- Republic v. Mupas and Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., G.R. No. 181892, September 8, 2015
Ruling on Depreciated Replacement Cost method
2. Alfonso v. Land Bank of the Philippines G.R. Nos. 181912 & 183347, November 29, 2016
Ruling on Income Capitalization Approach
General requirements for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain
ANTONIO VS. GERONIMO, G.R. No. 124779 (November 29, 2005) SECOND DIVISION Local government units may exercise the power of eminent domain, subject to the limitations embodied under the law. The Sangguniang Bayan, being a local legislative body, may exercise the power to expropriate private properties, subject to the following requisites, all of which must concur: (1) an ordinance is enacted by the 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 over a particular private property; (2) The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless; (3) there is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws; and (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.
HEIRS OF SAGUITAN VS. CITY OF MANDALUYONG, G.R. No. 135087 (March 14, 2000) THIRD DIVISION The requisites for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain by local government unit are: (1) An ordinance (not a resolution) enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive to exercise the power of eminent domain over a particular private property; (2) The power is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless; (3) There is payment of just compensation; and (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.
Foundation of power is genuine public necessity, public use
MASIKIP VS. CITY OF PASIG, G.R. No. 136349 (January 23, 2006) SECOND DIVISION The right to take private property for public purposes necessarily originates from “the necessity” and the taking must be limited to such necessity. Important as the power of eminent domain may be, the inviolable sanctity that the Constitution attaches to the property of the individual requires not only that the purpose for the taking of private property is specified. The genuine necessity for the taking, which must be of a public character, must also be shown to exist. Thus, there is no genuine necessity when taking of private property is done for the benefit of a small community that seeks to have its own sports and recreational facility, notwithstanding the fact that there is a recreational facility only a short distance away. Such taking cannot be considered to be for public use.
JESUS IS LORD CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOUNDATION V. CITY OF PASIG, G.R. No. 152230 (August 9, 2005) SECOND DIVISION A local government may determine the location and route of the land to be taken unless such determination is capricious and wantonly injurious. The condemnor must show the necessity for the constructing the road particularly in the owner’s property and not elsewhere. The claim of the local government that the piece of property is the “shortest and most suitable access road” and that the “lot has been surveyed as the best possible ingress and egress” must be proven by a showing of a preponderance of evidence. Further, the conduct of ocular inspection, being part of the trial of the expropriation case, all parties must be notified and must be present.
Concept of just compensation
YUJUICO VS. ATIENZA, G.R. No. 164282 (October 12, 2005) SECOND DIVISION Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered ‘just’ for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his/her land while being made to wait for five years.
CITY OF MANILA VS. ESTRADA, G.R. No.7749 (September 9, 1913) EN BANC ‘Compensation’ under the Spanish Code of Civil Procedure means an equivalent for the value of the land taken. Anything beyond that is more and anything short of that is less than compensation. The word ‘just’ is used merely to intensify the meaning of the word ‘compensation’.
Determination of compensation is a judicial and not a legislative function.
ARIAS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 81563 (December 19, 1989) EN BANC A law cannot fix the just compensation in eminent domain cases to the assessed value stated by a landowner in his/her tax declaration or fixed by the municipal assessor, whichever is lower. Other factors must be considered. These factors must be determined by a court of justice and not by municipal employees.
CITY OF CEBU VS. DEDAMO, G.R. No. 142971 (May 7, 2002) FIRST DIVISION The applicable law as to the point of reckoning for the determination of just compensation is Section 19 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which expressly provides that just compensation shall be determined as of the time of actual taking.
Republic v. Spouses Flores, G.R. No. 235904,(Notice), July 6, 2022 The determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial matter, and the standards in RA 8974 are suggestive, not mandatory. The court retains the authority to decide on the awarded amount as long as it’s reasonable and not arbitrary.
National Power Corp. v. Heirs of Sangkay (Inverse Condemnation) Inverse condemnation is a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of the property which has been taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. The phrase “inverse condemnation,” as a common understanding of that phrase would suggest, simply describes an action that is the “inverse” or “reverse” of a condemnation proceeding.”
Real LexEcon 