MANAPAT v.

COURT OF APPEALS (AYIS) directly from RCAM and/or PRC

October 15, 2007| Nachura, J. | Eminent Domain
PETITIONER: Fermin Manapat 4. In 1977 when the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals Decree (PD) No. 1072, appropriating P1.2M out of the President’s Special
Operations Funds to cover the additional amount needed for the
expropriation of Grace Park. The National Housing Authority (NHA),
SUMMARY: Grace Park property was obtained by occupants that formed a
PHHC’s successor, then filed several expropriation proceedings over the
tenant’s association. Government sought to acquire the property by virtue of
already subdivided lots for the purpose of developing Grace Park under the
eminent domain. NHA eventually pursued the discontinued plan under its Zonal
Zonal Improvement Program (ZIP) and subdividing it into small lots for
Improvement Program.
distribution and resale at a low cost to the residents of the area

5. After due proceedings, the trial court rendered separate decisions dismissing
DOCTRINE: Eminent Domain – Eminent domain is the authority of the expropriation cases and amended its decision, set aside its dismissal of
the said cases, ordered the condemnation of the involved lots and fixed the
government to purchase private lands for public use.
amount of just compensation at P180.00 per square meter.
Requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain: (1) the
6. CA decision NHA has a lawful right to take the lots involved for the public
property taken must be private property; (2) there must be genuine necessity to use described in the complaints; granted the expropriation; declaring that
take the private property; (3) the taking must be for public use; (4) there must be plaintiffappellant NHA has a lawful right to take the lots involved for the
payment of just compensation; and (5) the taking must comply with due process public use stated in the complaint; but annulling and setting aside the just
of law. compensation fixed by the trial court at P180.00 per square meter in the said
cases; , to the trial court for determination of the just compensation to which
defendants are entitled in accordance with Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of
FACTS: Court;

1. Sometime in the 1960s, RCAM allowed a number of individuals to occupy ISSUE/s:

the Grace Park property on condition that they would vacate the premises
should the former push through with the plan to construct a school in the 1. W/N Stripped of non-essentials, the petitions raise only one fundamental
area. The plan, however, did not materialize, thus, the occupants offered to issue, and that is, whether the NHA may validly expropriate the parcels of
purchase the portions they occupied. Later, as they could not afford land subject of these cases - YES, the NHA may validly expropriate the
RCAM’s proposed price, the occupants, organizing themselves as exclusive subject parcels of land.
members of the Eulogio Rodriguez, Jr. Tenants Association, Inc., petitioned
the Government for the acquisition of the said property, its subdivision into RULING:
home lots, and the resale of the subdivided lots to them at a low price.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the May 27, 1993 Decision of the
2. The Government, in 1963, through the Land Tenure Administration (LTA), Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 10200-10212 and the June 28, 1994 Decision
later succeeded by the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation in CA-G.R. CV No. 27159 are AFFIRMED; and the March 2, 1994 and the July 25,
(PHHC), negotiated for the acquisition of the property from RCAM/PRC 1994 Resolutions in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 10200-10212 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. SO ORDERED.
3. Due to high asking price of RCAM and the budgetary constraints of the
Government, the latter’s effort to purchase and/or to expropriate the RATIO:
property was discontinued. RCAM then decided to effect, on its own, the
subdivision of the property and the sale of the individual subdivided lots to 1. The power of eminent domain is an inherent and indispensable power of the
the public. Petitioners Manapat and Lim and respondents Loberanes, State. Also called, the power of expropriation, it is described as “the highest
Quimque, Vega, Santos, Oracion and Mercado in these consolidated cases and most exact idea of property remaining in the government” that may be
were among those who purchased individual subdivided lots of Grace Park acquired for some public purpose through a method “in the nature of a
compulsory sale to the State.” By virtue of its sovereign character, the a. The construction and/or improvement of dwelling units for the
exercise of the power prevails over the non impairment clause, and is middle- and lower-income groups of the society, including the
clearly superior to the final and executory judgment rendered by a court in construction of the supporting infrastructure and other facilities;
an ejectment case. Being inherent, the power need not be specifically
conferred on the government by the Constitution. Section 9, Article III of b. Slum clearance, relocation and resettlement of squatters and slum
the Constitution, which mandates that “private property shall not be dwellers as well as the provision of related facilities and services;
taken for a public use without just compensation,” merely imposes a Slum improvement which consists basically of allocating homelots
limit on the government’s exercise of the power and provides a measure to the dwellers in the area or property involved, rearrangement and
of protection to the individual’s right to property. re-alignment of existing houses and other dwelling structures and
the construction and provision of basic community facilities and
The power of eminent domain is exercised by the Legislature. However, it services, where there are none, such as roads, footpaths, drainage,
may be delegated by Congress to the President, administrative bodies, sewerage, water and power system, schools, barangay centers,
local government units, and even to private enterprises performing community centers, clinics, open spaces, parks, playgrounds and
public services. Requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent other recreational facilities; The provision of economic
domain: (1) the property taken must be private property; (2) there must opportunities, including the development of commercial and
be genuine necessity to take the private property; (3) the taking must industrial estates and such other facilities to enhance the total
be for public use; (4) there must be payment of just compensation; and community growth; and Such other activities undertaken in
(5) the taking must comply with due process of law. pursuance of the objective to provide and maintain housing for the
greatest number of people under Presidential Decree No. 757
It is incontrovertible that the parcels of land subject of these consolidated
petitions are private property. Thus, the first requisite is satisfied. The Requisite for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible
second requisite is that foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. At present, it may
must be that of genuine necessity, and that necessity must be of a public not be amiss to state that whatever is beneficially employed for the general
character. As a rule, the determination of whether there is genuine welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. To satisfy the fourth
necessity for the exercise is a justiciable question. However, when the requisite, we affirm the appellate court’s disposition that the subject cases
power is exercised by the Legislature, the question of necessity is be remanded to the trial court for the determination of the amount of
essentially a political question. The authority to expropriate came from just compensation. Under case law, the said determination is a judicial
Presidential Decree No. 1072, issued by then President Ferdinand E. prerogative. As to the observance of the fifth requisite, the due process
Marcos in 1977. had legislative powers. Perforce, the expropriation of the clause, in the expropriation proceedings, all the parties have been given
subject properties—identified with specificity in the P.D.—was directed by their day in court. That they are now before this Court is attestation
legislation. The issue of necessity then assumed the nature of a political enough that they were not denied due process of law.
question. Third requisite involves “public use” with the purpose for
which the expropriation was undertaken by NHA. As set forth in its
petition, 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 Government’s 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. Around 510 families with approximately 5 members each
will be benefited by the project.

It is an integral part of the government’s “socialized housing” program

which, in Sumulong v. Guerrero, we deemed compliant with the “public
use” requirement, it being a program clearly devoted to a “public purpose.”
was later expanded to include among others: