Cases – No Unjust Taking of Property (from the syllabus)
CASES FACTS
Churchill v. The lower court perpetually restrained and prohibited
Rafferty the Collector of Internal Revenue from enforcing
annual tax against plaintiff’s property and from
removing the signs and billboards in plaintiff’s property
that it finds offensive to the sight
Barangay Petitioner wanted to convert a portion of private
Sindalan vs. CA respondent’s land into the barangay’s feeder road, as
stated in a Barangay Resolution. Respondents
claimed that the expropriation was actually for private
use; it’s really for the benefit of the homeowners of a
subdivision. Petitioner concealed this fact by saying
that the proposed feeder road would benefit a certain
sitio. CA ruled in favor of the respondents, saying that
it should be the duty of the subdivision owner to
provide the right of way.
Philippine Petitioner owns a parcel of land occupied by
Columbian respondents. Petitioner won an ejectment proceeding
Association vs. against respondents but when the ejectment was
Panis about to be executed, the City of Manila issued an
ordinance expropriating the said land. The RTC and
CA upheld the expropriatexion.
DOCTRINE RULING
Success of billboard advertising depends on the SC reversed ruling of
channels of travel used. Therefore the regulation of lower court:
billboard advertising is not a regulation of private regulation of unsightly
property but of the use of the streets and other public advertisements, signs
thoroughfares. or billboards are
The argument that tastes vary to the extent that no within the ambit of
standard may be erected is answered by the court in police power.
Noble State Bank that “the prevailing morality or
strong preponderating opinion demands such
legislation”. And the court holds that the prevailing
sentiment is manifestly against the erection of
billboards which are offensive to the sight.
Eminent domain is the power of nation or sovereign CA Decision affirmed.
state to take, or to authorize the taking of private
property for a public use without the owner’s consent
conditioned upon payment of just compensation.
Public use does not depend on the numerical count of
those to be served or the smallness or largeness of
the community to be benefitted; it refers to whatever is
beneficially employed for the community.
The finding that the proposed feeder road would
benefit not just the subdivision but also another sitio
was not supported by evidence. The expropriation will
actually benefit the subdivision owner by
circumventing his commitment to provide road access
to the subdivision.
It may still be considered to be of public use even if SC affirmed CA
only a few could actually benefit from the ruling.
expropriation. It is simply not possible to provide all at
once land and shelter for all who need them.
Expropriation is not anymore confined to the vast
tracts of land and landed estates. It is therefore of no
moment that the land sought to be expropriated in this
case is less than half a hectare only.
Through the years, the public use requirement in
eminent domain has evolved into a flexible concept
influenced by changing conditions.
Public use now includes the broader notion of indirect
public benefit including urban land reform and
housing. The concept of public benefit from urban land
reform is recognized in Art. XIII Sec. 9 of the 1987

EPZA vs. Dulay In 1979, the President issued Proclamation No. 1811,
reserving a certain parcel of land in Cebu for the
establishment of an export processing zone by
petitioner Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA).
However, a portion of that parcel of land is a private
land belonging to private respondent, San Antonio
Development Corp. EPZA filed a complaint for
expropriation. Respondent Judge Dulay granted EPZA
the writ of possession.
To settle the amount for just compensation, Dulay
issued a second order appointing three
commissioners to ascertain and report to the court the
properties sought to be expropriated, in line with
Sections 5 to 8 Rule 67 of Rules of Court. However,
EPZA objected the Commissioner’s Report, saying
that PD1533 has superseded the aforementioned
Sections in the Rules of Court. According to petitioner,
there is no need to appoint commissioners anymore
because PD1533, as the applicable law therein,
already bases just compensation on the market value
declared by the owner of the property sought to be
expropriated or such market value as determined by
the assessor, whichever is lower.
Small Consolidating four petitions filed by various
Landowners vs. landowners, the case involves challenges to the
DAR Sec constitutionality of various laws that execute the
mandate of the three Constitutions towards an
Agrarian Reform:
o PD27 (superseded RA3844 or the Agricultural Land
Reform Code) - imposed retention limits (maximum
area that can be owned) on land owners, the excess
of which is redistributed to tenant-farmers.
o EO228 - Declared full landownership to PD27
beneficiaries for the redistributed land.
o Presidential Proclamation 131 or PP131 - Pres.
Corazon Aquino’s 1987 Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program
o EO229 - mechanics for the implementation of
PP131.
o RA6657 - Congress’s CARP of 1988
Note: above mentioned laws merely implemented the
social justice and agrarian reform mandate of the
Constitution.
The method of ascertaining just compensation under Petition dismissed for
the PD1533 constitutes impermissible encroachment lack of merit. PD
on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this Court 1533, which
inutile in a matter which under the Constitution is eliminates the court’s
reserved to it for final determination. discretion to appoint
Just compensation means the value of the property at commissioners
the time of the taking. It means a fair and full pursuant to RoC is
equivalent for the loss sustained. All the facts as to the unconstitutional and
condition of the property and its surroundings, its void.
improvements and capabilities should be considered.
The determination of "just compensation" in eminent
domain cases is a judicial function. The executive
department or the legislature may make the initial
determinations but when a party claims a violation of
the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that private property
may not be taken for public use without just
compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order
can mandate that its own determination shall prevail
over the court's findings. Much less can the courts be
precluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the
decreed compensation.
To the extent that the measures under challenge Petitions dismissed.
merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there The SC sustained the
is an exercise of the police power for the regulation of constitutionality of the
private property in accordance with the constitution. laws. Title to all
But where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes expropriated
necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands properties shall be
they may own in excess of the max area allowed, transferred to the
there is definitely taking under the power of eminent State only upon full
domain for which payment of just compensation is payment of
imperative. compensation to their
The limitations on the power of expropriation are (1) respective owners.
public use and (2) just compensation. On (1) public
use, Art. XIII, Sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution declares
a mandate for Agrarian Reform. Hence, Agrarian
Reform is deemed for a Public Purpose. On (2) just
compensation, the determination of the value of the
property by the DAR is only preliminary unless
accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the
courts of justice will still have the right to review with
finality the said determination in the exercise of what is
 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
J.M. Tuason vs. JM Tuason led the occupants of Tatalon Estate to
Land Tenure believe that Veterans Subdivision was the real owner
Administration of the estate. Occupants then bought the land from
Veterans Subdivision and consequently build houses,
roads and other improvements. When JM Land
claimed ownership of the estate, Congress passed RA
2616 to expropriate Tatalon Estate, and give land to
1500 WWII Veterans.
Deleste vs. A piece of land that was partly owned by petitioner
Land Bank was brought under PD27 which mandated that
tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the
Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and
awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. However, the same
land was reclassified by an ordinance as
commercial/residential. DAR issued Certificates of
Land Transfers in favor of the tenants and cultivators
of the land (private respondents) and respondent Land
admittedly a judicial function.
On the medium for the payment of just compensation,
although the traditional means is through money,
CARP is an exceptional case because it affects all
agricultural lands and is intended not just for the
benefit of a small community but the entire Filipino
nation. The cost will be tremendous (billions of pesos).
Hence, the inclusion of other payment methods like
Stocks and Tax Credits is reasonable.
RA 2616 abides by the State policy of social justice as RA 2616 is
found by the constitution. constitutional
On eminent domain: an inherent power of the State,
but it is NOT ABSOLUTE
Requisites for the valid exercise of eminent domain:
1. Just compensation - must be measured not the
taker’s gain but by owner’s loss. Though the assessed
value of the land is prima facie evidence of its value, it
is not conclusive
2. Public use - “It has been truly said that the assertion
of the right on the part of the legislature to take the
property of one citizen and transfer it to another, even
for a full compensation, when the public interest is not
promoted thereby, is claiming a despotic power, and
one inconsistent with every just principle and
fundamental maxim of a free government." (Guido v
Rural Progress)
On equal protection: no single party was singled out to
bear the brunt of the government’s power.
Although congress cannot act arbitrarily and punish
JM Tuason alone, congress can PRIORITIZE.
Therefore, what happened was a PRIORITIZATION of
the lands to be expropriated not a specific targeting of
JM Tuason. It is within the wisdom of congress to
determine that such is their priority
Two stages of land transfer under PD 27: (1) The Emancipation
issuance of a CLT (provisional title of ownership, while Patents and Original
the lot owner is awaiting full payment of just Certificates of Title
compensation or while the tenant-farmer is an covering the subject
amortizing owner) to a farmer-beneficiary, (2) property issued in
issuance of Emancipation Patent as proof of full favor of private
payment, upon full payment of amortizations or lease respondents are
rentals by the farmer-beneficiary. declared NULL and
There must be an actual notice in subjecting the VOID.
 Bank subsequently issued to them Emancipation
Patents (EP’s) and Original Certificates of Title
(OCT’s).
Hacienda Hacienda Luisita was covered by the RA 6657 or the
Luista vs. CARP Law which provides for two options: land
PARC transfer and stock transfer. TADECO, the owner of
Hacienda Luisita, exercised the stock transfer
option.
Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) was created to facilitate
the transfer of stocks from TADECO to the qualified
farmworker-beneficiaries (FWB’s), where the subject
agricultural lands would be considered as the capital
contribution of the FWB’s to HLI.
Ultimately, on 21 November 1989, the Stock
Distribution Plan (SDP) was approved by PARC.
However, it was found that HLI has not extended the
benefits to the farmworkers, with the organization of
the HLI seeming to be just a way to circumvent the
intent of the CARP Law, by employing a scheme
where the farmers would work for these shares of
stock, even if in effect they are just minority
shareholders (thus, the policy of agrarian reform of
providing ownership of the lands to the farmers was
not realized).
Consequently, through its assailed resolutions, PARC
revoked its approval of the SDP and acquired the
agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita through
compulsory acquisition scheme.
property under the agrarian reform program, with it
being an essential requirement of administrative due
process of law.
The notice informs the landowner of the States
intention to acquire a private land upon payment of
just compensation and gives him the opportunity to
present evidence that his landholding is not covered or
is otherwise excused from the agrarian law.
Because of the reclassification by the local
government (pursuant to its power to adopt zoning
and subdivision ordinances), the subject land can no
longer be considered as an agricultural land covered
by CARP.
In the payment of just compensation, the value should The Court fixed
be fixed as of the time of taking of said possession, November 21, 1989
not of the filing of the complaint. The ‘time of taking’ is as the date of taking,
when the landowner was deprived of the use and with the value of the
benefit of his property. Taking does not only take affected lands to be
place upon the issuance of the title either in the name determined by the
of the Republic or the CARP beneficiary. It also occurs LBP and the DAR.
when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a November 21, 1989 is
landowner and approved by PARC for CARP the date when PARC
coverage through stock distribution scheme. PARC’s approved HLI’s SDP.
approval of HLI’s submission of its SDP should be
considered as the effective date of “taking” because it On the proceeds of
was when the government officially confirmed the the sale of the 500-
CARP coverage of these lands. Thus, this was when hectare converted
the FWBs were considered to own and possess the land and of the 80.51-
agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita. hectare SCTEX land,
TADECO was given the right to require payment from the Court ordered the
its qualified beneficiaries for the shares of stock. payment of the
However, it did not exercise its right to do so. Thus, its proceeds of the sale
inability to receive compensation cannot be attributed of the said land to the
to the government. It gave the shares for free as FWBs less the 3%
incentive for the FWB’s to agree with the stock share, taxes and
distribution option scheme and not to further push for expenses.
land distribution.
The SC revoked the option of the FWBs to remain as The government,
HLI stockholders. The policy on agrarian reform is through the DAR, is
that control over the agricultural land must always be also ordered to pay to
in the hands of the farmers. Under the SDP, qualified HLI the just
FWBs did not and will not have majority stockholdings compensation for the
in HLI. This is contrary to the policy by the government home lots thus
on agrarian reform. distributed to the

Republic vs. PCGG issued a Writ of Sequestration over the shares
Hans Menzi of former Pres. Marcos, Yap, and Cojuangco, Jr. in the
Estate Bulletin Publishing Corp. The PCGG also issued a
Writ of Sequestration and Freeze Order over the
shares of the US Automotive Co., Inc. and its officers
in Liwayway Publishing, Inc., as well as the shares of
stock and assets of Hans Menzi Holdings and
Management, Inc. (HMHMI). Republic instituted a
complaint for reconveyance against Pres. Marcos, et
al. before the Sandiganbayan. Sandiganbayan issued
a Resolution, discounting the factual bases for
PCGG’s sequestration order, and granting the Estate’s
motion to lift the writ of sequestration over the shares
of stock of HMHMI.
APO Fruits Petitioners APO Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation
Corp. vs. Land Inc (HPI) owned land in Davao. They both offered to
Bank sell the properties to DAR, but they did not agree with
the value offered by the Land Bank (LBP). Hence a
complaint for Determination of Just Compensation
before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) was
filed. DAR still requested LBP to pay petitioners
based on the assailed value. The RTC held that the
purchase price should be higher than the price DAR
offered to HPI & APO.
Sy vs. Quezon Mayor Ismael Mathay, Jr. filed a complaint for
City expropriation with the RTC, in order to acquire a 1000
sq. m. parcel of land owned and registered under the
name of Sy. Sy did not question the City’s right to
expropriate the subject property. Only the amount of
just compensation remained at issue. Lower courts
adopted the findings of Commissioner Ostaco and
Alcantara that the just compensation for the subject
property should be set at P5500 per sqm. which is
FWB’s.
By the Republic’s own admission, the validity of the Petition denied. SC
transfer and/or legality of ownership of Liwayway affirmed
shares has not yet been litigated. The issues resolved Sandiganbayan
only included the ownership and transfer of the decision ordering
Bulletin shares. Having been sourced from the Philtrust to pay the
disposition of said Liwayway shares, the proceeds of Estate and HMHMI
the subject TDCs cannot be released in favor of the the proceeds of
Republic The release of the proceeds of the subject TDCs.
TDCs in favor of respondents Estate and HMHMI
justified by the earlier lifting of the writ of sequestration
issued by the PCGG over the shares of stock, assets,
properties, records, and documents of HMHMI.
The case goes beyond the private interests involved; it SC upheld RTC
involves a matter of public interest - the right of a ruling, ordering
landowner to receive just compensation when the compensation based
government exercises the power of eminent domain in on purchase price
its agrarian reform program. When it takes property higher than the price
pursuant to its inherent right and power, the State has DAR offered to HPI &
the corresponding obligation to pay the owner just APO plus 12%
compensation for the property taken. For interest per annum
compensation to be considered “just,” it must not only from the date of
be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken; it taking. Interest
must also be paid to the landowner without delay. The payments borne by
government took the petitioners’ lands on December government, not by
9, 1996; the petitioners only received full payment of farmers-beneficiaries
the just compensation due on May 9, 2008. There is
unconscionable delay in the payment of just
compensation. The good faith assertion based on the
partial payments is of no moment because LBP only
paid a total of 5% of the actual value in these partial
payments.
It is well-settled that the amount of just compensation Petition partly
is to be ascertained as of the time of the taking. granted. Case
However, the above-stated documents do not reflect remanded for proper
the value of the subject property at the time of its determination of the
taking in 1986 but rather, its valuation in 1996. amount of just
Consequently, the case must be remanded to the RTC compensation.
in order to properly determine the amount of just
compensation during such time the subject property
was actually taken.
 more believable than the P13,500 per sqm. valuation
made by independent appraisers.
Land Bank vs. Respondent owns a parcel of land which he sold to
Eusebio DAR pursuant to CARP. Respondent rejected the
valuations made by DAR and LBP. Notwithstanding
his rejections, LBP opened a trust account in his name
and deposited the payment for the land in his favor
while DAR took physical possession of the property,
cancelled the TCT in favor of the Republic and
distributed the property to recognized farmer-
beneficiaries. Respondent referred the matter to
DARAB, but he still rejected the value offered by the
board. The RTC-Special Agrarian Court (SAC) set a
value according to what respondent prayed for. CA
affirmed. Hence the petition by LBP.
Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657 explicitly vests in the Petition granted as
RTC-SAC the original and exclusive jurisdiction to the RTC-SAC’s
determine just compensation for lands taken pursuant valuation was made
to the State’s agrarian reform program. To guide the with grave abuse of
RTC-SAC in the exercise of its function, Section 17 of discretion
R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the factors that the
RTC-SAC must take into account in its
determination:
o cost of acquisition of the land
o current value of like properties
o its nature
o actual use and income
o sworn valuation by the owner
o tax declarations, and
o assessment made by the government
assessors, among others.
To ensure the agrarian reform law’s proper
implementation, Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657
empowers the DAR to issue such rules and
regulations necessary for the purpose. Thus, corollary
to the agrarian reform law’s guidelines, the DAR
issued DAR AO 6 that incorporated, into a basic
formula, Section 17’s enumerated factors providing
the details by which "just compensation" is to be
properly approximated. Hence, RTC-SAC is not
granted unlimited discretion. It must consider and
apply the R.A. No. 6657-enumerated factors and the
DAR formula as they provide the uniform framework or
structure by which just compensation for property
subject to agrarian reform should be determined. Just
compensation should be fair and equitable equally for
both the farmer-beneficiaries and the landowner.
In the case, the RTC-SAC determined just
compensation based merely on "conscience" – a
consideration entirely outside the contemplation of the
law – is a deviation made in utter and blatant
disregard of the prescribed factors and formula.
Cases – Non-Impairment of Contracts (from the syllabus)
CASES FACTS
U.S. v. On Dec 30, 1915, Bartolome Oliveros and Engrancia
Conde Lianco executed and delivered to Vicente Diaz Conde
and Apolinaria Conde a contract showing that
they obligated themselves to pay the Condes P300
with interest of 5% per month.
The Conde were charged with Violation of the Usury
Act (Act No. 2655), which was adopted on May 1,
1916, because of the usurious rate of interest. They
were tried and found guilty.
On appeal the appellants argued that at the time of the
execution and delivery of contract, there wasn’t a
Usury Law in the Philippines.
Ysmael vs. Petitioner is seeking the reinstatement of its Timber
Deputy ES License Agreement (TLA) which was cancelled in 1983
during the Marcos admin. It also seeks to revoke the
TLA issued to private resp without public bidding and
in violation of forestry laws, rules and regulations; and
the issuance of an order allowing petitioner to take
possession of all logs found in the concession area.
C and M This is a petition for certiorari by which C & M Timber
Timber vs. Corporation seeks the nullification of the order and the
Alcala resolution of the Office of the President, declaring as of
no force and effect Timber License Agreement (TLA)
No. 106 issued to petitioner on June 30, 1972. The
TLA covers 67,680 hectares of forest land in the
municipalities of Dipaculao and Dinalongan in the
Province of Aurora and the Municipality of Maddela in
Quirino province
Repubic vs. Rosemoor Mining → given a contract to mine quarry
Rosemoor deposits in Biak-na-Bato, Bulacan through Licence No.
Mining 33, issued by the Bureau of Mines. However, this was
DOCTRINE RULING
Impairment of the contract - any law which enlarges, There was grave abuse of
abridges, or in any manner changes the intention of discretion in making the usury
the parties necessarily impairs the contract itself law apply in this case as the
Laws adopted after execution of a contract, changing said contract was finalized
or altering the rate of interest, cannot be made to apply before the effectivity of the law.
to such contract without violating the provisions of the To apply the law in the present
constitution which prohibit the adoption of a law case would be giving it an ex
“impairing the obligation of contract” post facto operation
A law imposing a new penalty, or a new liability or
disability, or giving a new right of action musn’t be
construed to have a retroactive effect
Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are No grave abuse of
merely evidence of a privilege granted by the state to a discretion as petitioner failed
qualified entities, they are not deemed contracts within to make out a case showing
the purview of the due process clause the same, the court finds no
basis to issue a writ of
certiorari and to grant any of
the reliefs sought.
Conservation and protection of forest resources is not The petition is dismissed as
really a new policy but a mere reiteration of a there is no grave abuse of
constitutional policy which commands the state “to discretion on the part of the
protect and promote the right of people to a balanced govt.
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.
Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are
the principal instruments by which the state regulates
the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the
end that the public welfare is promoted – they are not
deemed contracts within the purview of the due
process clause. They merely evidence a privilege
granted by the state to qualified entities and do not
vest in the latter a permanent or irrevocable right to the
particular concession area and the forest products
therein. They may be validly amended, modified,
replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when
national interests so require.
Sec 2 Art XII (1987 Consti) does not apply retroactively The petition is granted, the CA
to a license, concession or lease granted by the govt decision set aside.
under 1973 Consti or before effectivity of the 1987
 soon revoked without due notice or hearing by newly
appointed DENR Secretary Maceda. Rosemoor
challenged this.
The DENR says that the contract was validly revoked
because it violated PD 463 which provides that
licences are only to be given to a maximum of 100
hectares. License No. 33 gabe Rosemoor 340
hectares. Rosemoor argues otherwise, saying that it is
valid because no license gave them more that 100
hectares, the 330 hectares being given through 4
separate applications.
RTC granted the petition of Rosemoor saying that the
contract has ripened into a property right that the
Government cannot take without due process.
Moreover they also believed that the contract did not
violate PD 463 because no one licence gave
Rosemoor more that 100 hectares. CA concurred
Republic vs. Congress enacted RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and
Caguioa Development Act), which created the Subic Special
Economic and Freeport Zone (SBF) and the Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). It provides that SBF
would be operated as a separate customs territory
ensuring free flow of goods and capital. It provides
incentives such as as tax and duty-free importations
and that the provisions of existing laws, rules and
regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, no taxes,
local and national, shall be imposed within the Subic
Special Economic Zone. Private Respondents
(domestic corporations doing business at the SBF)
were granted Certificates of Registration and Tax
Exemption by the SBMA. Certificates allowed them to
engage in trading, retailing, import, export, distribution
and/or transshipment of general merchandise,
including alcohol and tobacco products , and uniformly
granted them tax exemptions for such importations
Congress then passed RA 9334 (Act Increasing Excise
Tax Rates on Alcohol and Tobacco) which
provides that the importation of cigars and cigarettes,
distilled spirits, fermented liquors and wines into the
Philippines, even if destined for tax and duty free
shops, shall be subject to all applicable taxes, duties,
charges, including excise taxes due thereon. This shall
Constitution
Sec 3(p) of RA 7942 defines an existing mining/quarry
right as “a valid and subsisting mining claim or permit
or quarry permit or any mining lease contract or
agreement covering a mineralized area granted/issued
under pertinent mining laws.
Ep No 133 merely evidences a privilege granted by the
state which may be amended, modified or rescinded
when the national interest so requires; these are not
deemed to be contracts. This is necessarily so since
the exploration, development and utilization of the
country’s natural mineral resources are matters
impressed with great public interest. Like timber
permits, mining exploration permits do not vest the
grantee any permanent or irrevocable right within the
purview of the non-impairment of contract and due
process clauses in the constitution.
The concept of jure regalia – reserves to the State
ownership of all natural resources.
There is no vested right in a tax exemption, more so Petition is partly granted
when the latest expression of legislative intent renders The writ of certiorari to nullify
its continuance doubtful. Being a statutory privilege it and sent aside the Order and
may be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting the Writ of Preliminary
authority. To state otherwise would limit the taxing Injunction is granted.
power which is unlimited, plenary, comprehensive and Accordingly those are set
supreme. The power to impose taxes is one so aside and declared null and
unlimited in force and so searhing in extent, it is void.
subject only to restrictions which rest on the discretion The writ of prohibition is
of the authority exercising it. however denied.
Tax exemptions are generally construed strictissimi
juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favour of the
taxing authority. The burden of proof rests on the party
claiming it is exempted.
Rights granted under the Certificates of Registration
and Tax Exemption are not absolute and
unconditional. These grant a “permit to operate” to
enterprises are in the nature of licenses which
jurisprudence considers as neither a property nor a
property right. The license takes his license subject to
such conditions as the grantor sees fit to impose,
including its revocation at pleasure.
Whatever right was granted by this license must yield
to the state’s valid exercise of police power – the
assailed provision was passed to curb the pernicious
 apply to cigars and cigarettes, distilled spirits, practice of some unscrupulous business enterprises of
fermented liquors and wines brought directly into the using their exemption privileges for smuggling.
duly chartered or legislated free ports of the Subic The remedy to the parties once proving the
Economic Freeport Zone, created under Republic Act unconstitutionality of a tax law is tax refund or tax
No. 7227. Because of this, an order directing credit
locators/importers in the SBF to pay the corresponding Lifeblood Doctrine – The power to ax emanates from
duties and taxes on their importations of cigars, necessity – without taxes, government cannot fulfil its
cigarettes, liquors and wines before said items are mandate promoting the general welfare and well being
cleared and released from the free port. of the people. Taxes being the lifeblood of the
Private respondents brought for a an action for government that should be collected without
declaratory relief with RTC Olongapo to have certain unnecessary hindrance, every precaution must be
provisions of RA 9334 declared as unconstitutional as taken not to unduly suppress it.
it, among others, violates the constitutional proscription
against the impairment of the obligation of contracts
the obligation of contracts. RTC granted writ of
preliminary injunction and held that RA 9334 violates
terms and conditions of private respondents contracts
with SBMA – violation of guarantee against impairment
of contractual obligations
Petitioners assail the Order and Writ of Preliminary
Injunction

Ganzon vs. Rodolfo Ganzon initiated proceedings to extra-judicially A trial court cannot order that a real estate mortgage Instant petition is granted. The
Inserto foreclose a real estate mortgage executed by be substituted with a surety bond. It is a right in rem, a orders of the trial court are set
Randolph Tajanlangit and Esteban Tajanlangit (private lien on the property. To substitute mortgage with a aside.
respondents) in his favor. The mortgage was for surety bond would convert such lien from a right, in
promissory note of P40,000 in favor of the rem, to a right in personam. This conversion cannot be
Tajanlangits. It covered a parcel of residential land in ordered for it would abridge the rights of the mortgagee
Molo, Iloilo City under the mortgae contract.
The private respondents filed a complaint saying that Such an order violates the constitutional provision on
Ganzon executed a deed of absolute sale over the non-impairment of contracts. Such an order would in
effect change the terms and conditions of the
parcel of land in favor of Esteban Tajanlangit. The
mortgage contract. The respondent court has directed
deed of real estate mortgage was for the purpose of a deviation from its terms, diminished its efficiency and
securing the payment for the P40,000. The deed of dispensed with a primary condition.
absolute sale included a proviso which held that
Ganzon guaranteed that the occupants of the lot would
vacate within 120 days after the execution. This
guaranty was violated by Ganzon because the
occupants are still within the premises of the lot until
present. Hence, the extra-judicial foreclosure is illegal
since Ganzon committed a breach in his warranty
CFI granted Tajanlangits’ motion and ordered Register
of Deeds of Iloilo City to cancel the mortgage lien on
the TCT upon showing of Tajanlangits that they have
 put up the surety bond in the sum of P80,000
Philconsa Congress passed the General Appropriations Bill of
vs. Enriquez 1994. It imposed conditions and limitations on certain
items of appropriations in the proposed budget
previously submitted by the President.
It also authorized members of Congress to propose
and identify projects in the "pork barrels" allotted to
them and to realign their respective operating budgets.
In the appropriation for the modernization of the AFP,
the President vetoed the provision in the said
appropriation, which requires the prior approval of
Congress for the release of the corresponding
modernization funds. Here are the vetoed provisions:
Eugenio vs. In 1972, Palmiano purchased on installment basis from
Drilon Eugenio a lot in Quezon City. In 1979, the National
Housing Authority ordered petitioner to cease and
desist from making further sales of lots in the village
due to non-development.
Afterwards, respondent filed with the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission a complaint
against petitioner alleging that in view of the
resolutions, he suspended payment of his
amortizations, but petitioner then cancelled the
contracts due to the non-payment. Private respondent
prayed for reconveyance of the lot to him.
Meanwhile, P.D. 957, The Subdivision and
Condominium Buyers Protective Decree was enacted
in 1976. The law provided that failure to develop a
subdivision constitute legal justification for the non-
payment of amortizations by a buyer on installment
and non-forfeiture of payments.
On appeal, applying P.D. 957, the respondent’s
petition was granted and affirmed by the Executive
Secretary. They ordered petitioner to complete the
subdivision development and to reinstate private
respondents purchase contract over the lot.
Hence this appeal.
Goldenway Equitable executed a loan worth P2M in favor of
vs. Equitable Goldenway. Goldenway executed a Real Estate
Mortgage in favor of Equitable over its real properties
situated in Valenzuela City.
The prohibition on the use of the Modernization fund Petition dismissed
for payment of the trainer planes and armored
personnel carriers, which have been contracted by the
AFP is violative of the Constitutional Prohibition on the
passage of laws that impair the obligation of contracts
PD 957 is to be given retroactive effect so as to cover No Grave Abuse of Discretion,
even those contracts executed prior to its enactment. petition denied.
It was enacted to provide a protective mantle over
helpless citizens who may fall prey to the
manipulations and machinations of unscrupulous
sellers.
The intent was to have P.D. 957 operate
retrospectively even upon contracts already in
existence at the time of its enactment. Otherwise, a
strictly prospective application of the statute will
effectively emasculate it, for then the State will not be
able to exercise its regulatory functions and curb
fraudulent schemes perpetrated under those contracts
entered into prior to P.D. 957, despite obvious
prejudice to the very subdivision lot buyers sought to
be protected by said law.
It is improbable that the legislative intended to permit
such a loophole to remain and continue to be a source
of misery for subdivision lot buyers well into the future.
Moreover, the application of P.D. 957 to the contracts
in question will be consistent with the contracts
themselves, which expressly provides that the
petitioner further binds himself to comply with and
abide by all laws respecting the development of lots as
may be presently in force or may hereafter be required
by laws passed by the Congress.
The purpose of the non-impairment clause is to Petition denied
safeguard the integrity of contrats against unwarranted
interference by the state. As a rule, contracts should
not be tampered with by subsequent laws that would
Goldenway failed to pay loan. Equitable extrajudicially
foreclosed the mortgaged properties. In the public
auction, the properties were sold to Equitable for
P3.5M. Goldenway tried to redeem the properties but
Equitable said it’s not possible because the sale has
already been registered.
Goldenway filed a complaint, stating that the
redemption period that should be followed is the one-
year one pursuant to Act. 3135, and not the shorter
one according to RA 8791. Because of this,
Goldenway said the equal protection clause was
violated. Additionally, Goldenway alleged that they
were not furnished the Statement of Accounts for the
Sale and thus were deprived an opportunity to exercise
the right of redemption.
change or modify the rights and obligations of the
parties.
Impairment – anything that diminishes the efficacy of
the contract. When there is a change to
· Terms of the contract between the parties
· Imposes new conditions
· Dispenses with conditions agreed upon
· Withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the
rights of the parties.
The non-impairment clause must yield to the loftier
purposes targeted by the government.
Cases (from Cruz)
CASE FACTS
Stone v Franchise granted by the state in exchange for valuable
Mississippi consideration, for the operation of a lottery by private
corporation was revoked when the legislature subsequently
impose a prohibition on all kinds of gambling within the
state
Gold Clause Creditors in contracts of loan, anticipating a chance in the
Cases legal tender from gold to silver, stipulated with the
borrowers that their loans would be repoain in gold
currency even if the conversion did take place. US later
converted to the silver standard, the law provided for
discharge of payment of obligations in the new legal tender.
Creditors claimed this was impairment.
Rutter v PH government declared a moratorium on payment of pre-
Esteban war debts until after 8 years from the settlement of the war
damage claims of debtors
Long Island A private corporation was contracted to supply water to a
Water Supply town for 25 yrs. The town was later annexed to a city, which
Co v Brooklyn then sought to expropriate the properties and franchises of
the plaintiff.
DOCTRINE
Constitutional guaranty of non-
impairment of contracts is limited by
the exercise of police power of the
State, in the interest of public health,
safety, morals, and general welfare
of the community
When the contract’s subject is
currency, the state can intervene.
Like police power, other inherent
powers of eminent domain and
taxation may also validly limit the
impairment cause.
RULING
The measure was sustained although the
term of the franchise had not yet expired
The law was sustained, as the subject of
the contract was currency, which was
within the exclusive power of legislature
to control
Law was annulled as violative of non-
impairment clause, as the circumstances
(war) justifying the moratorium were
already gone; that the law was too
oppresive; that the usual moratorium did
not extend beyond 2 years
The expropriation was sustained as “a
contract is a property, and like any other
property, may be taken for public use
subject to just compensation.
Cases – Right to Travel (from the syllabus)
CASES FACTS DOCTRINE RULING

Mirasol vs. DPWH
Summary: It is valid to regulate the
mode of transportation to be allowed
in tollways. Right to travel does not
mean the right to choose any vehicle
in traversing certain roads.
DPWH declared the Manila-Cavite
(Coastal Road) Toll Expressway as
limited access facilities. In short, they
banned bicycles, tricycles, pedicab,
motorcycles and non motorized
vehicles from the Expressway. The
Petitioners filed a case in court to
declare the administrative orders of
the DPWH void for being violative of
the equal protection clause,
particularly the right to travel.
The right to travel does not mean the
right to choose any vehicle in
traversing a toll way. The right to
travel refers to the right to move from
one place to another. Petitioners can
traverse the tollway any time so long
as they do so in four-wheeled
vehicles. Petitioners are not denied
the right to move from Point A to
Point B along the tollway. Petitioners
are free to access the toll way, much
as the rest of the public can. The
mode by which petitioners wish to
travel pertains to the manner of
using the tollway, a subject that can
be validly limited by regulation. The
right to travel does not entitle a
person to the best form of transport
or to the most convenient route to his
destination.
The SC declare VOID Department
Order Nos. 74, 215, and 123 of the
Department of Public Works and
Highways, and the Revised Rules
and Regulations on Limited Access
Facilities of the Toll Regulatory
Board. The SC declare VALID
Administrative Order No. 1 of the
Department of Public Works and
Communications.
(Note: DPWH Orders are void not
because modes of transportation
traversing tollways cannot be
regulated for they can be, but
because it is within the power of the
DOTC to regulate such)

Marcos vs. Manglapus
Summary: It is within the power of
the President to limit a person’s right
to travel if there are factual bases.
Pres. Marcos, in his deathbed,
signified his wish to return to the
Philippines to die. However, Pres.
Aquino, considering the dire
consequences to the nation of his
return, barred the return of Marcos
and his family. Petitioners filed a
petition for mandamus and
prohibition. They asked the court to
order respondents to issue travel
documents to the Marcos family and
enjoin the implementation of Pres.
Aquino to bar their return to the
Philippines.
The rights Marcoses are invoking are Petition to issue travel documents to
not absolute. They’re flexible Marcos family and to enjoin the
depending on the circumstances. implementation of Pres. Aquino’s
The request of the Marcoses to be order DENIED.
allowed to return to the Philippines
cannot be considered based solely
on the constitutional provisions
guaranteeing liberty of abode and
the right to travel. It is proven that
there are factual bases in Pres.
Aquino’s decision to bar Marcos’
return. The supervening events that
happened before her decision are
factual. The President must take
preemptive measures for the self-
preservation of the country &
protection of the people. She has to
uphold the Constitution.

Manotoc vs. CA Ricardo Manotoc, Jr. acts as A court has the power to prohibit a Petition to leave the country and go
President of Trans-Insular person admitted to bail from leaving to US in light of Manotoc’s grant of
Summary: Courts have power to
prohibit a person admitted to bail
from leaving the country. Even if
bailed, a person has to appear
before any court whenever required.
Silverio vs. CA
Summary: Courts have the power to
order for the cancellation of a
person’s passport in light of the
decision in Manotoc vs CA.
Santiago vs. Vasquez
Summary: Courts do not violate Due
Management and Manotoc
Securities Inc. Following the “run” on
stock brokerages, Manotoc (who
was then in US) came home and
filed a petition with SEC for the
appointment of a management
committee Pending disposition, SEC
requested the then Commissioner of
Immigration not to clear Manotoc for
departure. When a Torrens title
submitted to and accepted by
Manotoc Securities Inc was
suspected to be a fake, its clients
filed separate criminal complaints.
Criminal charges for estafa were
filed. In all cases, Manotoc has been
admitted to bail.Manotoc filed a
motion for permission to leave the
country to go to US “relative to his
business transactions and
opportunities.
Ricardo Silverio was charged with
violation of the Revised Securities
Act in a Criminal Case. He posted
bail for his provisional freedom.
The people filed a case against
Silverio because he allegedly
abused his freedom to go abroad
repeatedly without court approval in
order to avoid the summons of the
court to arraign his case. They
wanted to cancel Silverio’s passport
and wanted the Commission of
Immigration to prevent Silverio from
going abroad. The lower courts
granted the cancellation of Silverio’s
passport.
A criminal case was filed against
Miriam Defensor-Santiago with the
Sandiganbayan for an alleged
the PH. This is a necessary bail DENIED.
consequence of the nature and
function of a bail bond. RULE 114
SEC 1 ROC defines bail as security
required and given for the release of
a person who is in the custody of the
law, that he will appear before any
court in which his appearance may
be required as stipulated in the bail
bond or recognizance. Condition
imposed upon petitioner to make
himself available at all times
whenever the court requires his
presence operates as a valid
restriction on his right to travel.
Judicial orders and processes would Decision of the lower courts to
be rendered nugatory if an accused cancel Silver’s passport and order
were to be allowed to leave or to the Commission of Immigration to
remain, at his pleasure, outside the prevent Silvero from going abroad
territorial confines of the country. UPHELD.
Holding an accused in a criminal
case within the reach of the Courts
by preventing his departure from the
Philippines must be considered as a
valid restriction on his right to travel
so that he may be dealt with in
accordance with law. The offended
party in any criminal proceeding is
the People of the Philippines. It is to
their best interest that criminal
prosecutions should run their course
and proceed to finality without undue
delay, with an accused holding
himself amenable to Court Orders.
The Hold Departure Order does not Petition to leave PH to study
violate Due Process even if there DISMISSED.
was no Notice and Hearing. The Hold Departure Order SUSTAINED.
Process in issuing a Hold Departure
Order even if there was Notice and
Hearing so long as the immediacy of
circumstances demands. More so,
the ruling in Manotoc applies even in
cases where the purpose of
travelling abroad is to study.
Marcos vs. Sandiganbayan
Summary: It is within the power of
the courts to form a committee to
confirm a claim of danger in health
by an accused to justify leaving the
PH. Hence, it is within the court’s
discretion whether to allow an
accused to leave country for
humanitarian reasons.
Yap vs. CA
Summary: Courts have the power to
fix conditions and restrictions on
violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. Miriam issued
a cash bail bond, upon authorization
of the court, in order to secure her
liberty. Miriam then wanted the SB to
cancel her original cash bail bond, in
favor of a recognizance (a type of
bond where the issuer is bound to
the court by a condition, like
appearance when summoned). In
1992, the SB issued a hold
departure order against Miriam in
light of her Media announcement
that she intends to leave the country
for an extended stay abroad for
study purposes. Hence, Miriam filed
this case to the SC.
Cong. Imelda Marcos is a defendant
to several criminal cases for Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Pending the appeal in SB, petitioner
filed a “Motion for Leave to Travel
Abroad” to seek diagnostic
examination in China due to serious
and life threatening medical
condition as the equipment is not
available in the PH. SB formed a
committee and consulted specialists
to confirm the danger in Marcos’
health. SB denied above motion as
its committee found that Marcos’
health is not actually in danger.
Yap was convicted of estafa by RTC
Pasig City. Yap filed with CA a
motion to fix bail. The CA allowed
him to fix bail on the following
court is vested with inherent powers
to protect its Jurisdiction and to
ensure the proper administration of
Justice. Given the immediacy of the
circumstances (Miriam pronouncing
her quick plans to go abroad)
justifies the court issuance despite
lack of Notice and Hearing. The Hold
Departure Order does not violate
right to travel. The right to travel
should by no means be construed as
delimiting the inherent power of the
Courts to use all means necessary to
carry their orders into effect in
criminal cases pending before them.
The SB did not commit grave abuse Petition to leave PH to seek
of discretion when it disallowed diagnostic examination DENIED.
Imelda Marcos from leaving PH. The
SB only took a prudent course in
seeking the opinion of specialists to
determine condition of the petitioner.
It is indispensable in the
determination whether or not it is
necessary and urgent for petitioner
to travel abroad. The unusual and
unorthodox conduct of the trial (this
refers to the formation of the
committee of medical expert) is due
to the Presiding Justice’s robust
rather than ill motive and hostility.
Even though the conviction is not yet
final, a person’s right to travel is
subject to the constraints imposed by
the necessity of safeguarding the
system of justice. Whether the
accused will be allowed to leave for
humanitarian reason is a matter of
court’s sound discretion.
The condition that YAP secures a Petition PARTLY GRANTED.
guaranty from the Mayor where he Original amount of bail which is
resides does not violate his liberty of P5.5M should be decreased.
abode and travel. It is merely Restrictions on his right to travel and
accused’ right to travel and abode.
The condition for an accused to
secure guaranty from his mayor that
he remains a resident therein and
that he shall file a prior notice in case
of transfer of residence is valid.
Court Administrator vs. Macarine
Summary: OCA Circular No. 49-
2003 which requires that all foreign
trips of judges and court personnel
be with prior permission from the
courts is valid. It is a mere regulation
and not restriction of right to travel.
conditions: (1) Yap secures a
guaranty from the mayor of his
residential town that he will remain a
resident therein and will file a prior
notice in case he transfer, (2) CID
issues a hold departure order, (3)
Yap surrender his passport, (4)
violation of said conditions will cause
his immediate arrest and
confinement in jail. Hence, Yap filed
this petition claiming that CA
effectively deprived him of his bail.
Judge Macarine wrote a letter to
Court Administrator Perez,
requesting for authority to travel to
Hongkong. However, he did not
submit the corresponding application
leave. His reason was that sensing
the time constraint, he opted not to
immediately complete the
requirements and simply went ahead
with their travel abroad. The OCA
found him guilty of violation of OCA
Circular No. 49-2003 for travelling
out of the country without filing the
necessary application for leave and
without first securing a travel
authority from the Court. OCA
Circular No. 49-2003 requires that all
foreign travels of judges and court
personnel, regardless of the number
of days, must be with prior
permission from the Court.
consistent with the nature and abode are AFFIRMED.
function of a bail bond which is to
ensure that he will make himself
available at time when he is required
by the court. Besides he is not
precluded from changing his abode
but merely to inform the court in case
he does so.
The exercise of right to travel under Judge Macarine, by virtue of OCA
Section 6, Article 3 of the Circular No. 49-2003, is
Constitution is not absolute.This, ADMONISHED.
however, should by no means be
construed as limiting the Court’s
inherent power of administrative
supervision over lower courts.
OCA Circular No. 49-2003 does not
restrict but merely regulates, by
providing guidelines to be complied
by judges and court personnel,
before they can go on leave to travel
abroad. To ensure the proper
management of court dockets and to
avoid disruption in the administration
of justice, OCA Circular No. 49-
2003 requires a judge who wishes to
travel abroad to submit complete
requirements to the OCA at least 2
weeks before intended time of travel.
Cases (from Cruz)
CASES DOCTRINE OTHER NOTES/DISSENTS

Caunca v Salazar “An employment agency, regardless of the
amount it may advance to a prospective
employee, has absolutely no power to curtail the
freedom of said employee. x x x The fortunes of
business cannot be controlled by controlling a
fundamental human freedom.”
In the issue of whether or not a maid had the right
to transfer to another residence even if she had
not yet paid the amount advanced by an
employment agency, which was then detaining
her, for her transportation. The Court ruled in
favor of the maid.

Lorenzo v Director of Health Health officers may restrict access to

contaminated areas and also quarantine those
already exposed to the disease sought to be
contained.

Zemel v Rusk In the US, the Secretary of State may regulate or

even prohibit the travel of citizens to hostile
countries to prevent possible international
misunderstanding and conflict.

Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro Respondents were justified in requiring the

members of certain non-Christian tribes to reside
in a reservation, for their better education,
advancement and protection.

Villavicencio v Lukban Regarding the deportation of prostitutes by the

Mayor of the city of Manila, Philippine penal law
specifically punishes any public officer who, not
being expressly authorized by law or regulation,
compels any person to change his residence.

Salonga v Hermoso “IT is desirable that respondent Travel Processing
Center should exercise the utmost care to avoid
the impression that certain citizens desirous of
exercising their constitutional right to travel could
be subjected to inconvenience and annoyance.
This is a case regarding a petition for mandamus
to compel the issuance of a permit to travel
abroad. It became moot and academic but CJ
Fernando ruled on the merits.
Teenhankee: The issuance of the travel certificate
necessarily is a recognition of the petitioner’s right
to travel under the present circumstances.

Philippine Association of Service Exporters v The ban on their right to travel was justified on the SC sustained an administrative regulation
Drilon ground of public safety. temporarily suspending the deployment of Filipino
female domestics abroad in view of reports of
their abuse and exploitation by foreign employers.

Arroyo v De Lima Court ruled in favor of Arroyo. Arroyo was then a respondent in a preliminary
 investigation for election offenses being jointly
conducted by the Department of Justice and the
COMELEC. She wanted to travel abroad for a
medical appointment and treatment but was on
the Watchlist of the DOJ. She invoked her right to
life.

Carpio: The right to travel is a constitutional right

and may be impaired only in the interest of
national security, public safety or public health as
may be provided by law. Petitioners are already
undergoing preliminary investigation in several
criminal cases, and charges may be filed before
the courts while petitioners are abroad. The
Government must be heard on how the charges
against petitioners could proceed while petitioners
are abroad.

Sereno: The Court, by its own administrative

actions, has acknowledged the state’s limited
power to abridge the right to travel.

Leave Division v Heusdens The issue in this case is non-compliance with the SC admonished a clerk of court for travelling
Court’s rules and regulations. There are abroad without any travel authority as required
constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations under OCA Circular No. 49-2003
regulating the right to travel.