Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 281 views

    De La Paz Masikip V Judge Legaspi

    Uploaded by

    Leyard
    The petitioner owned a parcel of land that the city of Pasig intended to expropriate part of for sports and recreational facilities for poor residents. The petitioner contested the expropriation. The court ruled that the city failed to establish a genuine necessity to expropriate the land, as there was already an alternative facility available. The complaint for expropriation was dismissed as the city did not demonstrate a reasonable or practical necessity for taking the petitioner's private property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De La Paz Masikip V Judge Legaspi

    Uploaded by

    Leyard
    281 views1 page
    The petitioner owned a parcel of land that the city of Pasig intended to expropriate part of for sports and recreational facilities for poor residents. The petitioner contested the expropriation. The court ruled that the city failed to establish a genuine necessity to expropriate the land, as there was already an alternative facility available. The complaint for expropriation was dismissed as the city did not demonstrate a reasonable or practical necessity for taking the petitioner's private property.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner owned a parcel of land that the city of Pasig intended to expropriate part of for sports and recreational facilities for poor residents. The petitioner contested the expropriation. The court ruled that the city failed to establish a genuine necessity to expropriate the land, as there was already an alternative facility available. The complaint for expropriation was dismissed as the city did not demonstrate a reasonable or practical necessity for taking the petitioner's private property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    281 views1 page

    De La Paz Masikip V Judge Legaspi

    Uploaded by

    Leyard
    The petitioner owned a parcel of land that the city of Pasig intended to expropriate part of for sports and recreational facilities for poor residents. The petitioner contested the expropriation. The court ruled that the city failed to establish a genuine necessity to expropriate the land, as there was already an alternative facility available. The complaint for expropriation was dismissed as the city did not demonstrate a reasonable or practical necessity for taking the petitioner's private property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    De La Paz Masikip V Judge Legaspi

    GR. 136349

    FACTS: -Petitioner Lourdes Dela Paz Masikip is the registered owner of a parcel of land with
    an area of 4,521 square meters located at Pag-Asa, Caniogan, Pasig City, Metro Manila -In a
    letter dated January 6, 1994, the then Municipality of Pasig, now City of Pasig, respondent,
    notified petitioner of its intention to expropriate a 1,500 square meter portion of her
    property to be used for the "sports development and recreational activities" of the residents
    of Barangay Caniogan. This was pursuant to Ordinance No. 42, Series of 1993 enacted by
    the then Sangguniang Bayan of Pasig -Again, on March 23, 1994, respondent wrote another
    letter to petitioner, but this time the purpose was allegedly "in line with the program of the
    Municipal Government to provide land opportunities to deserving poor sectors of our
    community -On May 2, 1994, petitioner sent a reply to respondent stating that the intended
    expropriation of her property is unconstitutional, invalid, and oppressive, as the area of her
    lot is neither sufficient nor suitable to "provide land opportunities to deserving poor sectors
    of our community." -In its letter of December 20, 1994, respondent reiterated that the
    purpose of the expropriation of petitioner’s property is "to provide sports and recreational
    facilities to its poor residents. -Subsequently, on February 21, 1995, respondent filed with
    the trial court a complaint for expropriation, docketed as SCA No. 873. Respondent prayed
    that the trial court, after due notice and hearing, issue an order for the condemnation of the
    property; that commissioners be appointed for the purpose of determining the just
    compensation; and that judgment be rendered based on the report of the commissioners. -
    On April 25, 1995, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. -On May 7, 1996, the
    trial court issued an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss, 5 on the ground that there is a
    genuine necessity to expropriate the property for the sports and recreational activities of
    the residents of Pasig.

    ISSUE: W/N there is a genuine necessity to expropriate the property

    HELD: -The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity
    and that necessity must be of a public character. -necessity within the rule that the particular
    property to be expropriated must be necessary, does not mean an absolute but only a
    reasonable or practical necessity, such as would combine the greatest benefit to the public
    with the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and the property owner
    consistent with such benefit -The respondent has failed to establish that there is a genuine
    necessity to expropriate petitioner’s property considering that there exist an alternative
    facility for sport development and community recreation in the area, available to all
    residents of Pasig City, including those of Caniogan. -Therefore, the complaint for
    expropriation filed before the trial court by respondent is order DISMISSED.

    You might also like