c. Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain

Requisites:

• Expropriation should be for a public use or purpose or for the welfare of the poor or landless.
• Ordinance authorizing the local chief executive to subject a certain property to expropriation
• Payment of just compensation
• Valid and definite offer to pay which was not accepted.
• Exercised by the LGU through its Chief Executive

Jurisdiction

An expropriation suit falls under the jurisdiction of the RTCs. The subject of an expropriation suit is the government’s exercise of eminent domain, a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation. (Barangay San Roque v. Heirs of Pastor, G.R. No. 138896, 2000).

Eminent Domain

The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private property to public use upon payment of just compensation.

The right of eminent domain is the ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public but the private property of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, to public purpose [Republic v. Heirs of Borbon, G.R. No. 165354 (2015)].

Two mandatory requirements should underlie the Government’s exercise of the power of eminent domain:

• It is for a particular public purpose; and
• Just compensation should be paid to the property owner [Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr., G.R. No. 176625 (2010)].

It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that need not be granted even by the fundamental law. Sec. 9, Art. III merely imposes a limit on the government’s exercise of this power [Republic v. Tagle, G.R. No. 129079 (1998)].

Who may Exercise Eminent Domain

Generally: Legislature

Delegated (through charter):

• LGUs
• Other government entities

The repository of eminent domain powers is the legislature, i.e. exercised through the enactment of laws. But power may be delegated to LGUs and other government entities (via charter); still, the delegation must be by law [Manapat v. CA, G.R. No. 110478 (2007)].

Requisites for the Valid Exercise of Eminent Domain

• Necessity
• Private Property
• Public Use
• Taking
• Just Compensation
• Due Process

Rule on Socialized Housing

Under the Urban Development and Housing Act, expropriation by an LGU for purposes of urban land reform and housing shall occur only as a last resort. It must be shown by the LGU that other methods of acquisition (community mortgage, land swapping, land assembly or consolidation, land banking, donation to the Government, joint venture agreements, and negotiated purchase) have been exhausted.

If all the other methods have been exhausted and expropriation is to proceed, the LGU shall acquire lands for socialized housing in the following order:

• Government Lands
• Alienable lands of the public domain
• Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands
• Lands within areas for priority development
• Unacquired BLISS sites
• Private Lands

Furthermore, lands of small-property owners are exempt from expropriation for purposes of socialized housing, “small-property owners” are defined by two elements:

• They are owners of real property which consists of residential lands with an area of not more than 300 sq. meters in highly urbanized cities, and 800 square meters in other urban areas; and
• They do not own real property other than the same.

Returning the Property

When private land is expropriated for a particular public use and that purpose is abandoned, there is no “implied contract” that the properties will be used only for the public purpose for which they were acquired. Under Gopuco, property is to be returned only when it is expropriated with the condition that when said purpose is ended or abandoned, the former owner reacquires the property so expropriated, and not when the expropriation decree gives to the entity a fee simple which makes the land expropriator the absolute owner of the property. (Air Transportation Office v. Gopuco, G. R. No. 158563, 2005). Nevertheless, abandonment of the specific public purpose may permit reversion to the former owner, subject to return of just compensation. (Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority and Air Transportation Office v. Lozada, G.R. No. 176625, 2010; Republic v. Heirs of Borbon, G.R. No. 165354, 2015).

Role of supervising LGU - It can only declare the ordinance invalid on the sole ground that it is beyond the power of the lower LGU to issue. Hence, it cannot declare the ordinance invalid on the ground that it is unnecessary.

Role of national government - the approval of the national government is not required of local governments to exercise the power of eminent domain.

Role of judiciary - it can inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right and determine whether there was a genuine necessity.

Eminent Domain vs. Regulatory Taking

Two stages of Eminent Domain

• Determination of the authority of the expropriator to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise
• Determination by the court of the just compensation [Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 69260 (1989)].

Withdrawal of Local Tax Exemption Privileges

Unless otherwise provided in the LGC, tax exemptions or incentives granted to, or enjoyed by all persons, whether natural or juridical, including government-owned or controlled corporations were withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC.

Privileges Retained: Tax exemption privileges of the following were not withdrawn by the LGC:

• Local water districts
• Cooperatives duly registered under R.A. No. 6938; and
• Non-stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions.