Hacienda Luicita vs. PARC Petitioner is vested with powers or attributes associated with juridical personality.

ISA in fact
appears to be a non-incorporated agency or instrumentality of the Government of the Republic of the
G.R. No. 171101 | April 24, 2012,| Velasco, J. Philippines. When the statutory term of a non-incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties and
Facts: Petitioner applied for the conversion of 500 hectares of land of the hacienda from agricultural functions as well as the assets and liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are re-assumed by, the
to industrial use, pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 6657. DAR granted the petition subject to payment of Republic of the Philippines.
three percent (3%) of the gross selling price to the FWBs
San Roque Realty vs. Republic
Issue: Whether or not DAR’S land valuation is final and conclusive upon the landowner
G.R. No. 163130, September 7, 2007, NACHURA, J.
Ruling: No.
Facts: Judge Felix Martinez ordered the initial deposit of P9, 500.00 as pre-condition for the entry on
DAR’s land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive the lands sought to be expropriated. The purpose of expropriation was to carry out the development
upon the landowner. The landowner can file an original action with the RTC acting as a special program of the Philippine Army as provided in the National Defense Act, i.e., military reservation.
agrarian court to determine just compensation The judgment favored the Republic, however, tittle of the said land was not transferred on its name.

Filstream vs. CA Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is the rightful owner of the land.

G.R. No. 125218, January 23, 1998, FRANCISCO, J. Ruling: Yes.

Facts: The City of Manila approved Ordinance 7855 declaring the expropriation of certain parcels of The payment of just compensation for private property taken for public use is an
land situated along Antonio Rivera(Filmstream is situated) and Fernando Ma.Guerrero streets in indispensable requisite for the exercise of the State’s sovereign power of eminent domain. Failure to
Tondo, Manila, which were were to be sold and distributed to qualified tenants of the area pursuant observe this requirement renders the taking ineffectual, notwithstanding the avowed public purpose
to the Land Use Development Program of the City of Manila.
Republic vs. La Orden
Issue: Whether or not there is violation of due process against Filstream in the manner its properties
G.R. No. L-127792, February 28, 1961, DIZON, J..
were expropriated and condemned in favor of the City of Manila.
Facts: To ease and solve the daily traffic congestion on Legarda Street, the Government drew plans to
Ruling: No.
extend Azcarraga street from its junction with Mendiola street, up to the Sta. Mesa Rotonda,
The Court found nothing that would indicate that respondent City of Manila complied with Sampaloc, Manila. It offered to buy a portion of approximately 6,000 square meters of a bigger parcel
Sec. 9 and Sec. 10 of R.A. 7279. Petitioner Filstream's properties were expropriated and ordered belonging to La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, a domestic religious corporation that owns
condemned in favor of the City of Manila the San Beda College. Not having been able to reach an agreement on the matter with the owner, the
Government instituted the present expropriation proceedings.
Iron and Steel Authority vs. CA
Issue: Whether or not there is a genuine necessity for the exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain
G.R. No. 102976, October 25, 1995,FELICIANO, J.
Ruling: No.
Facts: Iron and Steel Authority (ISA) was created by P.D. No. 272 to develop & promote the iron and
steel industry in the Philippines. Portions of the said land in Iligan were occupied by Maria Cristina It is the rule in this Jurisdiction that Private property may be expropriated for public use and
Fertilizer Corporation (MCFC). The former was asked to negotiate on behalf of the Government, upon payment of just compensation; that the condemnation of private property is justified only if it is
however it failed. ISA then filed an eminent domain proceeding. for the public good and there is a genuine necessity therefore of a public character. Consequently, the
courts have the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to
Issue: Whether or not the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to be substituted for ISA in view of determine whether or not there is a genuine necessity.
the expiration of ISA's term
Bardillon vs. Barangay Masili
Ruling: Yes.
G.R. No. 146886, April 30, 2003, PANGANIBAN, J. Petitioner’s reliance on Section 50 of the Property Registration Decree is erroneous. Section 50
contemplates roads and streets in a subdivided property, not public thoroughfares built on a private
Facts: The expropriation suit was opposed by the petitioner through its Motion to Dismiss on the property that was taken from an owner for public purpose. A public thoroughfare is not a
ground of res judicata doctrine by MTC’s decision subdivision road or street.It must be compensated because its was taken and utilized for public road
Issue: Whether or not the decision of MTC reached res judicata purposes. More importantly, when there is taking of private property for some public purpose, the
owner of the property taken is entitled to be compensated.
Ruling: No.
Amigable vs. Cuenca
Not having jurisdiction over the expropriation proceedings of the case at bar, the MTC’s
dismissal of the first suit did not meet the requisites for the application of the res judicata doctrine G.R. No. L-26400 February 29, 1972, Makalintal, J..
and therefore, CA’s affirmation of the RTC’s decision does not constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Facts: Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the government used a portion of a lot owned
Ayala de Roxas vs City of Manila by Amigable, for the construction of the two avenues. Amigable received no compensation thus seek
recovery
G.R. No. L-3144, November 19, 1907, Arellano, C.J.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner may file an action to recover possession of the portion of land in
Facts: Plaintiff applied for a license to construct a terrace over the strip of land between the wall of question
her house and the edge of the canal of Sibacon. It was denied because “plaintiff will only be able to
use the said strip in the same manner and for the same purposes as the public in general. Ruling: Yes.

Issue: Whether or not there is a taking As registered owner, she could bring an action to recover possession of the portion of land in
question at any time because possession is one of the attributes of ownership. Considering that no
Ruling: Yes. annotation in favor of the government appears at the back of her certificate of title and that she has
not executed any deed of conveyance of any portion of her lot to the government, the appellant
What the defendants have therefore done is to prevent the plaintiffs from continuing to
remains the owner of the whole lot. However, since restoration of possession of said portion by the
enjoy, use, and freely dispose of such strip of their ground, as they had been doing up to the time
government is neither convenient nor feasible at this time because it is now and has been used for
when they applied for a license to construct a terrace over said strip, and the defendants prevented it
road purposes, the only relief available is for the government to make due compensation which it
with the intention of establishing a public easement provided for in an ordinance of their own which
could and should have done years ago.
they consider is pursuant to the provisions of the Law of Waters and of the Civil Code in force.”
Velarma vs. CA
Republic vs. Ortigas
G.R. No. 113615 | January 25, 1996, Panganiban, J.
G.R. No. 171496, March 03, 2014, Leonen J.
Facts: "Respondent filed an “ejectment suit” against petitioner alleging that he entered her property
Facts: Respondent owned a parcel of land and subdivided it into lots. It filed a petition to sell to the
and built his dwelling on a portion of her land. Petitioner claims that respondent has no cause of
government, alleging that the DPWH requested the conveyance of the property for road widening
action against him because the land on which his house stands belongs to the government by virtue
purposes. Petitioner opposed and alleging that respondent’s property can only be conveyed by way
of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Sanggunian Bayan wherein respondent said he would transfer
of donation to the government, citing Section 50 of PD No. 1529
portion of his landn exchange for a corresponding portion of the old abandoned provincial road.
Issue: Whether respondent may not sell and only donate its property to the government in However, the minutes of the meeting of the Sangguniang Bayan do not mention the execution of any
accordance with Section 50 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 deed to perfect the agreement."

Ruling: Yes. Issue: Whether or not respondent’s agreement to sell the property to the Sangguniang Bayan of
Mauban as evidenced by the minutes of a meeting, absent a formal deed, constitute a sufficient
ground to defeat a forcible entry suit
Ruling: No. Ardona v. Reyes

It must be stressed that the agreement to transfer the property was made in 1974. More than 125 SCRA 220, G.R. Nos. L-60549, 60553 to 60555 | October 26, 1983 | Gutierrez, Jr., J.
twenty years later, no actual transfer had yet been made. Unless and until the transfer is
Facts: Respondent Philippine Tourism Authority sought to expropriate lands for resort development
consummated, or expropriation proceedings instituted by the government, private respondent
in Cebu. Respondents oppose the expropriation, claiming that the taking is not for the purpose of
Josefina Pansacola continues to retain ownership of the land subject of this case.
public use.
Reyes vs. NHA
Issue: Whether or not the taking of lots for development of resort complexes is a a valid
G.R. No. 147511 | January 20, 2003| Puno, J. expropriation

Facts: Petitioners contend that NHA violated the stated public purpose when it failed to relocate the Ruling: Yes.
squatters and used the land for a different purpose.
The concept of public use is not limited to traditional purpose for the construction of roads,
Issue: Whether or not the judgment of expropriation was forfeited in the light of the failure of bridges, and the like. The idea that “public use” means “use by the public” has been discarded. As
respondent NHA to use the expropriated property for the intended purpose but for a totally different long as the purpose of the taking is public, power of eminent domain comes into play. Whatever may
purpose. be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.

Ruling: No, Manosca v. CA

Petitioners cannot insist on a restrictive view of the eminent domain provision of the 252 SCRA 412, G.R. No. 106440 | January 29, 1996 | Vitug, J.
Constitution by contending that the contract for low cost housing is a deviation from the stated public
Facts: Respondent National Historical Institute declared a land owned by petitioner as a national
use. It is now settled doctrine that the concept of public use is no longer limited to traditional
historical landmark (Manalo), and as such filed for expropriation. Petitioner opposed for this would
purposes.
benefit a religious entity.
Estate of Salud Jimenez v. PEZA
Issue: Whether or not the taking of lands for historical landmarks is a valid expropriation
G.R. No. 137285 | January 16, 2001, De Leon Jr., J.
Ruling: Yes.
Facts: Respondent PEZA sought to expropriate petitioner Estate of Salud Jimenez's lots in Rosario,
The only direct constitutional qualification is that “private property shall not be taken for
Cavite for industrial development. Petitioner disagreed since one of the lots would be turned over to
public use without just compensation.” The power of eminent domain should not now be understood
a private entity.
as being confined only to the expropriation of vast tracts of land and landed estates.
Issue: Whether or not the expropriation is valid
DPWH v. Asia Pacific
Ruling: Yes.
719 SCRA 50, G.R. No. 192100 | March 12, 2014 | Villarama, Jr. J.
The “public use” requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a
Facts: The Toll Regulatory Board initiated expropriation proceedings on land owned by respondent.
flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. In this jurisdiction, the statutory
Disagreeing on the value of the property, commissioners made recommendations which the lower
and judicial trend has been summarized as the court has ruled that the taking to be valid must be for
court ruled upon, in favor of respondent.
public use.
Issue: Whether or not there is just compensation in the decision of the trial court

Ruling: NO. The trial court did not judiciously determine the fair market value of the subject
property as it failed to consider other relevant factors based on Section 5 of Republic Act No. 8974.
NPC v. Sps. Chiong Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to 6% interest per annum on the amount of just
compensation.
404 SCRA 527, G.R. No. 152436 | June 20, 2003 | Quisumbing, J.
Ruling: No.
Facts: Petitioner sought to exporpriate lands for an easement of right of way, for the purpose of
installing new power transmission lines. Respondents did not object, however petitioner averred that The records of this case reveal that petitioner did not delay in its payment of just
the compensation was overpriced. compensation as it had deposited the pertinent amount in full due to respondent on January 24, 2011,
or four (4) months before the taking thereof, which was when the RTC ordered the issuance of a Writ
Issue: Whether or not there was just compensation in the value set by the RTC of Possession and a Writ of Expropriation on May 27, 2011.
Ruling: Yes.
Eslaban vs. De Onorio
Market value may be modified where only a part of a certain property is expropriated. In
G.R. No. 146062, June 28, 2001, Mendoza, J.
such a case the owner is not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken, but he is also
entitled to recover for the consequential damage, if any, to the remaining part of the property. At the Facts: De Onorio's husband agreed to the construction of the NIA canal provided that they be paid by
same time, the value of the consequential benefits, if any, must be deducted from the total the government. De Onorio demanded payment for the taking of her property, NIA refused to pay
compensation.
Issue: Whether or not the valuation of just compensation is determined at the time the property was
Republic v. BPI taken or at the time the complaint for expropriation is filed.

705 SCRA 650, G.R. No. 203039 | September 11, 2013 | Carpio, J. Ruling: In this instance, the Supreme Court said that where the appropriating agency, NIA, takes
over the property prior to the expropriation suit, just compensation shall be determined as of the time
Facts: Petitioner sought to expropriate land owned by respondent for the construction of the Zapote- of the taking, not as of the time of the filing of the complaint for eminent domain.
Alabang Flyover, and faced no opposition. Parties however disagreed upon the value and scope of
the just compensation on the land, as the expropriation extended to a building owned by respondent Biglang-awa vs. Judge Bacalla
bank.
G.R. No. 139927-139936, November 22, 2000, Gonzaga-Reyes, J.
Issue: Whether or not the value set by the lower court in its decision is just compensation
Facts: Petitioners are owners of certain parcels of land located at Quezon City. The government
Ruling: Yes. needed to expropriate parts of their property for the construction of Minadano Avenue Extension.
Notices were given for the proceedings yet they failed to comply.
The decision of the trial court had become final and executory as the Solicitor General had
failed to file a notice of appeal or motion for reconsideration within the alowed 15-day period. No Issue: Whether or not the filing of the expropriation cases against the petitioners is lawful.
actual taking of the building is necessary to grant consequential damages. Consequential damages are
awarded if as a result of the expropriation, the remaining property of the owner suffers from an Ruling: No.
impairment or decrease in value.
The issuance of a writ of possession pursuant to Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure alone is neither “capricious” nor “oppressive,” as the said rule affords owners safeguards
Republic vs. Soriano
against unlawful deprivation of their property in expropriation proceedings, one of which is the
G.R. No. 211666, February 25, 2015, Peralta, . deposit requirement which constitutes advance payment in the event expropriation proceeds, and
stands as indemnity for damages should the proceedings fail of consummation
Facts: Republic of the Philippines (DPWH), filed a Complaint for expropriation against respondent
Arlene R. Soriano. Records of the case reveal that petitioner adduced evidence to show that the total
amount deposited is just, fair, and equitable. Thus, RTC ordered the plaintiff to pay Soriano
Php2,100.00/sqm or the sum of Php420,000.00 for the 200/sqm as fair, equitable, and just
compensation with legal interest at 12% per annum from the taking of the possession of the property.
City of Manila vs. Serrano
G.R. No. 142302, June 20, 2001, Mendoza, J. Issue: Whether or not prior determination of existence of public purpose is necessary before the
issuance of writ of possession
Facts: City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7833 and filed a petition for expropriation against
several owners of lots in Tondo pursuant to the Land Use Development Program of the City of Ruling: No.
Manila. Respondent claim that they are exempt from expropriation, “small property”
The law does not make the determination of a public purpose a condition precedent to the
Issue: Whether or not it is a valid exercise of ed issuance of a writ of possession. Section 19. Eminent Domain - That the local government unit may
immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and
Ruling: No. upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value
The determination of this question must await the hearing on the complaint for of the property
expropriation, particularly the hearing for the condemnation of the properties sought to be
expropriated. Expropriation proceedings consists of two stages: first, condemnation of the property
after it is determined that its acquisition will be for a public purpose or public use and, second, the
determination of just compensation to be paid for the taking of private property to be made by the
court with the assistance of not more than three commissioners.

City of Iloilo vs. Judge Legaspi

G.R. No. 154616, November 25, 2004, Chica-Nazario, J

Facts: Mayor Malabor wanted to buy a property from Yusay for the purpose of relocation for the poor
and the landless as a housing program. Petitioner filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Possession
alleging that since it has deposited with the Court the amount of P2,809,696.50 representing fifteen
percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property, it may immediately take possesion under R.A.
7160

Issue: Whether or not petitioner erred in exercising the power of eminent domain.

Ruling: No.

Said section provides that the local government unit may take immediate possession of the
property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit of at least
fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on its current tax declaration. As
long as the expropriation proceedings have been commenced and the deposit has been made, the
local government unit cannot be barred from praying for the issuance of a writ of possession.

Francia vs. Municipality of Meycauayan

G.R. No. 170432, March 24, 2008, Corona, J.

Facts: Respondent need the 16, 255 sq. m of petitioners property for the establishment of common
public terminal for all types of public utility vehicles with a weighing scale for heavy trucks.
Petitioners denied that the property sought to be expropriated was raw land. It was in fact developed
and there were plans for further development. For this reason, respondent’s offer price of ₱2,333,500
(or ₱111.99 per square meter) was too low.