CLEP Eminent Domain
CLEP Eminent Domain
CLEP Eminent Domain
As provided under the law, there are requisites to be followed for a valid
exercise of the power of eminent domain. Under Section 9, Article III of the
Constitution, “private property shall not be taken for a public use without just
compensation. This provision imposes limitation on the State’s exercise of the
power and a measure of protection to the individual’s right to property.
In Manapat vs Court of Appeals, the Court laid down the following requisites
for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain: (1) The property taken must
be private property; (2) There must be genuine necessity to take the private
property; (3) The taking must be for public use; (4) There must be payment of just
compensation; and (5) The taking must comply with due process of law.
The law emphasizes the payment of just compensation for every private
property taken by the government for public use.
In the given case, the government failed to expropriate the property which is
standing in the middle of national highway despite the exercise of the power of
eminent domain. In the case Yujuico vs Atienza, GR No. 164282, the court said
that “The notion of expropriation is hard enough to take for a private owner. He is
compelled to give up his property for the common weal. But to give it up and wait in
vain for the just compensation decreed by the courts is too much to bear. In cases
like these, courts will not hesitate to step in to ensure that justice and fair play are
served. As we have already ruled:
. . . This Court will not condone petitioner's blatant refusal to settle its
legal obligation arising from expropriation proceedings it had in fact
initiated. It cannot be over-emphasized that within the context of the
State's inherent power of eminent domain,