City of Manila vs.
Chinese Cemetery of Manila, 40 Phil 349 (1919)
Nature:
Certiorari
Keywords:
cemetery; rizal avenue
Summary: Plaintiff sought to
expropriate a part of a private cemetery devoted for public use to make an
extension of Rizal Avenue. Defendants contend that expropriation is not
necessary because it will disturb the remains of the dead. Moreover, adjoining
and adjacent lots were offered to the city free of charge for the planned
public improvement
Facts:
The city of Manila presented a petition to expropriate certain parcels of land
situated in the Block 83 of Binondo for the purpose of constructing a public
improvement namely, the extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila.
The plaintiff alleged that the
expropriation was necessary. The defendants, Comunidad de Chinos de Manila,
Ildefonso Tambunting and Feliza Concepcion de Delgado, with her husband, Jose
Maria Delgado, and each of the other defendants, each alleged (a) that no
necessity existed for said expropriation and (b) that the land in question was
a cemetery, which had been used as such for many years, and was covered with
sepulchres and monuments, and that the same should not be converted into a
street for public purposes.
Upon the issue thus presented by the
petition and the various answers, the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario, judge,
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.
From that judgment the plaintiff
appealed.
Issue:
1.
Whether or not a private property devoted for
public use can still be expropriated
2.
Whether or not
the City of Manila has the right to exercise the right of expropriation?
Ratio:
1.
Yes,
private property devoted for public use is still subject to expropriation,
provided this is done directly by the national legislature or under a specific
grant of authority to the delegate. In addition, there must be a
necessity for the expropriation. HOWEVER
In the case at bar, evidence shows that there is no proof of the need of
converting the cemetery
2.
The right of expropriation is not an inherent power in a
municipal corporation, and before it can exercise the right some law must exist
conferring the power upon it. 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, but (b) also that the
right or authority is being exercised in accordance with the law. In the
present case there are two conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to
the City of Manila: 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, certainly it cannot be contended that the right is
being exercised in accordance with law.
The very foundation of the right to
exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity, and that necessity must be of a
public character. The ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany,
and not follow, the taking of the land. (Morrison vs. Indianapolis,
etc. Ry. Co., 166 Ind., 511; Stearns vs. Barre, 73 Vt., 281;
Wheeling, etc. R. R. Co. vs. Toledo, Ry. etc. Co., 72 Ohio St., 368.)
…the record does not show
conclusively that the plaintiff has definitely decided that there exists a necessity
for the appropriation of the particular land described in the complaint. …Aside
from insisting that there exists no necessity for the alleged improvements, the
defendants further contend that the street in question should not be opened
through the cemetery. One of the defendants alleges that said cemetery is public property. If that
allegations is true, then, of course, the city of Manila cannot appropriate it
for public use. The city of Manila can
only expropriate private property.
It is a well known fact that
cemeteries may be public or private. The former is a cemetery used by the
general community, or neighborhood, or church, while 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 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 alleged, and 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, of
course, 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.
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.
Ruling:
The taking of private property for
any use which is not required by the necessities or convenience of the
inhabitants of the state, is an unreasonable exercise of the right of eminent
domain, and beyond the power of the legislature to delegate. (Bennett vs.
Marion, 106 Iowa, 628, 633; Wilson vs. Pittsburg, etc. Co., 222 Pa. St., 541,
545; Greasy, etc. Co. vs. Ely, etc. Co., 132 Ky., 692, 697.)
The Charter of the city of Manila
authorizes the taking of private property for public use. Suppose the owner of
the property denies and successfully proves that the taking of his property
serves no public use: Would the courts not be justified in inquiring into that question
and in finally denying the petition if no public purpose was proved? Can it be
denied that the courts have a right to inquire into that question? If the
courts can ask questions and decide, upon an issue properly presented, whether
the use is public or not, is not that tantamount to permitting the courts to
inquire into the necessity of the appropriation? If there is no public use,
then there is no necessity, and if there is no necessity, it is difficult to
understand how a public use can necessarily exist. If the courts can inquire
into the question whether a public use exists or not, then it seems that it
must follow that they can examine into the question of the necessity.
The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent
domain is a genuine necessity, and that necessity must be of a public
character. The ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany, and
not follow, the taking of the land. (Morrison vs. Indianapolis, etc. Ry. Co.,
166 Ind., 511; Stearns vs. Barre, 73 Vt., 281; Wheeling, etc. R. R. Co. vs.
Toledo, Ry. etc. Co., 72 Ohio St., 368.)
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. The necessity for conferring the
authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain
is admittedly within the power of the legislature. But whether or not the
municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a particular case
under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a question which the
courts have the right to inquire into.
The conflict in the authorities upon
the question whether the necessity for the exercise of the right of eminent
domain is purely legislative and not judicial, arises generally in the wisdom
and propriety of the legislature in authorizing the exercise of the right of
eminent domain instead of in the question of the right to exercise it in a
particular case. (Creston Waterworks Co. vs. McGrath, 89 Iowa, 502.)
By the weight of authorities, the
courts have the power of restricting the exercise of eminent domain to the
actual reasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by
the law. (Fairchild vs. City of St. Paul. 48 Minn., 540.)
And, moreover, the record does not
show conclusively that the plaintiff has definitely decided that their exists a
necessity for the appropriation of the particular land described in the
complaint. Exhibits 4, 5, 7, and E clearly indicate that the municipal board
believed at one time that other land might be used for the proposed
improvement, thereby avoiding the necessity of distributing the quiet resting
place of the dead.
Aside
from insisting that there exists no necessity for the alleged improvements, the
defendants further contend that the street in question should not be opened
through the cemetery. One of the defendants alleges that said cemetery is
public property. If that allegations is true, then, of course, the city of
Manila cannot appropriate it for public use. The city of Manila can only
expropriate private property.
It is a well known fact that
cemeteries may be public or private. The former is a cemetery used by the
general community, or neighborhood, or church, while 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 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.)
The cemetery in question seems to
have been established under governmental authority. The Spanish
Governor-General, in an order creating the same, used the following language:
The cemetery and general hospital for
indigent Chinese having been founded and maintained by the spontaneous and
fraternal contribution of their protector, merchants and industrials,
benefactors of mankind, in consideration of their services to the Government of
the Islands its internal administration, government and regime must necessarily
be adjusted to the taste and traditional practices of those born and educated
in China in order that the sentiments which animated the founders may be
perpetually effectuated.
It is alleged, and 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, of
course, 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.
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.
While we do not contend that the dead
must not give place to the living, and while it is a matter of public knowledge
that in the process of time sepulchres may become the seat of cities and
cemeteries traversed by streets and daily trod by the feet of millions of men,
yet, nevertheless such sacrifices and such uses of the places of the dead
should not be made unless and until it is fully established that there exists
an eminent necessity therefor. While cemeteries and sepulchres and the places
of the burial of the dead are still within the memory and command of the active
care of the living; while they are still devoted to pious uses and sacred
regard, it is difficult to believe that even the legislature would adopt a law
expressly providing that such places, under such circumstances, should be
violated.
In such an appropriation, what, we
may ask, would be the measure of damages at law, for the wounded sensibilities
of the living, in having the graves of kindred and loved ones blotted out and
desecrated by a common highway or street for public travel? The impossibility
of measuring the damage and inadequacy of a remedy at law is too apparent to
admit of argument. To disturb the mortal remains of those endeared to us in
life sometimes becomes the sad duty of the living; but, except in cases of
necessity, or for laudable purposes, the sanctity of the grave, the last
resting place of our friends, should be maintained, and the preventative aid of
the courts should be invoked for that object. (Railroad Company vs. Cemetery
Co., 116 Tenn., 400; Evergreen Cemetery Associationvs. The City of New Haven,
43 Conn., 234; Anderson vs. Acheson, 132 Iowa, 744; Beatty vs. Kurtz, 2 Peters,
566.)
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.
