MANAPAT vs CA

G.R. No. 110478

October 15, 2007
Nachura, J.

Topic: Power of Eminent Domain

Doctrine: The power of eminent domain is exercised by the Legislature. However, it
may be delegated by Congress to the President, administrative bodies, local
government units, and even to private enterprises performing public services.

Facts:
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (RCAM) allowed a number of individuals to
occupy the Grace Park property in the 1960s with the agreement that they would
vacate the premises should RCAM push through with the plan to construct a school in
the area. However, the plan did not materialize. The occupants offered to purchase
the lots they were occupying but they could not afford RCAM’s proposed price.Later
on, they organized themselves as the Eulogio Rodriguez, Jr. Tenants Association,
Inc., and petitioned the Government for the acquisition of the said property and resell
it to them at a low price.

The Government acted on the petition but because of the high asking price of RCAM
and the budgetary constraints, the state’s effort to purchase and/or expropriate the
property was discontinued. RCAM then decided to sell the subdivided lots to the
public.

In 1977, President Ferdinand Marcos issued PD 1072, appropriating P1.2M out of the
Presidents Special Operations Funds to cover the additional amount needed for the
expropriation of Grace Park.

The National Housing Authority (NHA) then filed several expropriation proceedings
over the already subdivided lots for the purpose of developing Grace Park under the
Zonal Improvement Program (ZIP) and subdividing it into small lots for distribution and
resale at a low cost to the residents of the area.

Trial Court Ruling:

After due proceedings, the trial court rendered separate decisions dismissing the
expropriation cases.

NHA filed for a motion for reconsideration and the trial court later amended its
decision, set aside its dismissal of some of the cases, ordered the condemnation of
the involved lots and fixed the amount of just compensation at P180.00 per square
meter.

The RTC however denied NHA’s motion for reconsideration for cases C-6225,
C-6229, C-6231, C-6232, C-6237 and C-6435.

CA Ruling:

NHA has a lawful right to take the lots involved for the public use described in the
complaints. CA also annulled and set aside the just compensation fixed by the trial
court at P180.00 per square meter in the said cases.

The owners of the lots filed a petition for Certiorari of the aforesaid decision of the
appellate court.

Issue: Whether or not the NHA may validly expropriate the parcels of land subject of
these cases.
Ruling: YES.

The power of eminent domain is an inherent and indispensable power of the

State. Also called the power of expropriation, it is described as the highest and most
exact idea of property remaining in the government that may be acquired for some
public purpose through a method in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State.

Just like its two companion fundamental powers of the State,[51] the power of eminent
domain is exercised by the Legislature. However, it may be delegated by Congress to
the President, administrative bodies, local government units, and even to private
enterprises performing public services.

The question that this Court must resolve is whether the requisites have been
adequately addressed:

1. It is incontrovertible that the parcels of land subject of these consolidated petitions

are private property. Thus, the first requisite is satisfied.

2. As a rule, the determination of whether there is genuine necessity for the exercise
is a justiciable question. However, when the power is exercised by the Legislature, the
question of necessity is essentially a political question. In the instant cases, the
authority to expropriate came from Presidential Decree No. 1072, issued by then
President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1977. At that time, and as explicitly recognized
under the 1973 Constitution, President Marcos had legislative powers.

3. As to the third requisite of public use, NHA justifies the taking of the subject
property for the purpose of improving and upgrading the area by constructing roads
and installing facilities thereon under the Governments zonal improvement program
and subdividing them into much smaller lots for distribution and sale at a low cost to
qualified beneficiaries, mostly underprivileged long-time occupants of Grace Park.

4. To satisfy the fourth requisite, we affirm the appellate courts disposition that the
subject cases be remanded to the trial court for the determination of the amount of
just compensation.