City of Manila Vs Chinese Com Digest

Constitutional Law II: Case No.
38
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-14355 October 31, 1919
THE CITY OF MANILA, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
JOHNSON, J.:
TOPIC: Who exercises the power of eminent domain?
It is lodged primarily in the Legislative department. If it decides that there exists a necessity
for the exercise of the right in a particular case, that then and in that case, the courts will
not go behind the action of the legislature and make inquiry concerning the necessity.
The Legislature may also validly delegate or grant general authority to other governmental
entities, one of which is the municipal corporation, the power to expropriate private
land for public purposes, the courts have the power to inquire into, and hear proof upon,
the necessity of the expropriation.
I. FACTS:
The city of Manila presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of said city, praying that
certain lands be expropriated for the purpose of constructing the extension of Rizal Avenue,
Manila.
The owner of the land, Chinese Community of Manila, who uses the same as cemetery,
denied that it was either necessary or expedient that the said parcels be expropriated for
street purposes. They also offered, should the plaintiff insist on the necessity of road
extension, to grant a right of way over other land free of charge that would answer every
public necessity on the part of the plaintiff.
The CFI judge decided that there was no necessity for the expropriation, hence, this appeal.
The theory of the plaintiff is that since the legislature delegated to it the power to
expropriate land, it may expropriate any land it may desire; that the only function of the
court in such proceedings is to ascertain the value of the land in question; that neither the
court nor the owners of the land can inquire into the advisible purpose of the expropriation
or ask any questions concerning the necessities therefore; that the courts are mere
appraisers of the land involved in expropriation proceedings.
II. ISSUE:
WON the courts may inquire into, and hear proof upon, the necessity of the expropriation
made by the City of Manila?
III. RULING:
YES. The courts may inquire into, and hear proof upon, the necessity of the expropriation
made by the City of Manila.
Constitutional Law II: Case No. 38
Although the law authorizes the City of Manila to “condemn private property for public
use”, the power was granted in general terms (properties to be expropriated are not
specifically identified by the legislature).
When the statute does not designate the property to be taken nor how may be taken, then
the necessity of taking particular property is a question for the courts. Where the
application to condemn or appropriate is made directly to the court, the question (of
necessity) should be raised and decided by it.
Act No. 190 provides how the right of eminent domain may be exercised. Its section 248
provides for “the Supreme Court’s authority to inquire into the right of expropriation on the
part of the plaintiff”. When the legislature conferred upon the courts right to ascertain
upon trial whether the right exists for the exercise of eminent domain, it intended that the
courts should inquire into, and hear proof upon, those questions.
When the courts come to determine the question, they must only find (a) that a law or
authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and (b) also that the right or
authority is being exercised in accordance with the law.
There are two conditions to determine whether the authority is being exercised in
accordance with the law: First, the land must be private; and, second, the purpose must be
public. If the court, upon trial, finds that neither of these conditions exists or that either one
of them fails, then the right exercised is NOT in accordance with law.
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, and the rule in that case is
that the authority must be strictly construed. 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.
The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain must not be confused with the
right to exercise it in a particular case. The power of the legislature to confer, upon
municipal corporations and other entities within the State, general authority to exercise the
right of eminent domain cannot be questioned by the courts, but that general authority of
municipalities or entities must not be confused with the right to exercise it in particular
instances. The moment the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the
authority conferred, it must comply with the conditions accompanying the authority – this
becomes a question which the courts have the right to inquire into.
The court ruled that there is no proof of the necessity of opening the street 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.
Wherefore, the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs
against the appellant.

City of Manila Vs Chinese Com Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Manila Vs Chinese Com Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law II: Case No.

TOPIC: Who exercises the power of eminent domain?

You might also like