Case Title: City of Manila vs. Chinese Com.

Of Manila
G.R. No.: 14355
Main Topic: Power of Eminent Domain
Other Related Topic: N/A
Date: October 31, 1919

DOCTRINES
Necessity of Exercise
FACTS
• The City of Manila presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of said city, praying
that certain lands, therein particularly described, be expropriated for the purpose of
constructing a public improvement.

• The petitioner alleged that for the purpose of constructing an extension of Rizal Avenue,
Manila, it is necessary for the plaintiff to acquire ownership of certain parcels of land
situated in the district of Binondo.

• The defendants – the Chinese Community of Manila, Ildefonso Tambunting, and Feliza
Concepcion de Delgado – alleged in their Answer (a) that no necessity existed for said
expropriation and (b) that the land in question was a cemetery, which had been used as
such for many years, and was covered with sepulchers and monuments, and that the
same should not be converted into a street for public purposes.

• One of the defendants, Ildefonso Tampbunting, offered to grant a right of way for the
said extension over other land, without cost to the plaintiff, in order that the sepulchers,
chapels and graves of his ancestors may not be disturbed.

• The Honorable Simplicio del Rosario, decided that there was no necessity for the
expropriation of the particular strip of land in question, and absolved each and all of the
defendants from all liability under the complaint, without any finding as to costs. On
appeal, the plaintiff contended that the city of Manila has authority to
expropriate private lands for public purposes. Section 2429 of Act No. 2711 (Charter of
the city of Manila) provides that "the city (Manila) . . . may condemn private property
for public use."
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the courts may inquire into, and hear proof of the necessity of the
expropriation.

2. Whether or not the City of Manila can condemn private property for public use
HELD
1. Yes. The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain must not be confused
with the right to exercise it in a particular case. The power of the legislature to confer,
upon municipal corporations and other entities within the State, general authority to
exercise the right of eminent domain cannot be questioned by the courts, but that
 general authority of municipalities or entities must not be confused with the right to
exercise it in particular instances. The moment the municipal corporation or entity
attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must comply with the conditions
accompanying the authority. The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal
corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of
the legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the
right in a particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority is a
question which the courts have the right to inquire into.

2. No. Section 2429 of Act 2711 (Charter of the city of Manila) provides that the city
(Manila) may condemn private property for public use. The Charter of the city of Manila,
however, contains no procedure by which the said authority may be carried into effect.
Act 190 provides for how right of eminent domain may be exercised. Section 241 of said
Act provides that the Government of the Philippine Islands, or of any province or
department thereof, or of any municipality, and any person, or public or private
corporation having, by law, the right to condemn private property for public use, shall
exercise that right in the manner prescribed by Section 242 to 246. The right of
expropriation is not an inherent power in a municipal corporation, and before it can
exercise the right some law must exist conferring the power upon it. When the courts
come to determine the question, they must not only find (a) that a law or authority
exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain, but (b) also that the right or
authority is being exercised in accordance with the law. In the present case there are
two conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to the City of Manila: First, the
land must be private; and, second, the purpose must be public. If the court, upon trial,
finds that neither of these conditions exists or that either one of them fails, certainly it
cannot be contended that the right is being exercised in accordance with law. Herein,
the cemetery in question is public (a cemetery used by the general community, or
neighborhood, or church) and seems to have been established under governmental
authority, as the Spanish Governor-General, in an order creating the same. Where a
cemetery is open to the public, it is a public use and no part of the ground can be taken
for other public uses under a general authority. To disturb the mortal remains of those
endeared to us in life sometimes becomes the sad duty of the living; but, except in cases
of necessity, or for laudable purposes, the sanctity of the grave, the last resting place of
our friends, should be maintained, and the preventative aid of the courts should be
invoked for that object. While cemeteries and sepulchers and the places of the burial of
the dead are still within the memory and command of the active care of the living; while
they are still devoted to pious uses and sacred regard, it is difficult to believe that even
the legislature would adopt a law expressly providing that such places, under such
circumstances, should be violated. Whether or not the cemetery is public or private
property, its appropriation for the uses of a public street, especially during the lifetime
of those specially interested in its maintenance as a cemetery, should be a question of
great concern, and its appropriation should not be made for such purposes until it is
fully established that the greatest necessity exists therefore. In the present case, even
granting that a necessity exists for the opening of the street in question, the record
contains no proof of the necessity of opening the same through the cemetery. The
 record shows that adjoining and adjacent lands have been offered by Tambunting to the
city free of charge, which will answer every purpose of the plaintiff.

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.