Masikip v.

Pasig
[479 SCRA 391] | [January 23, 2006]
[J. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ]

Expropriation for another “sports and recreational facility” purports no genuine necessity.

FACTS

Petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the
Order of the Regional Trial Court Pasig City.

Petitioner Lourdes dela Paz Masikip is the registered owner of land located in Pasig City.
Respondent City of Pasig notified petitioner of its intention to expropriate a portion of her
property for “sports development and recreational activities” of the residents. Respondent sent
another letter, with a different intention of “providing land opportunities to deserving poor
sectors of the community.” Petitioner replied, stating that expropriation of her property is
unconstitutional, invalid, and oppressive the area of her lot is neither sufficient nor suitable for
such purposes. Respondent then went back to the initial purpose of creating a sports facility.

Respondent filed with the trial court a complaint for expropriation, praying that the trial court,
upon due hearing, will 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 their report. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause
of action for the exercise of the power of eminent domain. The trial court issued an order
denying such motion, stating that there is a genuine necessity to expropriate the property for the
sports and recreational activities of the residents of Pasig. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied.

Petitioner filed for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed said petition for lack of
merit. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

Hence this petition.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. Whether respondent City of Pasig established the genuine necessity to expropriate

petitioner’s property. NO.

The power of eminent domain is “the right of a government to take and appropriate
private property to public use, whenever the public exigency requires it, which can be
done only on condition of providing a reasonable compensation thereof.” (US v. Toribio)

The right to take private property for public purpose necessarily originates from “the
necessity” and the taking must be limited to such necessity (City of Manila v. Chinese
Community of Manila). Moreover, the right to take private property for public purposes
necessarily originates from the necessity and taking must be limited to the said necessity.

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 1
 The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity,
which must be of a public character, provided that the ascertainment of the necessity
must precede the taking of the property and not following it. Such necessity 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.

In this case, respondent failed to establish that there is genuine necessity to expropriate
petitioner’s property, as there already an established facility. Moreover, the intended
beneficiary is the homeowner’s association and not the residents of barangay Caniogan,
which makes such purpose for expropriation NOT clearly and categorically public.

The right to own and possess property is one of the most cherished rights of men and
unless the requisite of genuine necessity for the expropriation of one’s property is clearly
established, then it shall be the duty of the courts to protect the rights of individuals to
their private properties. The purpose of the taking of private property must be specified
and the genuine necessity for the taking must be shown to exist.

2. Whether the Courts may exercise judicial review of the power of eminent domain. YES.

The power of eminent domain is lodged in the legislative branch of the government. It
delegates the exercise thereof to local government units, other public entities and public
utility corporations, subject only to Constitutional limitations. Local governments have
no inherent power of eminent domain and may exercise it only when expressly
authorized by statute.

Judicial review of the exercise of eminent domain is limited to the following areas of
concern:
(a) the adequacy of the compensation;
(b) the necessity of the taking; and
(c) the public use character of the purpose of the taking.

[Petition for review GRANTED. Decision and Resolution of Court of Appeals are
REVERSED. Complaint for expropriation filed before the trial court is DISMISSED.]

[RODRIGUEZ] C2020 | 2