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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    Case No. 011 City of Manila v. Chinese Cemetery of Manila

    Uploaded by

    voltz
    The City of Manila sought to expropriate land from the Chinese Cemetery of Manila to extend a road. The trial court found no necessity for taking the cemetery's land, as adjacent land was available. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that municipalities lack inherent power of expropriation and that the cemetery was public property that could not be taken without clear necessity. Even if private, a cemetery's appropriation requires great concern and necessity given its purpose of maintaining burial grounds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case No. 011 City of Manila v. Chinese Cemetery of Manila

    Uploaded by

    voltz
    95 views2 pages
    The City of Manila sought to expropriate land from the Chinese Cemetery of Manila to extend a road. The trial court found no necessity for taking the cemetery's land, as adjacent land was available. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that municipalities lack inherent power of expropriation and that the cemetery was public property that could not be taken without clear necessity. Even if private, a cemetery's appropriation requires great concern and necessity given its purpose of maintaining burial grounds.

    Original Description:

    Consti 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The City of Manila sought to expropriate land from the Chinese Cemetery of Manila to extend a road. The trial court found no necessity for taking the cemetery's land, as adjacent land was available. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that municipalities lack inherent power of expropriation and that the cemetery was public property that could not be taken without clear necessity. Even if private, a cemetery's appropriation requires great concern and necessity given its purpose of maintaining burial grounds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    95 views2 pages

    Case No. 011 City of Manila v. Chinese Cemetery of Manila

    Uploaded by

    voltz
    The City of Manila sought to expropriate land from the Chinese Cemetery of Manila to extend a road. The trial court found no necessity for taking the cemetery's land, as adjacent land was available. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that municipalities lack inherent power of expropriation and that the cemetery was public property that could not be taken without clear necessity. Even if private, a cemetery's appropriation requires great concern and necessity given its purpose of maintaining burial grounds.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No. 14355 City of Manila v.

    Chinese Cemetery of Manila October 31, 1919

    JOHNSON, J

    FACTS:
    - Dec 11, 1916: the city of Manila presented a petition in the CFI of said city, praying that certain lands,
    be expropriated for the purpose of constructing a public improvement (right of way/extension of the
    Rizal Ave.).
    - Chinese community complained that expropriation would disturb the resting places of the dead and
    was not necessary as a public improvement.
    - Trial court decided that there was no necessity for the expropriation of the particular-strip of land in
    question, and absolved each and all of the defendants from all liability under the complaint, without
    any finding as to costs. City of Manila appealed.

    ISSUE(s):
    1. W/N Whether the City of Manila expropriate the Chinese Cemetery of Manila. NO

    HELD:
    In the present case, even granting that a necessity exists for the opening of the street in question, the
    record contains no proof of the necessity of opening the same through the cemetery. The record shows
    that adjoining and adjacent lands have been offered to the city free of charge, which will answer every
    purpose of the plaintiff.
    For all of the foregoing, we are fully persuaded that the judgment of the lower court should be and is
    hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
    1. NO
    - The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State, or by its authorized
    agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights. No species of property is held by individuals
    with greater tenacity, and none is guarded by the constitution and laws more sedulously, than the
    right to the freehold of inhabitants.
    - When the courts come to determine the question, they must not only find (a) that a law or
    authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain, but (b) also that the right or
    authority is being exercised in accordance with the law.
    - In the present case there are 2 conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to the City of
    Manila: 1) the land must be private; and, 2) the purpose must be public. If the court, upon trial,
    finds that neither of these conditions exists or that either one of them fails, certainly it cannot be
    contended that the right is being exercised in accordance with law
    - Cemeteries may be public or private. The former is a cemetery used by the general community, or
    neighborhood, or church; the latter is used only by a family, or a small portion of the community
    or neighborhood. (11 C. J., 50.) Where a cemetery is open to the public, it is a public use and no
    part of the ground can be taken for other public uses under a general authority. And this immunity
    extends to the unimproved and unoccupied parts which are held in good faith for future use.
    (Lewis on Eminent Domain, sec. 434, and cases cited.)
    - It is not denied, that the cemetery in question may be used by the general community of Chinese,
    which fact, in the general acceptation of the definition of a public cemetery, would make the
    cemetery in question public property. If that is true, then the petition of the plaintiff must be
    denied, for the reason that the city of Manila has no authority or right under the law to expropriate
    public property.
    G.R. No. 14355 City of Manila v. Chinese Cemetery of Manila October 31, 1919

    - But, whether or not the cemetery is public or private property, its appropriation for the uses of a
    public street, especially during the lifetime of those specially interested in its maintenance as a
    cemetery, should be a question of great concern, and its appropriation should not be made for
    such purposes until it is fully established that the greatest necessity exists therefor.

    DOCTRINE(s)/KEY POINT(s):
    - The right of expropriation is not inherent power in a municipal corporation and before it can
    exercise the right some law must exist conferring the power upon it. A municipal corporation in this
    jurisdiction cannot expropriate public property. The land to be expropriated must be private, and the
    purpose of the expropriation must be public. If the court upon trial, finds that neither of said
    condition exists, or that either one of them fails, the right to expropriate does not exist. If the
    property is taken in the ostensible behalf of a public improvement which it can never by any
    possibility serve, it is being taken for a use not public, and the owner's constitutional rights call for
    protection by the courts.

    You might also like