Mod 2 Answers

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 4

12.

Statutory construction has also been the subject of discussion in cases concerning the exercise of the
power of eminent domain. Two such cases are Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation v.
Municipality of Pasig and San Roque Realty and Development Corp. v. Republic. 
1. What is the rule of construction in an eminent domain case? Is the case to be
strictly construed against the expropriating power or against the owner of the
expropriated property? 

The authority to condemn is to be strictly construed in favor of the owner and against the
condemnor or the expropriating power. When the power is granted, the extent to which it may be
exercised is limited to the express terms or clear implication of the statute in which the grant is
contained.

2. In Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation v. Municipality of Pasig, what,


according to the Court, is the reason underpinning this rule of construction in
eminent domain cases? 

The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State or by its authorized
agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights. It is one of the harshest proceedings known
to the law. Consequently, when the sovereign delegates the power to a political unit or agency, a
strict construction will be given against the agency asserting the power.

3. In said case, what provision in the Local Government Code was found by the Court
to have been violated by the respondent? 

The requirement under Section 19 of the Local Government Code which requires a valid and
definite offer to acquire the property prior to the filling of the complaint.

The purpose of the requirement of a valid and definite offer to be first made to the owner is to
encourage settlements and voluntary acquisition of property needed for public purposes in order
to avoid the expense and delay of a court action. The law is designed to give to the owner the
opportunity to sell his land without the expense and inconvenience of a protracted and expensive
litigation. This is a substantial right which should be protected in every instance. It encourages
acquisition without litigation and spares not only the landowner but also the condemnor, the
expenses and delays of litigation. It permits the landowner to receive full compensation, and the
entity acquiring the property, immediate use and enjoyment of the property. A reasonable offer in
good faith, not merely perfunctory or pro forma offer, to acquire the property for a reasonable
price must be made to the owner or his privy. A single bona fide offer that is rejected by the
owner will suffice.

In this case, the respondent failed to prove that before it filed its complaint, it made a written
definite and valid offer to acquire the property for public use as an access road. The only evidence
adduced by the respondent to prove its compliance with Section 19 of the Local Government Code
is the photocopy of the letter purportedly bearing the signature of Engr. Jose Reyes, to only one of
the co-owners, Lorenzo Ching Cuanco. Even if the letter was, indeed, received by the co-owners,
the letter is not a valid and definite offer to purchase a specific portion of the property for a price
certain. It is merely an invitation for only one of the co-owners, Lorenzo Ching Cuanco, to a
conference to discuss the project and the price that may be mutually acceptable to both parties.

4. In San Roque Realty and Development Corp. v. Republic, what is the effect if the
Republic, as expropriator, makes full payment of just compensation? 

If the Republic had actually made full payment of just compensation, in the ordinary course of
things, it would have led to the cancellation of title, or at least, the annotation of the lien in favor
of the government on the certificate of title covering Lot No. 933.

5. Can the State be barred by estoppel or laches because of the mistakes of its
officials or agents? Why?
LACHES is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

The general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel or laches by the mistakes or errors of
its officials or agents.

6. Assuming arguendo that the State cannot be barred by estoppel or laches because
of the mistakes of its officials or agents, is there any exception to this rule? What is
this exception? 

One exception of the general rule that the state cannot be put in estoppel or laches by the
mistakes or errors of its officials or agents, is when the strict application of the rule will defeat the
effectiveness of a policy adopted to protect the public, such as the Torrens system.

13. A non-incorporated agency or instrumentality of the Republic may also exercise the power of eminent
domain. This is part of the kernel of the Court’s discussion in Iron and Steel Authority (ISA) v.
Court of Appeals. 

1. What was the establishing law of ISA? Was ISA allowed by its establishing law to
exercise the power of eminent domain? 
Iron and Steel Authority (ISA) was created by P.D. No. 272 in order, generally, to develop and
promote the iron and steel industry in the Philippines. The list of powers and functions of the ISA
included the following: xx

Sec. 4. Powers and Functions. – The authority shall have the following powers and functions: xx

(j) to initiate expropriation of land required for basic iron and steel facilities for subsequent resale
and/or lease to the companies involved if it is shown that such use of the State’s power is
necessary to implement the construction of capacity which is needed for the attainment of the
objectives of the Authority; xx

2. In this case, ISA—a non-incorporated agency of the Republic—eventually ceased to


be a juridical person. What, according to the Court, is the effect when the
statutory term of a non-incorporated agency expires? 

When the statutory term of a non-incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties and functions
as well as the assets and liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are re-assumed by, the
Republic of the Philippines, in the absence of special provisions of law specifying some other
disposition thereof such as, e.g., devolution or transmission of such powers, duties, functions, etc.
to some other identified successor agency or instrumentality of the Republic of the Philippines.
When the expiring agency is an incorporated one, the consequences of such expiry must be
looked for, in the first instance, in the charter of that agency and, by way of supplementation, in
the provisions of the Corporation Code. Since, in the instant case, ISA is a non-incorporated
agency or instrumentality of the Republic, its powers, duties, functions, assets and liabilities are
properly regarded as folded back into the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and
hence assumed once again by the Republic, no special statutory provision having been shown to
have mandated succession thereto by some other entity or agency of the Republic.

3. Was the Republic allowed to substitute ISA in the expropriation proceedings? 


Republic is entitled to be substituted in the expropriation proceedings in lieu of ISA, the statutory
term of ISA having expired. Put a little differently, the expiration of ISA’s statutory term did not
by itself require or justify the dismissal of the eminent domain proceedings. 
4. As a rule, the power of eminent domain is vested primarily in the legislature. In
this light, was any legislative action required before the Republic could substitute
ISA in the expropriation proceedings? Why?
While the power of eminent domain is, in principle, vested primarily in the legislative department
of the government, we believe and so hold that no new legislative act is necessary should the
Republic decide, upon being substituted for ISA, in fact to continue to prosecute the expropriation
proceedings. For the legislative authority, a long time ago, enacted a continuing or standing
delegation of authority to the President of the Philippines to exercise, or cause the exercise of, the
power of eminent domain on behalf of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.

16. The justiciability of the question of necessity was the crux of the discussion in Municipality of
Meycauayan v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Republic v. La Orden de PP. Benedictinos
de Filipinas. 
1. In Municipality of Meycauayan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, who was the
expropriating authority?
It is the Municipal Council of Meycauayan, headed by then Mayor Celso R. Legaspi, passed
Resolution No. 258, Series of 1975, manifesting the intention to expropriate the respondent's
parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 37879.
2. Is the issue of necessity a justiciable question if the expropriating authority is the
Legislature? 
 With due recognition then of the power of Congress to designate the particular property to be
taken and how much thereof may be condemned in the exercise of the power of expropriation, it
is still a judicial question whether in the exercise of such competence, the party adversely affected
is the victim of partiality and prejudice. That the equal protection clause will not allow. 

3. Did the Court find the existence of necessity in the above case?
There is absolutely no showing in the petition why the more appropriate lot for the proposed road
which was offered for sale has not been the subject of the petitioner's attempt to expropriate
assuming there is a real need for another connecting road.
4. In Republic v. La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, who was the
expropriating authority? 
The government was the expropriating authority.
5. Is the issue of necessity a justiciable question if the expropriating authority is a
delegate?

6. Did the Court find the existence of necessity in the above case?

No. The court ruled that the expropriation is not of extreme necessity.

17. In Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of Calamba, Laguna, the Court ruled on the question regarding
to which court must issues of the necessity of expropriation be addressed. 
1. In this case, to which court must one address—during the course of the
proceedings—the issue of the necessity of the expropriation? 
An expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of money. Rather, it deals with the
exercise by the government of its authority and right to take property for public use.  As such, it is
incapable of pecuniary estimation and should be filed with the regional trial courts.

2. What must the property owner do should he wish to object to the necessity of the
expropriation? 
If petitioner objects to the necessity of the takeover of her property, he should say so in his
Answer to the Complaint.The RTC has the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the
right of eminent domain and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for it.

3. In the first question above, what is the court’s power and duty vis-à-vis the issue of
the necessity of the expropriation? 
This was answered in the case of Barangat San Roque v. Heris of Franscisco Pastor wherein the
court explained:
“It should be stressed that the primary consideration in an expropriation suit is whether the
government or any of its instrumentalities has complied with the requisites for the taking of
private property. Hence, the courts determine the authority of the government entity, the
necessity of the expropriation, and the observance of due process. In the main, the subject of an
expropriation suit is the government's exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of
pecuniary estimation.”
"True, the value of the property to be expropriated is estimated in monetary terms, for the court is
duty-bound to determine the just compensation for it. This, however, is merely incidental to the
expropriation suit. Indeed, that amount is determined only after the court is satisfied with the
propriety of the expropriation."

You might also like