Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

CLEP Eminent Domain

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

The power of Eminent Domain is one of the inherent powers of the State

which is sometimes call the power of expropriation. By definition, it is the power of


the State to take private property for public use upon payment of just
compensation. This power is inherent in the Congress, but it may validly be
delegated to the President, Local Government Bodies, National Housing Authority,
and even to Private Corporations performing public functions.

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,

. . . (j)ust compensation means not only the correct determination of


the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of
the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt
payment, compensation cannot be considered just for the property
owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately
deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more
before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss
(Consculluela v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77765,
August 15, 1988, 164 SCRA 393, 400. See also Provincial Government
of Sorsogon v. Vda. De Villaroya, G.R. No. 64037, August 27, 1987, 153
SCRA 291).”
It was also held in the case of Republic v. Lim;

…while the prevailing doctrine is that the non-payment of just


compensation does not entitle the private landowner to recover
possession of the expropriated lots, however, in cases where the
government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years
from the finality of judgment in the expropriation proceedings,
the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of
their property. This is in consonance with the principle that 'the
government cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment. To
be sure, the five-year period limitation will encourage the government
to pay just compensation punctually. This is in keeping with justice and
equity. After all, it is the duty of the government, whenever it takes
property from private persons against their will, to facilitate the
payment of just compensation.

Therefore, the government cannot validly remove the property which is


in the middle of the national road. The power of eminent domain of the state
has its limitation, one of which is the prompt payment of just compensation as
discussed by the cases mentioned above.

You might also like