PHILIPPINE COLUMBIAN ASSOCIATION vs.
PANIS The Revised Charter expressly grants the City of Manila general powers over its
J. Quiason | December 21, 1993 | Digest by RMLP
NATURE: Petition for certiorari to review a decision of the CA
SECTION 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.
FACTS
Philippine Columbian Association is a corporation engaged in the business of
providing sports and recreational facilities for its members. Its office and facilities are
situated in Paco, Manila.
PCA is also the owner of an adjacent lot consisting of 4,800 SQ.M. Private
respondents in this case are the current occupants of said land.
In 1982, PCA instituted ejectment proceedings and won. A writ of demolition was later
issued in favor of PCA.
In 1990, private respondents filed a petition for injunction, prohibition, and restraining
order against PCA to enjoin the demolition of their houses in the said land.
Later, the City of Manila filed a complaint against PCA for the expropriation of the
4,800 SQ.M. lot subject of the ejectment proceedings. PCA filed, in turn, a motion to
dismiss the complaint, alleging: that the City of Manila had no power to expropriate
private land; that the expropriation is not for public use and welfare; that the
expropriation is politically motivated; and that the deposit of P2M was insufficient.
Ultimately, the RTC, presided by Judge Domingo Panis, ruled in favor of the City of
Manila and held that the expropriation proceeding was properly instituted in
accordance with law. The CA denied the petition of PCA assailing the orders of the
RTC; hence this petition.
ISSUES
1) WON the City of Manila has power to expropriate private land – YES
2) WON the expropriation is for public use and welfare – YES
3) WON PCA’s right to due process was violated – NO
4) WON the amount of P2M was insufficient - NO
RATIO
1) The Revised Charter of the City of Manila expressly authorizes the City of Manila
to “condemn private property for public use” and “to acquire private land and
subdivide the same into home lots for sale on easy terms to city residents”.
jurisdiction, including the power of eminent domain. More so, it authorizes the
City of Manila to undertake urban land reform.
The City of Manila has express power through its legislative branch to acquire
private lands in the city and subdivide these lands into home lots for sale to bona-
fide tenants or occupants thereof, and to laborers, and low-salaried employees of
the city.
2) It may still be considered to be of public use even if only a few could actually
benefit from the expropriation. It is simply not possible to provide all at once land
and shelter for all who need them.
IMPORTANT: EXPANDED NOTION OF PUBLIC USE
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
Constitution.
3) Although the Motion to Dismiss filed by PCA was not set for hearing as the court
is required to do, it never question the lack of hearing before the lower courts.
4) The amount of P2M is an amount fixed by the court and accepted by both
parties. The fact remains that PCA agreed to said valuation is therefore estopped
from assailing the same. Also, it must be remembered that the valuation is
merely provisional.
RULING
Petition DENIED for lack of merit.