resident >idel V. Ra"os on May :, :0 andwas su'se%uently pu'lished in the $fficial Ga2ette on ugust ::0. The law took effect on ugust /@ :0. $n pril / :,

d"inistrative $rder 1o. +eries of :, constituting the4"ple"enting Rules and Regulations of said law was pro"ulgated'y respondent +ecretary of the Depart"ent of Aealth (D$A).

S):io( o> R.A. 19 proi<)!, 6?8!)-o': o> Co)ri8l

*loo< *8(J! ; ll co""ercial 'lood 'anks shall 'e phased;outover a period of two (/) years after the effectivity of this cte&tenda'le to a "a&i"u" period of two (/) years 'y the+ecretary.6

S):io( 23. 6ro)!! o> 6?8!i(@ O':. ;; The Depart"ent shall

effect the phasing;out of all co""ercial 'lood 'anks over a periodof two (/) years e&tendi'le for a "a&i"u" period of two (/) yearsafter the effectivity of R.. --:. The decision to e&tend shall 'e'ased on the result of a careful study and review of the 'loodsupply and de"and and pu'lic safety.6

=ears prior to the passage of the 1ational 9lood +ervices ct of :0 petitioners have already 'een operating co""ercial 'lood'anks under Repu'lic ct 1o. :,:- entitled 5n ct Regulatingthe !ollection #rocessing and +ale of Au"an 9lood and theBsta'lish"ent and $peration of 9lood 9anks and 9lood#rocessing <a'oratories.6

The law which was enacted on ?une :7 :,7 allowed theesta'lish"ent and operation 'y licensed physicians of 'lood'anks and 'lood processing la'oratories.

$n May /8 : prior to the e&piration of the licenses granted to

petitioners they filed a petition for certiorari with application for the issuance of a writ of preli"inary in*unction or te"poraryrestraining order under Rule 7, of the Rules of !ourt assailing theconstitutionality and validity of the afore"entioned ct and its4"ple"enting Rules and Regulations.

ISSUES#1. hether or not +ection - of R --: constitutes undue

delegation of legislative powers2. hether or not +ection - of R --: and its i"ple"enting rules

violate the e%ual protection clause3. hether or not R --: is a valid e&ercise of police power

$ELD# #etition granted. The assailed law and its i"ple"enting rules are

constitutional and valid. Repu'lic ct 1o. --: or the 1ational 9lood +ervices ct of :0

is co"plete in itself. 4t is clear fro" the provisions of the ct that the <egislature

intended pri"arily to safeguard the health of the people and has"andated several "easures to attain this o'*ective. $ne of theseis the phase out of co""ercial 'lood 'anks in the country.

The law has sufficiently provided a definite standard for theguidance of the +ecretary of Aealth in carrying out its provisionsthat is the pro"otion of pu'lic health 'y providing a safe andade%uate supply of 'lood through voluntary 'lood donation. The+ecretary of Aealth has 'een given under Repu'lic ct 1o. --:

'road powers to e&ecute the provisions of said ct. 4n this regardthe +ecretary did not go 'eyond the powers granted to hi" 'y the

ct when said phase;out period was e&tended in accordance withthe ct as laid out in +ection /.

hat "ay 'e regarded as a denial of the e%ual protection of thelaws is a %uestion not always easily deter"ined. 1o rule that wilcover every case can 'e for"ulated. !lass legislationdiscri"inating against so"e and favoring others is prohi'ited 'uclassification on a reasona'le 'asis and not "ade ar'itrarily orcapriciously is per"itted. The classification however to 'e

reasona'le (a) "ust 'e 'ased on su'stantial distinctions which"ake real differencesI (') "ust 'e ger"ane to the purpose of thelawI (c) "ust not 'e li"ited to e&isting conditions onlyI and (d"ust apply e%ually to each "e"'er of the class.

e dee" the classification to 'e valid and reasona'le for thefollowing reasons >irst it was 'ased on su'stantial distinctions+econd the classification and the conse%uent phase out oco""ercial 'lood 'anks is ger"ane to the purpose of the lawthat is to provide the nation with an ade%uate supply of safe'lood 'y pro"oting voluntary 'lood donation and treating 'loodtransfusion as a hu"anitarian or "edical service rather than aco""odity. Third the <egislature intended for the generaapplication of the law. 4ts enact"ent was not solely to address thepeculiar circu"stances of the situation nor was it intended toapply only to the e&isting conditions. <astly the law appliese%ually to all co""ercial 'lood 'anks without e&ception.

The pro"otion of pu'lic health is a funda"ental o'ligation of the+tate. The health of the people is a pri"ordial govern"entaconcern. 9asically the 1ational 9lood +ervices ct was enactedin the e&ercise of the +tate’s police power in order to pro"ote andpreserve pu'lic health and safety.

9ased on the grounds raised 'y petitioners to challenge theconstitutionality of the 1ational 9lood +ervices ct of :0 and its4"ple"enting Rules and Regulations the !ourt finds thapetitioners have failed to overco"e the presu"ption oconstitutionality of the law. s to whether the ct constitutes awise legislation considering the issues 'eing raised 'ypetitioners is for !ongress to deter"ine.

GR No. 15%93, &'() %, 200+Mir8!ol . D)p8r:)(: o> 6'li WorJ! 8(< $i@?8!

"ACTS# $n ?anuary :8 /88: petitioners filed 'efore the trial court a

#etition for Declaratory ?udg"ent with pplication for Te"poraryRestraining $rder and 4n*unction docketed as !ivil !ase 1o. 8:8@0. The petition sought the declaration of nullity of the followingad"inistrative issuances for 'eing inconsistent with the provisionsof Repu'lic ct /888 entitled E<i"ited ccess Aighway ctenacted in :,-

a. D#A d"inistrative $rder 1o. : +eries of :7I'. D#A Depart"ent $rder 1o. -0 +eries of :@Ic. rt. 44 +ec. @(a) of the Revised Rules on <i"ited ccess>acilities pro"ulgated in :JK 'y the D#A thru the TolRegulatory 9oard (TR9).

#reviously pursuant to its "andate under R.. /888 D#Aissued on ?une /, : Depart"ent $rder (D$) 1o. /:,

declaring the Manila;!avite (!oastal Road) Toll B&pressway asli"ited access facilities.

ccordingly petitioners filed an "ended #etition on >e'ruary /88: wherein petitioners sought the declaration of nullity of thesaid ad"inistrative issuances. Moreover petitioners prayed fothe issuance of a te"porary restraining order andOor preli"inaryin*unction to prevent the enforce"ent of the total 'an on"otorcycles along the entire 'readth of 1orth and +outh <u2onB&pressways and the Manila;!avite (!oastal Road) TolB&pressway under D$ /:,.

$n ?une / /88: the trial court thru then #residing ?udgeTeofilo Guadi2 after due hearing issued an order granting





petitioners’ application for preli"inary in*unction. $n ?uly :7/88: a writ of preli"inary in*unction was issued 'y the trial courtconditioned upon petitioners’ filing of cash 'ond in the a"ount of #:88888.88 which petitioners su'se%uently co"plied with.

$n ?uly : /88: the D#A acting thru the TR9 issuedDepart"ent $rder 1o. :/@ allowing "otorcycles with enginedisplace"ent of 088 cu'ic centi"eters inside li"ited accessfacilities (toll ways).

Ppon the assu"ption of Aonora'le #residing ?udge Ma. !ristina

!orne*o 'oth the petitioners and respondents were re%uired tofile their respective Me"oranda. #etitioners likewise filed JtheirK+upple"ental Me"orandu". Thereafter the case was dee"edsu'"itted for decision.

!onse%uently on March :8 /88@ the trial court issued theassailed decision dis"issing the petition 'ut declaring invalid D$:/@. #etitioners "oved for a reconsideration of the dis"issal of their petitionI 'ut it was denied 'y the trial court in its $rder dated?une :7 /88@.

Aence this petition.

ISSUES#1. hether D$ -0 D$ /:, and the TR9 regulations contravene R

/8882. hether $ : and D$ :/@ are unconstitutional

$ELD# The +upre"e !ourt declared constitutional $ : issued 'y the

then Depart"ent of #u'lic orks and !o""unications on>e'ruary : :7 that 'ans the use of 'icycles tricyclespedica's "otorcycles or any non"otori2ed vehicle on li"itedaccess highways. The !ourt e&plained that since the tollway isnot an ordinary road the sa"e 5necessitates the i"position of guidelines in the "anner of its use and operation.6

$n the other hand the !ourt declared unconstitutional and inviolation of 5The <i"ited ccess Aighway ct6 (R /888)Depart"ent $rders -0 and /:, released 'y the Depart"ent of #u'lic orks and Aighways (D#A) as well as the RevisedRules and Regulations on <i"ited ccess >acilities of the TollRegulatory 9oard (TR9). Depart"ent $rders -0 and /:, dated

pril , :@ and ?une /, : respectively declared the 1orth

and +outh <u2on (D$ -0) and the Manila;!avite TollB&pressways (D$ /:,) as li"ited access facilities. The !ourte&plained that at the ti"e D#A issued these orders it no longer had authority to regulate activities related to transportation.

4n contrast $ : was issued in :7 'y the then Depart"ent of #u'lic orks and !o""unications when it had the authority toregulate li"ited access facilities.

<ikewise the !ourt upheld the decision of the Makati !ityRegional Trial !ourt 9ranch :0- declaring D$ :/@ which li"itsaccess to the a'ove e&pressways to only 088cc "otorcycles asunconstitutional for want of authority of the D#A to pro"ulgatethe said order.

G.R. No. 132%5-+, ")r'8r 3, 20006)opl) !. &8lo!=o!

"ACTS#The accused;appellant Ro"eo ?alos*os is a full;fledged "e"'er of !ongress who is confined at the national penitentiary while hisconviction for statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness is pendingappeal. The accused;appellant filed a "otion asking that he 'e allowedto fully discharge the duties of a !ongress"an including attendance atlegislative sessions and co""ittee "eetings despite his having 'eenconvicted in the first instance of a non;'aila'le offense on the 'asis of popular sovereignty and the need for his constituents to 'erepresented.

ISSUE# hether or not accused;appellant should 'e allowed todischarge "andate as "e"'er of Aouse of Representatives

$ELD# Blection is the e&pression of the sovereign power of the people

Aowever inspite of its i"portance the privileges and rightsarising fro" having 'een elected "ay 'e enlarged or restricted 'ylaw.

The i""unity fro" arrest or detention of +enators and "e"'ersof the Aouse of Representatives arises fro" a provision of the

!onstitution. The privilege has always 'een granted in arestrictive sense. The provision granting an e&e"ption as aspecial privilege cannot 'e e&tended 'eyond the ordinary"eaning of its ter"s. 4t "ay not 'e e&tended 'y intend"enti"plication or e%uita'le considerations.

The accused;appellant has not given any reason why he should'e e&e"pted fro" the operation of +ec. :: rt. V4 of the!onstitution. The "e"'ers of !ongress cannot co"pel a'sen"e"'ers to attend sessions if the reason for the a'sence is alegiti"ate one. The confine"ent of a !ongress"an charged witha cri"e punisha'le 'y i"prison"ent of "ore than si& years is no"erely authori2ed 'y law it has constitutional foundations. Toallow accused;appellant to attend congressional sessions andco""ittee "eetings for , days or "ore in a week will virtually"ake hi" a free "an with all the privileges appurtenant to hisposition. +uch an a'errant situation not only elevates accused;

appellant’s status to that of a special class it also would 'e a"ockery of the purposes of the correction syste".

GR No. 19%1, &'() 2, 200%Trill8()! ! 6i)(:)l

"ACTS# t the wee hours of ?uly /- /88@ a group of "ore than @88

heavily ar"ed soldiers led 'y *unior officers of the r"ed >orcesof the #hilippines (>#) stor"ed into the $akwood #re"ie

part"ents in Makati !ity and pu'licly de"anded the resignationof the #resident and key national officials.

<ater in the day #resident Gloria Macapagal rroyo issued#rocla"ation 1o. 0/- and General $rder 1o. 0 declaring a stateof re'ellion and calling out the r"ed >orces to suppress the

re'ellion.J:K

series of negotiations %uelled the tee"ing tensionand eventually resolved the i"passe with the surrender of the"ilitant soldiers that evening.

4n the after"ath of this eventful episode du''ed as the E$akwood4ncidentE petitioner ntonio >. Trillanes 4V was charged alongwith his co"rades with coup dEetat defined under rticle :@0; othe Revised #enal !ode 'efore the Regional Trial !ourt (RT!) oMakati.

!lose to four years later petitioner who has re"ained indetention threw his hat in the political arena and won a seat inthe +enate with a si&;year ter" co""encing at noon on ?une @8/88-.

9efore the co""ence"ent of his ter" or on ?une // /88-petitioner filed with the RT! Makati !ity 9ranch :0 anE$"ni'us Motion for <eave of !ourt to 'e llowed to ttend

+enate +essions and Related Re%uests6 The trial court denied all the re%uests in the $"ni'us Motion.

#etitioner "oved for reconsideration in which he waived hisre%uests in paragraphs (') (c) and (f) to thus tri" the" down tothree.J-K The trial court *ust the sa"e denied the "otion.

The present petition for certiorari to set aside the two $rders othe trial court and for prohibition and +anda+us*

ISSUE# hether or not the E$"ni'us Motion for <eave of !ourt to 'e llowed to ttend +enate +essions and Related Re%uestsconstitutional.


http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/people-vs-jalosjos-gr-no-132875-76.html

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/people-vs-jalosjos-gr-no-132875-76.html




$ELD# The functions and duties of the office are not su'stantial

distinctions which lift one fro" the class of prisoners interrupted intheir freedo" and restricted in li'erty of "ove"ent.

4t cannot 'e gainsaid that a person charged with a cri"e is takeninto custody for purposes of the ad"inistration of *ustice. 1o lessthan the !onstitution provides.

ll persons e&cept those charged with offenses punisha'le 'yreclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong shall 'eforeconviction 'e 'aila'le 'y sufficient sureties or 'e released onrecogni2ance as "ay 'e provided 'y law.

4t is uncontroverted that petitionerCs application for 'ail and for release on recogni2ance was denied. The deter"ination that theevidence of guilt is strong whether ascertained in a hearing of anapplication for 'ail or i"ported fro" a trial courtCs *udg"ent of conviction *ustifies the detention of an accused as a validcurtail"ent of his right to provisional li'erty.

Ae "ust 'e detained in *ail during the pendency of the caseagainst hi" unless he is authori2ed 'y the court to 'e releasedon 'ail or on recogni2ance. <et it 'e stressed that all prisonerswhether under preventive detention or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any 'usiness or occupation or hold office elective or appointive while indetention. This is a necessary conse%uence of arrest and

detention. #etitioner pleads for the sa"e li'eral treat"ent accorded certain

detention prisoners who have also 'een charged with non;'aila'le offenses like for"er #resident ?oseph Bstrada andfor"er Governor 1ur Misuari who were allowed to attend Esocialfunctions.E >inding no rhy"e and reason in the denial of the "oreserious re%uest to perfor" the duties of a +enator petitioner harps on an alleged violation of the e%ual protection clause.

4n arguing against "aintaining dou'le standards in the treat"entof detention prisoners petitioner e&pressly ad"its that heintentionally did not seek preferential treat"ent in the for" of 'eing placed under +enate custody or house arrest yet he at thesa"e ti"e gripes a'out the granting of house arrest to others._

llowing accused;appellant to attend congressional sessions andco""ittee "eetings for five (,) days or "ore in a week will

virtually "ake hi" a free "an with all the privileges appurtenantto his position. +uch an a'errant situation not only elevatesaccused;appellantCs status to that of a special class it also would'e a "ockery of the purposes of the correction syste".

G.R. No. 14%51. S)p:))r 24, 2002USA ! 6URGANAN

"ACTS# #ursuant to the e&isting R#;P+ B&tradition Treaty the Pnited

+tates Govern"ent through diplo"atic channels sent to the#hilippine Govern"ent 1ote Ver'ale 1o. 8,// dated ?une :7: supple"ented 'y 1ote 1os. 8,- 8-/8 and 88 andacco"panied 'y duly authenticated docu"ents re%uesting thee&tradition of Mark 9. ?i"ene2 also known as Mario 9atacan!respo. Ppon receipt of the 1otes and docu"ents the secretary

of foreign affairs (+>) trans"itted the" to the secretary of *ustice(+$?) for appropriate action pursuant to +ection , of #residentialDecree (#D) 1o. :87 also known as the B&tradition <aw.

Ppon learning of the re%uest for his e&tradition ?i"ene2 soughtand was granted a Te"porary Restraining $rder (TR$) 'y theRT! of Manila 9ranch /,. The TR$ prohi'ited the Depart"entof ?ustice (D$?) fro" filing with the RT! a petition for hise&tradition. The +$? was ordered to furnish private respondentcopies of the e&tradition re%uest and its supporting papers and togrant the latter a reasona'le period within which to file a co""entand supporting evidence.

The !ourt held that private respondent was 'ereft of the right to

notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the e&traditionprocess.

>inding no "ore legal o'stacle the Govern"ent of the Pnited+tates of "erica represented 'y the #hilippine D$? filed withthe RT! on May : /88: the appropriate #etition for B&tradition

4n order to prevent the flight of ?i"ene2 the #etition prayed fothe issuance of an order for his 5i""ediate arrest6 pursuant to+ection 7 of #D 1o. :87.

9efore the RT! could act on the #etition Respondent ?i"ene2

filed 'efore it an 5Prgent ManifestationOB&;#arte Motion6 whichprayed that petitioner’s application for an arrest warrant 'e set fohearing. The RT! granted the Motion of ?i"ene2 and set thecase for hearing on ?une , /88:. 4n that hearing petitione"anifested its reservations on the procedure adopted 'y the triacourt allowing the accused in an e&tradition case to 'e heard prioto the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

4n his Me"orandu" ?i"ene2 sought an alternative prayer that incase a warrant should issue he 'e allowed to post 'ail in thea"ount of #:88888.

The !ourt directed the issuance of a warrant for his arrest andfi&ing 'ail for his te"porary li'erty at one "illion pesos in cash.

fter he had surrendered his passport and posted the re%uiredcash 'ond ?i"ene2 was granted provisional li'erty via thechallenged $rder dated ?uly 0 /88:.

ISSUE# hether or not 'eing an elected "e"'er of the Aouse ofRepresentatives is co"pelling enough for the !ourt to grant hisre%uest for provisional release on 'ail.

$ELD# fter 'eing taken into custody potential e&traditees "ay apply fo

'ail. +ince the applicants have a history of a'sconding theyhave the 'urden of showing that (a) there is no flight risk and nodanger to the co""unityI and (') there e&ist specialhu"anitarian or co"pelling circu"stances. The grounds used 'ythe highest court in the re%uesting state for the grant of 'aitherein "ay 'e considered under the principle of reciprocity as aspecial circu"stance. 4n e&tradition cases 'ail is not a "atter orightI it is su'*ect to *udicial discretion in the conte&t of the peculiafacts of each case.

4n the ulti"ate analysis the issue 'efore us 'oils down to a%uestion of constitutional e%ual protection.

The !onstitution guarantees `& & & nor shall any person 'edenied the e%ual protection of laws.’ This si"ply "eans that apersons si"ilarly situated shall 'e treated alike 'oth in rightsen*oyed and responsi'ilities i"posed. The organs of govern"en"ay not show any undue favoritis" or hostility to any person.1either partiality nor pre*udice shall 'e displayed.

The perfor"ance of legiti"ate and even essential duties 'y pu'licofficers has never 'een an e&cuse to free a person validly Jfro"prison. The duties i"posed 'y the `"andate of the people’ are"ultifarious. The accused;appellant asserts that the duty tolegislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of govern"ent. Theaccused;appellant is only one of /,8 "e"'ers of the Aouse oRepresentatives not to "ention the /0 "e"'ers of the +enate

charged with the duties of legislation. !ongress continues tofunction well in the physical a'sence of one or a few of its"e"'ers.

police officer "ust "aintain peace and order. 1ever has thecall of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a differenclassification fro" those others who are validly restrained 'y law.

strict scrutiny of classifications is essential lestJK wittingly ootherwise insidious discri"inations are "ade in favor of oagainst groups or types of individuals.

The !ourt cannot validate 'adges of ine%uality. The necessitiesi"posed 'y pu'lic welfare "ay *ustify e&ercise of govern"entauthority to regulate even if there'y certain groups "ay plausi'ly


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/sep2002/148571.htm%20%5C%20_edn6%20%5C%20














assert that their interests are disregarded. e therefore find that election to the position of !ongress"an is

not a reasona'le classification in cri"inal law enforce"ent. Thefunctions and duties of the office are not su'stantial distinctionswhich lift hi" fro" the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedo" and restricted in li'erty of "ove"ent. <awful arrest andconfine"ent are ger"ane to the purposes of the law and apply toall those 'elonging to the sa"e class.

GR No. 143%, D)))r 10, 2003

"8ri(8! ! E;)':i) S)r):8r

"ACTS# The petitioners co"e to the !ourt alleging in the "ain that

+ection :0 of Rep. ct 1o. 887 insofar as it repeals +ection 7-of the $"ni'us Blection !ode is unconstitutional for 'eing inviolation of +ection /7(:) rticle V4 of the !onstitution re%uiringevery law to have only one su'*ect which should 'e e&pressed inits title.

ccording to the petitioners the inclusion of +ection :0 repealing+ection 7- of the $"ni'us Blection !ode in Rep. ct 1o. 887constitutes a proscri'ed rider.

Rep. ct 1o. 887 pri"arily deals with the lifting of the 'an on theuse of "edia for election propaganda and the eli"ination of unfair election practices while +ection 7- of the $"ni'us Blection !ode

i"poses a li"itation on elective officials who run for an officeother than the one they are holding in a per"anent capacity 'yconsidering the" as ipso facto resigned therefro" upon filing of the certificate of candidacy. The repeal of +ection 7- of the$"ni'us Blection !ode is thus not e"'raced in the title nor ger"ane to the su'*ect "atter of Rep. ct 1o. 887.

The petitioners also assert that +ection :0 of Rep. ct 1o. 887violates the e%ual protection clause of the !onstitution 'ecause itrepeals +ection 7- only of the $"ni'us Blection !ode leavingintact +ection 77 thereof which i"poses a si"ilar li"itation toappointive officials thus

+B!. 77. Candidates holding appointive office or position. L nyperson holding a pu'lic appointive office or position includingactive "e"'ers of the r"ed >orces of the #hilippines andofficers and e"ployees in govern"ent;owned or controlled

corporations shall 'e considered ipso facto resigned fro" hisoffice upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. They contend that +ection :0 of Rep. ct 1o. 887 discri"inates

against appointive officials. 9y the repeal of +ection 7- anelective official who runs for office other than the one which he isholding is no longer considered ipso facto resigned therefro"upon filing his certificate of candidacy. Blective officials continuein pu'lic office even as they ca"paign for reelection or electionfor another elective position. $n the other hand +ection 77 has'een retainedI thus the li"itation on appointive officials re"ains ;they are still considered ipso facto resigned fro" their officesupon the filing of their certificates of candidacy.

The respondents petitions contending preli"inarily that thepetitioners have no legal standing to institute the present suit.

4nvoking the 5enrolled 'ill6 doctrine. The signatures of the +enate

#resident and the +peaker of the Aouse appearing on the 'illand the certification signed 'y the respective +ecretaries of 'othhouses of !ongress constitute proof 'eyond cavil that the 'illwas duly enacted into law.

The respondents contend that +ection :0 of Rep. ct 1o. 887as it repeals +ection 7- of the $"ni'us Blection !ode is not aproscri'ed rider nor does it violate +ection /7(:) of rticle V4 of the !onstitution. The title of Rep. ct 1o. 887 5n ct toBnhance the Aolding of >ree $rderly Aonest #eaceful and!redi'le Blections through >air Blection #ractices6 is so 'roadthat it enco"passes all the processes involved in an electione&ercise including the filing of certificates of candidacy 'yelective officials.

ISSUE# hether or not +ection :0 of Rep. ct 1o. 887 violates thee%ual protection clause of the !onstitution.

$ELD# The petitioners’ contention that the repeal of +ection 7- of the

$"ni'us Blection !ode pertaining to elective officials gives undue'enefit to such officials as against the appointive ones andviolates the e%ual protection clause of the constitution is tenuous

The e%ual protection of the law clause in the !onstitution is noa'solute 'ut is su'*ect to reasona'le classification. 4f thegroupings are characteri2ed 'y su'stantial distinctions that "akereal differences one class "ay 'e treated and regulateddifferently fro" the other. The !ourt has e&plained the nature othe e%ual protection guarantee in this "anner

The e%ual protection of the law clause is against undue favor andindividual or class privilege as well as hostile discri"ination or theoppression of ine%uality. 4t is not intended to prohi'it legislationwhich is li"ited either in the o'*ect to which it is directed or 'yterritory within which it is to operate. 4t does not de"and a'solutee%uality a"ong residentsI it "erely re%uires that all persons shal'e treated alike under li8e circu+stances and conditions 'oth asto privileges conferred and lia'ilities enforced. The e%uaprotection clause is not infringed 'y legislation which applies onlyto those persons falling within a specified class if it applies alike

to all persons within such class and reasona'le grounds e&ist fo"aking a distinction 'etween those who fall within such class andthose who do not.

+u'stantial distinctions clearly e&ist 'etween elective officials andappointive officials. The for"er occupy their office 'y virtue of the"andate of the electorate. They are elected to an office for adefinite ter" and "ay 'e re"oved therefro" only upon stringenconditions. $n the other hand appointive officials hold theioffice 'y virtue of their designation thereto 'y an appointingauthority. +o"e appointive officials hold their office in aper"anent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure whileothers serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

nother su'stantial distinction 'etween the two sets of officials isthat appointive officials as officers and e"ployees in the civiservice are strictly prohi'ited fro" engaging in any partisanpolitical activity or take part in any election e&cept to vote. Pnde

the sa"e provision elective officials or officers or e"ployeesholding political offices are o'viously e&pressly allowed to takepart in political and electoral activities.

9y repealing +ection 7- 'ut retaining +ection 77 of the $"ni'usBlection !ode the legislators dee"ed it proper to treat these twoclasses of officials differently with respect to the effect on theitenure in the office of the filing of the certificates of candidacy foany position other than those occupied 'y the". gain it is nowithin the power of the !ourt to pass upon or look into the wisdo"of this classification.

+ince the classification *ustifying +ection :0 of Rep. ct 1o. 887i*e* elected officials vis3a3vis appointive officials is anchoredupon "aterial and significant distinctions and all the persons'elonging under the sa"e classification are si"ilarly treated thee%ual protection clause of the !onstitution is thus not infringed.

4n conclusion it 'ears reiterating that one of the fir"ly entrenchedprinciples in constitutional law is that the courts do not involvethe"selves with nor delve into the policy or wisdo" of a statute.That is the e&clusive concern of the legislative 'ranch of thegovern"ent. hen the validity of a statute is challenged onconstitutional grounds the sole function of the court is todeter"ine whether it transcends constitutional li"itations or theli"its of legislative power . 1o such transgression has 'eenshown in this case.

W$ERE"ORE the petitions are D4+M4++BD

GR No. 12%%%45, &'() 01, 2000


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/147387.htm%20%5C%20_ftn44%20%5C%20
















INTL SC$OOL ALLIANCE O" EDUCATORS /S FUISUM*ING(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<





- THE NON IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE -

EMERGENCY POWERS

93 6$IL +%, 1953RUTTER /S ESTE*AN(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

ZONING AND REGULATORY ORDINANCES

154 SCRA 142, 19%/ILLANUE/A /S CASTANEDA(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

G.R. No. 11+9 D)))r 22, 19%%SANGALANG /S IAC

"ACTS# 9el;ir Village is located north of 9uendia venue e&tension (now

+en. Gil ?. #uyat ve.) across a stretch of co""ercial 'lock 9el;ir Village was owned and developed into a residential

su'division in the :,8s 'y Makati Develop"ent !orporation

(hereinafter referred to as MD!) which in :7 was "erged withappellant yala

The lots which were ac%uired 'y appellees +angalang andspouse Gaston and spouse and 9riones and spouse in :78:,- and :, respectively were all sold 'y MD! su'*ect tocertain conditions and ease"ents contained in Deed Restrictionswhich for"ed a part of each deed of sale

The owner of this lotOs or his successors in interest is re%uired to'e and is auto"atically a "e"'er of the 9el;ir ssociation and"ust a'ide 'y such rules and regulations laid down 'y the

ssociation in the interest of the sanitation security and thegeneral welfare

$n pril 0 :-, the "unicipal council of Makati enacted itsordinance 1o. : providing for the 2onification of Makati . Pnder this $rdinance 9el;ir Village was classified as a !lass

Residential one with its 'oundary in the south e&tending to thecenter line of ?upiter +treet

There is a peri"eter wall then standing on the co""ercial side of ?upiter +treet the destruction of which opened the street to thepu'lic.

ISSUE# hether or not the MM! $rdinance represents a legit"atee&ercise of police power3

$ELD #Pndou'tedly the MM! $rdinance represents a legiti"ate e&ercise of police power. The petitioners have not shown why we should holdotherwise other than for the supposed Enon;i"pair"entE guaranty of the !onstitution which as we have declared is secondary to the "oreco"pelling interests of general welfare. The $rdinance has not 'eenshown to 'e capricious or ar'itrary or unreasona'le to warrant the

reversal of the *udg"ents so appealed.

HG.R. No. 12+102. D)))r 4, 2000ORTIGAS B CO. LTD., p):i:io()r, !. T$E COURT O" A66EALS8(< ISMAEL G. MAT$A III, r)!po(<)(:!.

"ACTS# $n ugust /, :-7 petitioner $rtigas N !o"pany sold to B"ilia

Aer"oso a parcel of land known as <ot : 9lock /: #sd;77-,with an area of :,8 s%uare "eters located in Greenhills+u'division 4V +an ?uan Metro Manila and covered 'y Transfer !ertificate of Title 1o. 8-@-. The contract of sale provided thatthe lot 'e used e&clusivelyfor residential purposes only and

not "ore than one single;fa"ily residential 'uilding will 'econstructed thereon The 9P=BR shall not erectany sign o'ill'oard on the rooffor advertising purposes restrictionsshall run with the land and shall 'e construed as real covenantsuntil Dece"'er @: /8/, when they shall cease and ter"inateThese and the other conditions were duly annotated on thecertificate of title issued to B"ilia.

4n :: the Metropolitan Manila !o""ission (now MetropolitanManila Develop"ent uthority) enacted MM! $rdinance 1o. :;8: also known as the !o"prehensive oning rea for the

1ational !apital Region. The ordinance reclassified as aco""ercial area a portion of $rtigas venue fro" Madison toRoosevelt +treets of Greenhills +u'division where the lot islocated.

$n ?une :0 private respondent 4s"ael Mathay 444 leased thelot fro" B"ilia Aer"oso and ?.#. Aer"oso Realty !orp.. Thelease contract did not specify the purposes of the leaseThereupon private respondent constructed a single storyco""ercial 'uilding for Greenhills utohaus 4nc. a car salesco"pany.

ISSUES#1. hether or not the restrictions "ust prevail over the ordinance

specially since these restrictions were agreed upon 'efore thepassage of MM! $rdinance 1o. :;8:3

2. hether or not respondent Mathay 444 as a "ere lessee of the lo

in %uestion is a total stranger to the deed of sale and is thus'arred fro" %uestioning the conditions of said deed

$ELD# The legal syste" upholds the sanctity of contract so that a

contract is dee"ed law 'etween the contracting partiesnonetheless stipulations in a contract cannot contravene 5law"orals good custo"s pu'lic order or pu'lic policy. 1oni"pair"ent of contracts or vested rights clauses will have to yieldto the superior and legiti"ate e&ercise 'y the +tate of policepower to pro"ote the health "orals peace education goodorder safety and general welfare of the people. Moreoverstatutes in e&ercise of valid police power "ust 'e read into everycontract.

real party in interest is defined as 5the party who stands to 'e

'enefited or in*ured 'y the *udg"ent or the party entitled to theavails of the suit.6 4t is noted that the lessee who 'uilt theco""ercial structure it is he and he alone who stands to 'eeither 'enefited or in*ured 'y the results of the *udg"ent in !ivi!ase 1o. 70@:. Ae avers he is the party with real interest in thesu'*ect "atter of the action as it would 'e his 'usiness not theAer"osos.

ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS

G.R. No. L-32312 No))r 25, 19%3AURELIO TIRO !. $ONORA*LE AGA6ITO $ONTANOSAS

"ACTS#

4n !ivil !ase 1o. ::7:7 of the defunct !ourt of >irst 4nstance of!e'u afra >inancing Bnterprise sued urelio Tiro in his officiacapacity as +uperintendent of +chools in !e'u !ity. 4t appearsthat afra had e&tended loans to pu'lic school teachers in !e'u!ity and the teachers concerned e&ecuted pro"issory notes andspecial powers of attorney in favor of afra to take and collecttheir salary checks fro" the Division $ffice in !e'u !ity of the9ureau of #u'lic +chools. Aowever Tiro for'ade the collection othe checks on the 'asis of !ircular 1o. /: series :7 datedDece"'er , :7 of the Director of #u'lic +chools.

afra sought to co"pel Tiro to honor the special powers oattorneyI to declare !ircular 1o. /: to 'e illegalI and to "ake Tiro


http://karsy/Desktop/obligations%20n%20contracts/126102.htm%20/%20_edn17%20/









pay attorneyCs fees and da"ages. The trial court granted theprayer of afra 'ut the clai" for "oney was disallowed on theground that he acted in good faith in i"ple"enting !ircular 1o./:.

ISSUE# The core issue is whether or not !ircular 1o. /: is valid andenforcea'le and the answer is definitely in the affir"ative.

$ELD#

The salary check of a govern"ent officer or e"ployee such as ateacher does not 'elong to hi" 'efore it is physically delivered tohi". Pntil that ti"e the check 'elongs to the Govern"ent.

ccordingly 'efore there is actual delivery of the check thepayee has no power over itI he cannot assign it without theconsent of the Govern"ent. $n this 'asis !ircular 1o. /: standson fir" legal footing.

afraCs clai" that the !ircular i"pairs the o'ligation of contractswith the teachers is 'aseless. >or the !ircular does not preventafra fro" collecting the loans. The !ircular "erely "akes theGovern"ent a non;participant in their collection which is within itsco"petence to do.

ADMIN REG - RENTAL LAWS

G.R. No. 3+5 April , 1992C8l)o( !. A@'! D))lop)(: Corpor8:io(

"ACTS#Respondent is the owner of a parcel of land which it leased topetitioner Rita !aleon for a "onthly rental of #:8.88. #etitioner constructed on the lot leased a 0;door apart"ent 'uilding. ithout theconsent of the private respondent the petitioner su';leased two of thefour doors of the apart"ent for a "onthly rental of #@,8.88 each. Pponlearning of the su';lease private respondent through counselde"anded in writing that the petitioner vacate the leased pre"ises. >or failure of petitioner to co"ply with the de"and private respondent fileda co"plaint for e*ect"ent against the petitioner citing as groundtherefor the provisions of 9atas #a"'ansa 9lg. /, +ection , which isthe unauthori2ed su';leasing of part of the leased pre"ises to thirdpersons without securing the consent of the lessor within the re%uired

si&ty (78);day period fro" the pro"ulgation of the new law (9.#. /,).The petitioner argued that the said law cannot 'e applied 'ecausethere is a perfected contract of lease without any e&press prohi'ition insu'leasing which had 'een in effect 'etween the parties long 'eforethe enact"ent of 9# /,.

ISSUES#1. $1 the petitioner violated the provisions of +ection , 9atas

#a"'ansa 9lg. /, which is a ground for B*ect"ent.2. $1 9atas #a"'ansa 9lg. /, in application to the case at 'ar is

unconstitutional as an i"pair"ent of the o'ligation of contracts.3. $1 the petitioner can invoke the pro"otion of social *ustice

policy of the 1ew !onstitution.

$ELD# The issue has already 'een laid to rest in the case of uello+e

vs* ;otico where the court ruled that the leased of the 'uildingnaturally includes the lease of the lot and the rentals of the'uilding to the lot. Pnder our !ivil !ode the occupancy of a'uilding or house not only suggests or i"plies the tenancy or possession in fact on the land on which they are constructed. 4nthe case at 'ar it is 'eyond dispute that petitioner in leasing her apart"ent has also su'leased the lot on which it is constructedwhich lot 'elongs to private respondent. !onse%uently she hasviolated the provisions of +ection , 9atas #a"'ansa 9lg. /,which enu"erates the grounds for *udicial e*ect"ent a"ongwhich is the su'leasing of residential units without the writtenconsent of the ownerOlessor.

ell settled that all presu"ptions are indulged in favor oconstitutionalityI one who attacks a statute allegingunconstitutionality "ust prove its invalidity 'eyond a reasona'ledou't.

4n any event it is now 'eyond %uestion that the constitutionaguaranty of non;i"pair"ent of o'ligations of contract is li"ited 'yand su'*ect to the e&ercise of police power of the state in theinterest of pu'lic health safety "orals and general welfare. Thispower can 'e activated at anyti"e to change the provisions of the

contract or even a'rogate it entirely for the pro"otion oprotection of the general welfare. +uch an act will not "ilitateagainst the i"pair"ent clause which is su'*ect to and li"ited 'ythe para"ount police power.

9atas #a"'ansa 9lg. /, is derived fro" #.D. 1o. /8 which has'een declared 'y this !ourt as a police power legislationapplica'le to leases entered into prior to ?uly :0 :-: (effectivitydate of R 7,@) so that the applica'ility thereof to e&istingcontracts cannot 'e denied.

>inally petitioner invokes a"ong others the pro"otion of socia *ustice policy of the 1ew !onstitution. <ike #.D. 1o. /8 theo'*ective of 9atas #a"'ansa 9lg. /, is to re"edy the plight olessees 'ut such o'*ective is not su'*ect to e&ploitation 'y thelessees for whose 'enefit the law was enacted. Thus theprohi'ition provided for in the law against the su'lease of thepre"ises without the consent of the owner. s enunciated 'y this

!ourt it "ust 'e re"e"'ered that social *ustice cannot 'einvoked to tra"ple on the rights of property owners who undeour !onstitution and laws are also entitled to protection. Thesocial *ustice consecrated in our !onstitution was not intended totake away rights fro" a person and give the" to another who isnot entitled thereto.

The petition is denied for lack of "erit.

ADMIN REG - TAX EXEMPTIONS

G.R. No. 131359 M8 5, 1999MERALCO !. 6roi() o> L8@'(8 8(< *)(i:o *8l8o

"ACTS#

#rovince of <aguna 'y virtue of e&isting laws issued resolutionsthrough their respective "unicipal councils granting >r8(?i!) infavor of petitioner Manila Blectric !o"pany (5MBR<!$6) for thesupply of electric light heat and power within their concernedareas.

$n :: Repu'lic ct 1o. -:78 was enacted to take effect on:/ en*oining local govern"ent units to create their own sourcesof revenue and to levy ta&es fees and charges su'*ect to theli"itations e&pressed therein consistent with the 'asic policy oflocal autono"y. #ursuant to the provisions of the !oderespondent province enacted an $rdinance i"posing a ta& on'usiness en*oying a franchise at a rate of fifty percent (,8) oone percent (:) of the gross annual receipts which shall include'oth cash sales and sales on account reali2ed during thepreceding calendar year within this province including theterritorial li"its on any city located in the province.

9ased on the ordinance respondent #rovincial Treasurer sent ade"and letter to MBR<!$ for the corresponding ta& pay"ent#etitioner paid the ta& which is under protest. for"al clai" forefund was thereafter sent 'y MBR<!$ to the #rovinciaTreasurer of <aguna clai"ing that the franchise ta& it had paidand continued to pay to the 1ational Govern"ent pursuant to #.D,,: already included the franchise ta& i"posed 'y the #rovinciaTa& $rdinance. MBR<!$ contended that the i"position of afranchise ta& under <aguna #rovincial $rdinance contravenedthe provisions of +ection : of #.D. ,,: which provides G0ny

provision of la# or local ordinance to the contrarynot#ithstanding, the franchise tax payable by all grantees of





franchises to generate, distribute and sell electric current for light,heat and po#er shall be t#o per cent 4BH5 of their gross receiptsreceived fro+ the sale of electric current and fro+ transactionsincident to the generation, distribution and sale of electric current*III +uch franchise ta& shall 'e paya'le'e in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature i"posed 'y anynational or local authority on earnings receipts inco"e andprivilege of generation distri'ution and sale of electric current.6

The clai" was deniedI respondents relied on a "ore recent lawRepu'lic ct 1o. -:78 than the old decree invoked 'y petitioner.

#etitioner MBR<!$ filed a co"plaint for refund.

ISSUE# $1 <aguna #rovincial ordinance is violative of the non;i"pair"ent clause of the !onstitution and of #D 1o. ,,:.

$ELD# <ocal govern"ents do not have the inherent power to ta& e&cept

to the e&tent that such power "ight 'e delegated to the" either 'y the 'asic law or 'y statute. Pnder the now prevailing!onstitution where there is neither a grant nor a prohi'ition 'ystatute the ta& power "ust 'e dee"ed to e&ist although!ongress "ay provide statutory li"itations and guidelines. The'asic rationale for the current rule is to safeguard the via'ility andself;sufficiency of local govern"ent units 'y directly granting the"general and 'road ta& powers. 1evertheless the funda"entallaw did not intend the delegation to 'e a'solute and

unconditionalI the constitutional o'*ective o'viously is to ensurethat while the local govern"ent units are 'eing strengthened and"ade "ore autono"ous the legislature "ust still see to it that (a)the ta&payer will not 'e over;'urdened or saddled with "ultipleand unreasona'le i"positionsI (') each local govern"ent unit willhave its fair share of availa'le resourcesI (c) the resources of thenational govern"ent will not 'e unduly distur'edI and (d) localta&ation will 'e fair unifor" and *ust.

4ndicative of the legislative intent to carry out the !onstitutional"andate of vesting 'road ta& powers to local govern"ent unitsthe <ocal Govern"ent !ode has effectively withdrawn under +ection :@ of R -:78 ta& e&e"ptions or incentives en*oyed 'ycertain entities.

4n the recent case the !ourt has held that the phrase in lieu of allta&es 5have to give way to the pere"ptory language of the <ocal

Govern"ent !ode specifically providing for the withdrawal of suche&e"ptions privileges6 and that 5upon the effectivity of the <ocalGovern"ent !ode all e&e"ptions e&cept only as provided thereincan no longer 'e invoked 'y MBR<!$ to disclai" lia'ility for thelocal ta&.6 4n fine the !ourt has viewed its previous rulings aslaying stress "ore on the legislative intent of the a"endatory law

L whether the ta& e&e"ption privilege is to 'e withdrawn or not Lrather than on whether the law can withdraw without violating the!onstitution the ta& e&e"ption or not.

hile the !ourt has not too infre%uently referred to ta&e&e"ptions contained in special franchises as 'eing in the natureof contracts and a part of the induce"ent for carrying on thefranchise these e&e"ptions are far fro" 'eing strictly contractualin nature. !ontractual ta& e&e"ptions in the real sense of theter" and where the non;i"pair"ent clause of the !onstitution canrightly 'e invoked are those agreed to 'y the ta&ing authority incontracts such as those contained in govern"ent 'onds or de'entures lawfully entered into 'y the" under ena'ling laws inwhich the govern"ent acting in its private capacity sheds itscloak of authority and waives its govern"ental i""unity. Trulyta& e&e"ptions of this kind "ay not 'e revoked without i"pairingthe o'ligations of contracts.

T?)!) o(:r8:'8l :8; );)p:io(! 8r) (o: :o ) o(>'!)<

i:? :8; );)p:io(! @r8(:)< '(<)r >r8(?i!)!. A >r8(?i!)p8r:8J)! :?) (8:'r) o> 8 @r8(: ?i? i! )o(< :?) p'ri) o> :?) (o(-ip8ir)(: l8'!) o> :?) Co(!:i:':io(. rticle F44+ection :: of the :- !onstitution like its precursor provisionsin the :@, and the :-@ !onstitutions is e&plicit that nofranchise for the operation of a pu'lic utility shall 'e granted

e&cept under the condition that such privilege shall 'e su'*ect toa"end"ent alteration or repeal 'y !ongress as and when theco""on good so re%uires.

#etition is dis"issed.

G.R. No. L-1330 ")r'8r 3, 1919L8 I(!'l8r !. M8?'8

"ACTS#

<a 4nsular is a co""ercial partnership engaged in the"anufacture of cigars and cigarettes in the city of Manila. $n::@ a contract was entered into 'etween its general agent andthe two defendants Manuel 1u'la !o;+iong and Rafael MachucaGo;Tauco where'y the plaintiff 'eca"e o'liged to supplycigarettes daily to Manuel 1u'la. The price was fi&ed at :-/ per'o&. Manuel is the principal o'ligor while Rafael Machuca 'oundhi"self as surety *ointly and severally with Manuel 1u'la. 4appears that when the contract was e&ecuted cigarettes weresu'*ect to a specific ta& of the peso for each thousand cigarettesThis ta& was under the law then prevailing paid 'y the"anufacturer and the lia'ility for said ta& naturally fell upon theplaintiff. 9y ct 1o. /0@/ enacted Dece"'er /@ ::0 the#hilippine <egislature increased the specific ta& on cigarettesfro" #: to #:./8 per thousand cigarettes and 'y a"endatory c1o. /00, effective fro" ?anuary : ::, it was declared that asregards contracts already "ade for future delivery the 'urden of

the increased ta& should unless the parties should haveotherwise agreed 'e 'orne 'y the person to who" the articleta&ed should 'e furnished.

fter this provision 'eco"e effective the plaintiff continued as'efore to pay the internal;revenue ta&es and in order torei"'urse itself to the e&tent of the outlay incident to the increasein the ta& added the a"ount of #:8 per 'o& to the price of thecigarettes. The "onthly state"ents thereafter su'"itted to thepurchaser 'y the plaintiff showed this increaseI and as pay"entswere fro" ti"e to ti"e "ade 'y 1u'la they were credited 'y theplaintiff upon account with the result that upon the showing othe plaintiffCs 'ooks and assu"ing that 1u'la had 'een properlycharged with the increased ta& all cigarettes delivered prior to

ugust : ::7 had 'een fully paid for. During the "onths o ugust and +epte"'er however fifty;si& cases of cigarettes weretaken 'y 1u'la for which no pay"ent has 'een "adeI and fo

the recovery of the a"ount alleged to 'e due for these cigarettesthis action was instituted 'y the plaintiff in the !ourt of >irst4nstance. ?udg"ent having 'een there rendered in favor of theplaintiff 'oth defendants have appealed. The trial court ruledthat as a surety Machura’s lia'ility was li"ited to the pay"ent othe price stipulated in the original contract.

ISSUE# $1 <egislative cts "entioned altered the o'ligation of thecontract in %uestion as to release the surety in his inde'tedness.

$ELD# rticle :/- of the !ivil !ode declares that the lia'ility of a surety

is not to 'e e&tended 'y i"plication 'eyond the ter"s of hiscontract. ell;recogni2ed rule of *urisprudence that if any"aterial alteration or change in the o'ligation of the principao'ligator is effected 'y the i""ediate parties to the contract

without the asset of the surety the latter is discharged. 4n order toeffect a release of the surety the change in the contract "ust asa general rule 'e "ade 'y the principal parties to the contract4ndeed no valid or effective change in the contract can generallyspeaking 'e "ade 'y any other person than the actual partiesthereto. recogni2ed e&ception H "ore apparent than real H isfound in cases where sureties on official 'onds have 'een held to'e released as a result of changes effected 'y the <egislature inthe duration of the official ter" or in the duties of the officer whosefidelity is intended to 'e secured 'y the 'ond. The law isparticularly watchful over the rights of sureties. To per"it partiesto alter and "odify their contracts as they please and to hold thesureties answera'le for the perfor"ance of such parts as were

UNI/ERSIT O" SAN CARLOS ROOM 410%0




not altered would 'e transferring their responsi'ility without their consent fro" one contract to another. The contract 'y the"odification and alternation 'eco"es a new and differentcontract and one for which the sureties never 'eco"eresponsi'le.

9ased on the recogni2ed e&e"ption the cts of the <egislature'y which the increased ta& on cigarettes was i"posed neither i"paired in a constitutional sense the o'ligation of the contractwhich is the 'asis of this action nor changed that o'ligation insuch sense as to occasion the discharge of the surety.

The surety is clearly 'ound 'y the application of the pay"ents"ade 'y the creditor with the assent of the principal de'tor andno dou't that when Manuel 1u'la fro" ti"e to ti"e paid the 'illssu'"itted 'y the plaintiff and which after ?anuary : ::,showed an increased of #:8 per case in the price of thecigarettes he very well knew that this additional a"ount was dueto the inclusion of the new ta& paid 'y the plaintiff.

The *udg"ent appealed fro" is affir"ed.

ADMIN REG - POLICE POWER

GR L-+3419, 1% D)))r 19%+LOANO /S. MARTINE

"ACTS# <o2ano vs. Martine2 (GR <;7@0:) <o'aton vs. !ru2 (GR <;

77@;0/) Datuin vs. #ano (GR -:7,0) Violago vs. #ano (GR-0,/0;/,) 'ad vs. Gerochi (GR -,://;0) guili2 vs. #residing?udge of 9ranch :,0 (GR -,:/;:@) Ao*as vs. #enaranda (GR-,-7,;7-) and #eople vs. 1itafan (GR -,-) are cases involvingprosecution of offenses under 9# // which were consolidatedherein as the parties (defendants) thereto %uestion theconstitutionality of the statute 9# //.

The defendants in those cases "oved seasona'ly to %uash theinfor"ations on the ground that the acts charged did notconstitute an offense the statute 'eing unconstitutional. The"otions were denied 'y the respondent trial courts e&cept in onecase which is the su'*ect of G. R. 1o. -,- wherein the trial

court declared the law unconstitutional and dis"issed the case.The parties adversely affected asked for relief.

ISSUE# hether 9# // is constitutional.

$ELD# ES.The language of 9#// is 'road enough to cover all kinds of checkswhether present dated or post dated whether issued in pay"ent of pre;e&isting o'ligations or given in "utual or si"ultaneous e&changefor so"ething of value. 9# // is ai"ed to put a stop or to cur' thepractice of issuing worthless checks which is proscri'ed 'y the +tate'ecause of the in*ury it causes to pu'lic interests. The grava"en of theoffense punished 'y 9# // is the act of "aking or issuing a worthlesscheck or a check which is dishonored upon its presentation for pay"ent. it is not the non;pay"ent of an o'ligation which the lawpunishes. The law pu'lishes the act not as an offense against property'ut an offense against pu'lic order. The enact"ent of 9# // is a valid

e&ercise of police power and is not repugnant to the constitutionalinhi'ition against i"prison"ent for de't. The statute is notunconstitutional.

G.R. No. L-20344 M8 1+, 19++ILUSORIO /S. CAR

"ACTS# #etitioners assail the constitutionality of +ection :0 of Repu'lic

ct 1o. :: as a"ended upon the ground that it violates thefreedo" of contract and i"pairs property rights as well as theo'ligation of contracts.

#etitioners herein #otenciano 4lusorio and Teresa 4lusorio are coowners of a parcel of land situated in the 9arrio of 9antugMunicipality of +an Miguel #rovince of 9ulacan. The "ainrespondents herein have for years worked on said land under theshare tenancy syste". 9efore the 'eginning of the agriculturayear :78;:7: they gave notice to the petitioners in confor"itywith the provisions of +ection :0 of Repu'lic ct 1o. :: asa"ended that they (respondents) wanted to change their tenancycontract fro" said syste" to leasehold tenancy. The 4lusorioshaving refused to agree thereto said respondents H and three

other tenants whose clai"s were dis"issed 'y the !ourt o grarian Relations H instituted this proceedings in said court on1ove"'er :7 :78. The "ain defense set up 'y petitionersherein as respondents in said court is that the afore"entioned+ection :0 of Repu'lic ct 1o. :: as a"ended isunconstitutional which was re*ected 'y the lower court. Aencethis appeal in which the 4lusorios "aintain (:) that said provisionis unconstitutionalI and (/) that the lower court had actedar'itrarily in fi&ing the rentals collecti'le 'y the" fro"respondents herein at /8 of the average harvest for theagricultural years :,;:78 :78;:7: and :7:;:7/.

ISSUES#1. hether the prohi'ition against i"pair"ent of contracts is

a'solute.2. hether R.. :: is constitutional.

$ELD#1. NO. The prohi'ition contained in constitutional provisions agains

i"pairing the o'ligation of contracts is not an a'solute one. +uchprovisions are restricted to contracts with respect property oso"e o'*ect of value and confer rights which "ay 'e asserted ina court of *ustice and have no application to statute relating topu'lic su'*ects within the do"ain of the general legislative powersof the +tate and involving the pu'lic right and pu'lic welfare othe entire co""unity affected 'y it. They do not prevent propere&ercise 'y the +tate of its police powers. 9y enacting regulationsreasona'ly necessary to secure the health safety "oralsco"fort or general welfare of the co""unity even the contracts"ay there'y 'e affectedI for such "atter cannot 'e placed 'ycontract 'eyond the power of the +tate to regulate and controthe".

2. ES. Repu'lic ct ::" including +ection :0 thereof which

per"its the tenants to change the nature of their relation with theilandlord fro" tenancy syste" to leasehold tenancy isconstitutional. 4t is a re"edial legislation pro"ulgated pursuant tothe social *ustice precepts of the !onstitution and in the e&erciseof the police power of the +tate to pro"ote the co""on weal. 4t isa statute relating to pu'lic su'*ects within the do"ain of thegeneral legislative powers of the +tate and involving the pu'licrights and pu'lic welfare of the entire co""unity affected 'y itRepublic 0ct (()) like the previous tenancy law enacted 'y oulaw;"aking 'ody was passed 'y !ongress in co"pliance withthe constitutional "andate that Ethe pro"otion of social *ustice toinsure the well;'eing and econo"ic security of all the peopleshould be the concern of the State E (rt. 44 sec. ,) and that Ethe+tate shall regulate the relations 'etween landlord and tenant ..in agriculture ... .E (rt. F4V see. 7).

G.R. No. L-32312 No))r 25, 19%3TIRO /S. $ONTANOSAS

"ACTS# afra >inancing Bnterprise sued urelio Tiro in his official capacity

as +uperintendent of +chools in !e'u !ity. 4t appears that afrahad e&tended loans to pu'lic school teachers in !e'u !ity andthe teachers concerned e&ecuted pro"issory notes and speciapowers of attorney in favor of afra to take and collect their salarychecks fro" the Division $ffice in !e'u !ity of the 9ureau o#u'lic +chools. Aowever Tiro for'ade the collection of the checkson the 'asis of !ircular 1o. /: series :7 dated Dece"'er ,:7 of the Director of #u'lic +chools.


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/may1966/gr_l-20344_1966.html

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1966/may1966/gr_l-20344_1966.html




afra sought to co"pel Tiro to honor the special powers of attorneyI to declare !ircular 1o. /: to 'e illegalI and to "ake Tiropay attorneyCs fees and da"ages. The trial court granted theprayer of afra 'ut the clai" for "oney was disallowed on theground that he acted in good faith in i"ple"enting !ircular 1o./:.

Tiro now seeks in this petition for review a reversal of the trialcourtCs decision.

ISSUE# hether !ircular 1o. /: i"pairs the o'ligation of contracts.

$ELD# NO. afraCs clai" that the !ircular i"pairs the o'ligation of contracts

with the teachers is 'aseless. >or the !ircular does not preventafra fro" collecting the loans. The !ircular "erely "akes theGovern"ent a non;participant in their collection which is within itsco"petence to do.

The salary check of a govern"ent officer or e"ployee such as ateacher does not 'elong to hi" 'efore it is physically delivered tohi". Pntil that ti"e the check 'elongs to the Govern"ent.

ccordingly 'efore there is actual delivery of the check thepayee has no power over itI he cannot assign it without theconsent of the Govern"ent. $n this 'asis !ircular 1o. /: standson fir" legal footing.

20 SCRA 4%CANLEON /S AGUS DE/ELO6MENT COR6.(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

GR No. 109405, S)p:))r 11, 199%*LAFUERA /S ALCALA(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

123 SCRA 13GANON /S INSTERTO(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

ADMIN REG - EMINENT DOMAIN POWER

15+ SCRA +23

8il8(@ !. N$A

"ACTS#$n May /: :7 petitioners filed an "ended #etition acco"panied'y a "otion to ad"it said a"ended petition. 4n the "ended #etitionthe petitioners (only four of who" are original petitioners the rest'eing newly i"pleaded) invoke as an additional ground the allegednon;pu'lication of #.D. 1o. :8. $n May /:: the !ourt ad"ittedthe "ended #etition and re%uired respondents to co""ent thereon.The !ourt further re%uired the Repu'lic of the #hilippines to "ove inthe pre"ises within ten (:8) days fro" notice considering thesupervening events that had transpired since the filing of therespective "e"oranda of the petitioners and the respondent Repu'licof the #hilippines. Respondent 1A su'"itted its co""ent on ?une:: :7 stating that contrary to petitionersC allegation in the "ended#etition #.D. 1o. :8 was pu'lished in the $fficial Ga2ette of $cto'er

0 :/ (Volu"e - 1o. 08 pp. ,0:;0 to ,07;) and reiterating itsargu"ents discussed in its co""ent dated +epte"'er 0 :: on theoriginal petition and its later co""entOopposition dated March ::/. $n ?uly / :7 the 1A filed a "anifestation 'y way of reporton the current status of the su'*ect property stating inter alia :) that allavaila'le worka'le areas in the su'*ect property totallingappro&i"ately @.: hectares and consisting of @- lots averaging ,8s%uare "eters each have 'een su'stantially developed e&cept for so"e "inor repair work still to 'e undertakenI /) that the 1A hasalready invested #@ "illion representing the cost of i"ple"enting thedevelop"ent plans in the worka'le areas of the pro*ect siteI @) that inaccordance with the provisions of #.D. 1o. :8 the 1 A has alreadydeposited with the #hilippine 1ational 9ank the a"ount e%uivalent to

the cost of all su'division lots in the pro*ect siteI 0) that -7 landownershave already withdrawn the corresponding co"pensation for theirespective lots totalling #l:08/.00 while -/ landowners includingthe petitioners Ro'idante <. Sa'iling et al. have not yet clai"ed theco"pensation for their respective lots totalling #l,:7-7.,/I and ,)that all titles to the ho"elots e&cept the lost title of !resencio De'o"awhich is undergoing reconstitution have already 'een transferred torespondent 1A pursuant to the provision of #.D. 1o. :8.

ISSUE# The petitionersC challenge to the constitutionality of #.D. 1o

:8.$ELD# The stated o'*ective of the decree na"ely to resolve the land

tenure pro'le" in the gno;<everi2a area to allow thei"ple"entation of the co"prehensive develop"ent plans for thisdepressed co""unity provides the *ustification for the e&ercise othe police power of the +tate. The police power of the +tate has'een descri'ed as Ethe "ost essential insistent and illi"ita'le ofpowers.: 4t is a power inherent in the +tate plenary Esuita'lyvague and far fro" precisely defined rooted in the conceptionthat "an in organi2ing the state and i"posing upon thegovern"ent li"itations to safeguard constitutional rights did nointend there'y to ena'le individual citi2ens or group of citi2ens too'struct unreasona'ly the enact"ent of such salutary "easure toensure co""unal peace safety good order and welfare.

The o'*ection raised 'y petitioners that #.D. 1o. :8 i"pairs theo'ligations of contract is without "erit. The constitutional guarantyof non;i"pair"ent of o'ligations of contract is li"ited 'y andsu'*ect to the e&ercise of the police power of the +tate in theinterest of pu'lic health safety "orals and general welfare. >othe sa"e reason petitioners can not co"plain that they are 'eingdeprived of their property without due process of law.

1or can petitioners clai" that their properties are 'einge&propriated without *ust co"pensation since +ec. @ of #.D. 1o:8 provides for *ust co"pensation to lot owners who have fullypaid their o'ligations to the !ity of Manila under their respectivecontracts 'efore the issuance of the decree. Aowever inaccordance with our decision in B&port #rocessing one uthorityvs. Aon. !eferino Dulay etc. et al. G.R. 1o. ,78@ pril /:- which declared #.D. 1o. :,@@ unconstitutional those loowners who have not yet received co"pensation under the

decree are entitled to a *udicial deter"ination of the *usco"pensation for their lots.

ADMIN REG - FRANCHISES! PRIVILEGES! LICENSES

GR No. 1+2243, No))r 29, 200+AL/ARE /S 6ICO6 RESOURCES(o 8!) <i@)!: !'i::)<

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	togz-mape
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

A. Police Power Until Non Impairment Clause

Documents