CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II RULINGS
THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE:
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
AMIGABLE vs. CUENCA
 If the constitutional mandate that the owner be compensated
for the property taken for public use were to be respected, as
it should, then a suit of this character should not be
summarily dismissed. The doctrine of governmental
immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for
perpetrating an injustice on a citizen … If there was an
observance of procedural regularity, petitioners would not be
in the said plaint they are now.
 It is not too much to say that when the government takes any
property for public use, which is conditioned upon the
payment of just compensation, to be judicially ascertained,
it makes manifest that it submits to the jurisdiction of the
court.
 As registered owner, she could bring an action to recover
possession of the portion of the land in question at any time
because possession is one of the attributes of ownership.
However, since restoration of possession of said portion by
the government is neither convenient nor feasible at this time
because it is now and has been used for road purposes, the
only relief available is for the government to make due
compensation which it could and should have done years
ago.
 To determine the due compensation for the land, the basis
should be the prince or value thereof at the time of the taking.
PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE vs. COMELEC
 The extent of the taking or deprivation is not insubstantial;
this is not a case of a de minimis temporary limitation or
restraint upon the use of private property. The monetary
value of the compulsory “donation,” measured by the
advertising rates ordinarily charged by newspaper publishers
whether in cities or in non-urban areas, may be very
substantial indeed.
 The taking of print space here sought to be effected may first
be appraised under the rubric of expropriation of private
personal property for public use.
Threshold Requisites for a lawful taking
1. The necessity of the taking
2. Legal authority to effect the taking
 It has not been suggested, let alone demonstrated, the
COMELEC has been granted the power of eminent domain
either by the Constitution or by the legislative authority. A
reasonable relationship between the power and the
enforcement and administration of election laws by
COMELEC must be shown; it is not casually to be assumed.
 Citing Noble v. City of Manila
[w]here private properties needed for conversion to
some public use, the first thing obviously that the
government should do is to offer to buy it. If the
owner is willing to sell and the parties can agree on
the price and the other conditions of the sale, a
voluntary transaction can then be concluded and the
transfer effected without the necessity of judicial
action.
But if the owner of the private property is unwilling
to part with it, or, being willing, cannot agree to the
conditions of the transfer, then it will be necessary for
the government to use its coercive authority. By its
power of eminent domain, it can then, upon payment
of just compensation, forcibly acquire the needed
property in order to devote it to the intended public
use.
SUMULONG vs. GUERRERO
 Socialized Housing is defined as, “the construction of
dwelling units for the middle and lower class members of
our society, including the construction of the supporting
infrastructure and other facilities”
 The term public use has acquired a more comprehensive
coverage. To the literal import of the term signifying strict
use or employment by the public has been added the
broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage.
 Urban renewal or redevelopment and the construction of
low-cost housing is recognized as a public purpose, not
only because of the expanded concept of public use but also
because of specific provisions in the Constitution. The 1973
Constitution made it incumbent upon the State to establish,
maintain, and ensure adequate social services including
housing.
 The UN General Assembly is seriously concerned that,
despite efforts of Governments at the national and local
levels and of international organizations, the driving
conditions of the majority of the people in slums and
squatter areas and rural settlements, especially in
developing countries, continue to deteriorate in both
relative and absolute terms.
JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)
 Official data indicate that more than one third of the
households nationwide do not own their dwelling places.
 Expropriation is not confined to landed estates
The propriety of exercising the power of
eminent domain under Article XIII, section 4 of
our Constitution cannot be determined on a
purely quantitative or area basis. Not only does
the constitutional provision speak of lands
instead of landed estates, but I see no cogent
reason why the government, in its quest for
social justice and peace, should exclusively
devote attention to conflicts of large
proportions, involving a considerable number
of individuals, and eschew small controversies
and wait until they grow into a major problem
before taking remedial action. (Justice J.B.L.
Reyes’ dissenting opinion in J.M. Tuazon Co.,
Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration)
 Absent a clear showing of fraud, bad faith, or gross abuse
of discretion, the Court will give due weight to and leave
undisturbed the NHA’s choice and the size of the site for
the project.
 Various factors can come into play in valuation of specific
properties singled out for expropriation. That values given
by provincial assessors are usually uniform for very wide
areas covering several barrios or even an entire total with
the exception of the poblacion. Individual differences are
never taken into account. The value of land is based on
such generalities as its possible cultivation of rice, corn,
coconuts, or other crops. Very often land described in terms

of only two or three classes of building materials and
estimates of areas are more often inaccurate than correct.
Tax values can serve as guides but cannot be absolute
substitutes for just compensation.
 It is violative of due process to deny to the owner the
opportunity to prove that the valuation in the tax documents
is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to basic concepts of
justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of minor
bureaucrat or clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgment
of a court promulgated only after expert commissioners
have actually viewed the property, after evidence and
arguments pro and con have been presented, and after all
factors and considerations essential to a fair and just
determination have been judiciously evaluated.
Requirements before a writ of possession may be issued:
1. There must be a Complaint for expropriation sufficient in
form and in substance;
2. A provisional determination of just compensation for the
properties sought to be expropriated must be made by the
trial court on the basis of judicial discretion; and
3. The deposit requirement under Section 2, Rule 67 must be
complied with.
MANOSCA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
 Eminent Domain is a right to take or reassert dominion
over property within the state for public use or to meet a
public exigency. It is said to be an essential part of
governance even in its most primitive form and thus
inseparable from sovereignty. The only direct
constitutional qualification is that private property shall
not be taken for public use without just compensation.
 For condemnation purposes, public use is one which
confers same benefit or advantage to the public; it is not
confined to the actual use by public. It is measured in terms
of right of public to use proposed facilities for which
condemnation is sought and, as long as public has right of
use, whether exercised by one or many members of public,
a public advantage or public benefit accrues sufficient to
constitute a public use.
 The purpose in setting up a marker is essentially to
recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix
Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to
commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni
Cristo than by most others could well be true but such a
peculiar advantage still remains to be merely incidental and
secondary in nature.
 That only a few would actually benefit from the
expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the
essence and character of public use.
EPZA vs. DULAY
 Another consideration why the Court is empowered to
appoint commissioners to assess the just compensation of
these properties under eminent domain proceedings, it the
well-entrenched rule that “the owner of property
expropriated is entitled to recover from expropriating
authority the fair and full value of the lot, as of the time
when possession thereof was actually taken by the
province, plus consequential damages – including
attorney’s fees – from which the consequential benefits, if
any should be deducted, with interest at the legal rate, on
the aggregate sum due to the owner from and after the date
of actual taking.”
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II RULINGS
 The determination of “just compensation” in eminent
domain cases is a judicial function. The executive
department or the legislative may make the initial
determinations but when a party claims a violation of the
guarantee of Bill of Rights that private property may not
be taken for public use without just compensation, no
statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own
determination shall prevail over the court’s findings. Much
less can the courts be precluded from looking into the
“just-ness” of the decreed compensation.
MUNICIPALITY OF PARANAQUE vs. V.M. REALTY CORP
The following essential requisites must concur before a local
government unit can exercise the power of eminent domain:
1. An ordinance is enacted by local legislative council
authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the local
government unit, to exercise the power of eminent domain
or pursue expropriation proceedings;
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use,
purpose, or welfare;
3. There is a payment of just compensation;
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the
owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said
offer was not accepted
 A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. A
resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment or
opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An
ordinance possesses a general and permanent character. An
ordinance is a law.
 Resolution and ordinance are enacted differently – a third
reading is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a
resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the
JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)
Sanggunian members.
 The power of eminent domain necessarily involves a
derogation of a fundamental or private rights of the people.
Accordingly, the manifest change in the legislative
language – from resolution under BP 337 to ordinance
under RA 7160 – demands a strict construction. No species
of property is held by individuals with greater tenacity, and
is guarded by the Constitution and laws more sedulously,
than the right to the freehold of inhabitants. When the
legislature interferes with that right and, for greater public
purposes, appropriates the land of an individual without his
consent, the plain meaning of the law should not be
enlarged by doubtful interpretation.
 The Court holds that the principle of res judicata, which
finds application in generally all cases and proceedings,
cannot bar the right of the State or its agent to expropriate
private property. The very nature of eminent domain, as an
inherent power of the State, dictates that the right to
exercise the power be absolute and unfettered even by a
prior judgment or res judicata.
 The scope of eminent domain is plenary and, like police
power, can reach every form of property which the State
might need for public use.
 The power of the State or its agent to exercise eminent
domain is not diminished by the mere fact that a prior final
judgment over the property to be expropriated has become
the law of the case as to the parties. The State or its
authorized agent may still subsequently exercise its right
expropriate the same property, once all legal requirements
are complied with. To rule otherwise will not only
improperly diminish the power of eminent domain, but also
clearly defeat social justice.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II RULINGS

government cannot keep the property and dishonor the

REPUBLIC vs. LIM judgment.
 Republic’s delay is contrary to the rules of fair play, as just
compensation embraces not only the correct
determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of
the land, but also the payment for the land within a
reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment,
compensation cannot be considered just. In jurisdictions
similar to ours, where the entry to the expropriated property
precedes the payment of compensation, it has been held that
if the compensation is not paid in a reasonable time, the
party may be treated as a trespasser ad initio.
 Title to property which is the subject of condemnation
proceedings does not vest the condemnor until the
judgment fixing just compensation is entered and paid,
but the condemnor’s title relates back to the date on which
the petition under the Eminent Domain Act, or the
commissioners’ report under the Local Improvement Act,
is filed.
 Although the rights to appropriate and use land taken for
canal is complete at the time of entry, title to the property
taken remains in the owner until payment is actually
made.

Two Stages of Expropriation of Lands

1. First stage is concerned with the determination of the
authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent
domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of
the facts involved in the suit. It ends with an order, if not of
dismissal of the action, of condemnation declaring that the
plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be
condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the
complaint, upon the payment of juts compensation to be

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)

determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.
2. The second phase of the eminent domain action is
concerned with the determination by the court of the just
compensation for the property sought to be taken. This is
done by the court with the assistance of not more than three
(3) commissioners.

 At any rate, assuming that respondent had indeed

knowledge of the annotation, still nothing would have
prevented him from entering into a mortgage contract
involving Lot 932 while expropriation proceeding was
pending

it is only upon the completion of these two stages

that expropriation is said to have been completed.
Moreover, it is only upon payment of juts
compensation that title over the property passes to
the government. Therefore, until the action for
expropriation has been completed and terminated,
ownership over the property being expropriated
remains with the registered owner. Consequently,
the latter can exercise all rights pertaining to an
owner, including the right to dispose of his
property subject to the power of the State
ultimately to acquire it through expropriation.

 In cases where the government failed to pay just

compensation within five (5) years from the finality of
judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners
concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their
property. This is in consonance with the principle that the

THE INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE:
POWER OF TAXATION
SISON vs. ANCHETA
 The power to tax “is an attribute of sovereignty. It is the
strongest of all the powers of government.”
 The power to tax is not unconfined. There are restrictions.
There are restrictions. The Constitution sets forth such
limits. Adversely affecting as it does property rights, both
the due process and equal protection clauses may properly
be invoked, as petitioner does, to invalidate in appropriate
cases a revenue measure.
 At any rate, it is inherent in the power to tax that a state be
free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has been
repeatedly held that ‘inequalities which result from singling
out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption
infringe no constitutional limitation.’” (Lutz v. Araneta)
 Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable
articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed
at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make
reasonable and natural classifications for purpose of
taxation.
PASCUAL vs. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS
 It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to
appropriate public revenue for anything but a public
purpose.
 It is the essential character of the direct object of the
expenditure which must determine its validity as justifying
a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected
nor the degree to which the general advantage of the
community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately
benefited by their promotion.
 In accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be
exercised for public purposes only, money raised by
taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not
for the advantage of private individuals.
Explanation: generally, under the express or implied
provisions of the constitution, public funds may be used
only for public purpose. The right of the legislature to
appropriate funds is correlative with its right to tax, and,
under constitutional provisions against taxation except for
public purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for
one purpose and the devotion thereof to another purpose,
no appropriation of state funds can be made for other than
a public purpose.
 In the determination of the degree of interest essential to
give the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of
a statute, the general rule is that not only persons
individually affected, but also taxpayers, have sufficient
interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of moneys
raised by taxation and may therefore question the
constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of
public moneys.
 The authority of the Republic of the Philippines over the
people of the Philippines is more fully direct than that of
the states of the Union, insofar as the simple and unitary
type of our national government is not subject to limitations
analogous to those imposed by the Federal Constitution
upon the states of the Union, and those imposed upon the
Federal Government in the interest of the Union.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II RULINGS
PUNSALAN vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA
 The City of Manila Charter in express terms empowers the
Municipal Board “to fix penalties for the violation of
ordinances which shall not exceed to two hundred pesos
fine or six months’ imprisonment or both such fine and
imprisonment for a single offense.”
 On class legislation: The legislature may, in its discretion,
select what occupations shall be taxed, and in the exercise
of that discretion, it may tax all, or it may select for taxation
certain classes and leave others untaxed … it is not for the
courts to judge what particular cities or municipalities
should be empowered to impose occupation taxes in
addition to those imposed by the National Government.
That matter is peculiarly within the domain of the political
departments and the courts would do well not to encroach
upon it.
 On double taxation: What constitutes exercise or pursuit of
a profession in the city is a matter of judicial determination.
The argument against double taxation may not be invoked
where one tax is imposed by the State and the other is
imposed by the city.
LLADOC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
 It is a cardinal rule in taxation that exemptions from
payment thereof are highly disfavored by law, and the party
claiming exemption must justify his claim by a clear,
positive or express grant of such privilege by law.
 The phrase “exempt from taxation” as employed in Section
22(3), Article VI of the Constitution of the Philippines
should not be interpreted to mean exemption from all kinds
of taxes. Statutes exempting charitable and religious
property from taxation should be construed fairly through
strictly and in such manner as to give effect to the main
JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)
intent of the lawmakers.
 What the collector assessed was a donee’s gift tax; the
assessment was not on the properties themselves. It did not
rest upon general ownership; it was an excise upon the use
made of the properties, upon the exercise of privilege of
receiving the properties.
 Gift tax is not within the exempting provisions of the
section just mentioned. A gift tax is not a property tax, but
an excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way of
gift inter vivos, the imposition of which on property used
exclusively for religious purposes, does not constitute an
impairment of the Constitution.
ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE vs. AQUINO
 The term “used exclusively” considers incidental use also.
Thus, the exemption from payment of land tax in favor of
the convent, includes, not only the land actually occupied
by the building but also the adjacent garden devoted to the
incidental use of the parish priest. The lot which is not used
for commercial purposes but serves solely as a sort of
lodging place, also qualifies for exemption because this
constitutes incidental use in religious functions (citing
Nueva Segovia v. Provincial Board of Ilocos Norte)
 The exemption in favor of property used exclusively for
charitable purposes is ‘not limited to property actually
indispensable’ therefor, but extends to facilities which are
incidental to and reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of said purposes, such as in the case of
hospitals, “a school for training nurses, a nurses’ home,
property used to provide housing facilities for interns,
resident doctors, superintendents, and other members of the
hospital staff, and recreational facilities for student nurses,
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II RULINGS

interns and residents’, such as “Athletic fields” including a

“firm used for the inmates of the institution.”
 Under the 1935 Constitution, the trial court correctly
arrived at the conclusion that the school building as well as
the lot where it is built, should be taxed, not because the
second floor of the same building is used by the Director
and his family for residential purposes, but because the first
floor thereof is being used for commercial purposes.
However, since only a portion is used for purposes of
commerce, it is only fair that half of the assessed tax be
returned to the school involved.

JAMES BRYAN SUAREZ DEANG © 2017 (09265563619/jbsdeang.jbd@gmail.com)