INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE:
1. POLICE POWER
2. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
3. POWER OF TAXATION
POLITICAL LAW BY NACHURA – PAGE 60
UP POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER – PAGE 117
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEWER – PAGE 173
GN POLITICAL LAW 2017 – PAGE 80
A quasi-public corporation is a company in the private sector
that is supported by the government with a public mandate to
provide a given service. Examples include telegraph and
telephone companies, oil and gas, water, and electric light
companies, and irrigation companies
THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE
EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN
The exercise of the power of eminent domain is constrained by two constitutional provisions: (1) that private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation under Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 9 and
(2) that no person shall be deprived of his/her life, liberty, or property without due process of law under Article III,
Sec. 1. (Barangay Sindalan, et al. v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 150640, March 22, 2007).
THE NATURE AND ELEMENTS
OF THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN
Eminent domain or expropriation is the inherent right of the state to condemn private property to
public use upon payment of just compensation. A number of circumstances must be present in
the taking of property for purposes of eminent domain:
(1) the expropriator must enter a private property;
(2) the entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period;
(3) the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority;
(4) the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected; and
(5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner
and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.
When private property is rendered uninhabitable by any entity with the power to exercise
eminent domain, the taking is deemed complete. NPC v. CA, G.R. No. 106804, August 12, 2004,
(436 SCRA 195). Taking occurs not only when the government actually deprives or dispossesses
the property owner of his property or its ordinary use, but also when there is a practical
destruction or material impairment of the value of the property. (Rep. v. CA, G.R. No. 147245,
March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 516; Heirs of Mateo Pidacan & Romana Eigo, et al. v. ATO, et al.,
G.R. No. 162779, June 15, 2007).
The power of eminent domain can only be exercised for public use and with just compensation. Taking an
individual’s private property is a deprivation which can only be justified by a higher good – which is public use –
and can only be counterbalanced by just compensation. Without these safeguards, the taking of property would not
only be unlawful, immoral, and null and void, but would also constitute a gross and condemnable transgression of an
individual’s basic right to property as well.
TEST IN THE EXERCISE OF
THE POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN
It is settled that the public nature of the prospective exercise of expropriation cannot depend on the
“numerical count of those to be served or the smallness or largeness of the community to be benefited.” The
number of people is not determinative of whether or not it constitutes public use; provided the use is exercisable in
common and is not limited to particular individuals. Thus, the first essential requirement for a valid exercise of
eminent domain is for the expropriator to prove that the expropriation is for a public use. In Municipality of Biñan v.
Garcia, the Court explicated that expropriation ends with an order 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 just compensation.
CONCEPT OF PUBLIC USE
There is no precise meaning of “public use” and the term is susceptible of myriad meanings depending on diverse
situations. The limited meaning attached to “public use” is “use by the public” or “public employment”, that “a duty
must devolve on the person or corporation holding property appropriated by right of eminent domain to furnish the
public with the use intended, and that there must be a right on the part of the public, or some portion of it, or some
public or quasi-public agency on behalf of the public, to use the property after it is condemned.” The more generally
accepted view sees “public use” as “public advantage, convenience, or benefit, and that anything which tends to
enlarge the resources, increase the industrial energies, and promote the productive power of any considerable
number of inhabitants of a section of the state, or which leads to the growth of towns and the creation of new
resources for the employment of capital and labor, which contributes to the general welfare and the prosperity of the
whole community.” In this jurisdiction, “public use” is defined as “whatever is beneficially employed for the
community.
IN THE EXERCISE OF THE
POWER OF EMINENT
DOMAIN, WHAT VALUE
SHALL BE PAID TO THE
OWNER?
The general rule in determining “just compensation” in eminent domain is the value of the property as of the
date of the filing of the complaint.
Normally, the time of the taking coincides with the filing of the complaint for expropriation. Hence, many rulings of
the Court have equated just compensation with the value of the property as of the time of filing of the complaint
consistent with the Rules. So too, where the institution of the action precedes entry to the property, the just
compensation is to be ascertained as of the time of filing of the complaint.
The general rule, however, admits of an exception: where the Court fixed the value of the property as of the date it
was taken and not the date of the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. (NPC v. Ibrahim, et al.,
G.R. No. 168732, June 29, 2007).
Another vital requisite for a valid condemnation is the payment of just compensation to the property owner. In the
recent case of APO Fruits Corp. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, just compensation has been defined as “the full
and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator”, and that the gauge for computation is
not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. In order for the payment to be “just”, it must be real, substantial, full and
ample.
Heirs of Mateo Pidacan and Romana Eigo, et al. v. ATO, et
al.,
G.R. No. 162779, June 15, 2007
A property was converted into an airport by the Air Transport Office (ATO) depriving the
owners of the beneficial use and enjoyment of the same as early as 1948 without an
expropriation proceeding. It was contended that there was taking hence, just compensation
should be reckoned from 1948. Is the contention correct? Why?
No. As a rule, the determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is reckoned
from the time of taking. (Gabatin v. LBO, 444 SCRA 176 (2004)). In this case, however,
application of the said rule would lead to grave injustice. Note that the ATO had been using
the property as airport since 1948 without having instituted the proper expropriation proceedings.
To peg the value of the property at the time of taking in 1948, despite the exponential increase in
its value considering the lapse of over half a century, would be iniquitous. ATO cannot
conveniently invoke the right of eminent domain to take advantage of the ridiculously low value
of the property at the time of taking that it arbitrarily chooses to the prejudice of the owners.
Justice and fairness dictate that the appropriate reckoning point for the valuation of the
property is when the trial court made its order of expropriation in 2001. (Heirs of Mateo
Pidacan & Romana Eigo, et al. v. ATO, et al., G.R. No. 162779, June 15, 2007).
WRIT OF POSSESSION
"A writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover
the possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give possession of it to
the person entitled under the judgment.
What is the definition of writ?
The term writ refers to a formal, legal document that orders a person or entity to
perform or to cease performing a specific action or deed. Writs are drafted by judges,
courts, or other entities that have administrative or judicial jurisdiction.
How does a writ work?
A writ of possession is issued after a landlord wins an eviction case in court. A writ of
possession can also be called a writ of eviction. This order allows a person or group to
take possession of real property by forcing the person or group currently in possession
of the property out
G.R. No. 187973 January 20, 2014
LZK HOLDINGS and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,
vs.
PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
"A writ of possession is a writ of execution employed to enforce a judgment to recover the
possession of land. It commands the sheriff to enter the land and give possession of it to the person
entitled under the judgment. It may be issued in case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of a real estate
mortgage under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118.
ACT NO. 3135
ACT NO. 3135 - AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER
SPECIAL POWERS INSERTED IN OR ANNEXED TO REAL-ESTATE MORTGAGES
ACT NO. 4118
ACT NO. 4118 - AN ACT TO AMEND ACT NUMBERED THIRTY-ONE HUNDRED
AND THIRTY-FIVE, ENTITLED "AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE OF
PROPERTY UNDER SPECIAL POWERS INSERTED IN OR ANNEXED TO REAL-
ESTATE MORTGAGES."
WRIT OF POSSESSION
> Employed to enforce a judgment to recover possession of the land
> A judgment confirming the title of the applicant and ordering its registration in his name
necessarily carried with it the delivery of the possession which is an inherent element of the right
of ownership
> Sanctioned by laws in this jurisdiction and by generally accepted principle upon which the
administration of justice rests
> May be issued not only against the person who has been defeated in the registration case but
also against anyone unlawfully and adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during
the land registration proceedings up to the issuance of final decree
> Will not issue against persons taking possession after issuance of final decree
> Writ doesn't issue in reconstitution cases
What Is a Writ of Possession?
A writ of possession is issued after a landlord wins an eviction case in court. A
writ of possession can also be called a writ of eviction. This order allows a person
or group to take possession of real property by forcing the person or group
currently in possession of the property out.
The court has ruled in favor of the landlord and the tenant no longer has the right
to live in the rental property because he or she has violated the lease
agreement. The tenant must move so that the landlord can rent out the rental unit
again.
Example:
A writ of possession was issued after Chris won an eviction lawsuit against his
tenant, Mary. Mary has three days to move out of the rental property. If she does
not move, a writ of restitution will be ordered.
Q: Can a writ of possession be issued even without notice by the court to any person
adverse of interest?
A: Yes. Once title to the property has been consolidated in the buyer’s name upon
failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property within the one-year redemption
period, the writ of possession becomes a matter of right belonging to the buyer.
Its right to possession has then ripened into the right of a confirmed absolute owner
and the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial function that does not admit of the
exercise of the court’s discretion.
Moreover, a petition for a writ of possession is ex-parte and summary in nature. As
one brought for the benefit of one party only and without notice by the court to any
person adverse of interest, it is a judicial proceeding wherein relief is granted without
giving the person against whom the relief is sought an opportunity to be heard.
Since the judge to whom the application for writ of possession is filed need not look
into the validity of the mortgage or the manner of its foreclosure, it has been ruled that
the ministerial duty of the trial court does not become discretionary upon the filing of
a complaint questioning the mortgage. (Gopiao vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.,
G.R. No. 188931, July 28, 2014)
