Manosca v. Court
of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)
Manosca Vs
Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)
Facts:
Petitioners inherited a piece of land located at P.
Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig. Metro Manila, with an area of about four
hundred ninety-two (492) square meters. When the parcel was ascertained by the
NHI to have been the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution
No. 1, Series of 1986, pursuant to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No.
260, declaring the land to be a national historical landmark. The resolution
was, on 06 January 1986, approved by the Minister of Education, Culture and
Sports. Later, the opinion of the Secretary of Justice was asked on the
legality of the measure. In his Opinion No. 133, Series of 1987, the Secretary
of Justice replied in the affirmative; he explained:
According to your guidelines, national landmarks
are places or objects that are associated with an event, achievement,
characteristic, or modification that makes a turning point or stage in
Philippine history. Thus, the birthsite of the founder of the Iglesia ni
Cristo, the late Felix Y. Manalo, who, admittedly, had made contributions to Philippine
history and culture has been declared as a national landmark. It has been held that places invested with
unusual historical interest is a public use for which the power of eminent
domain may be authorized . . . .
ISSUES: Petitioners moved to dismiss
the complaint on the main thesis that the intended expropriation was not for a
public purpose and, incidentally, that the act would constitute an application
of public funds, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity,
contrary to the provision of Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987
Constitution. Petitioners sought, in the
meanwhile, a suspension in the implementation of the 03rd August 1989 order of
the trial court
Ruling:
Eminent
domain, also often referred to as expropriation and, with less frequency, as
condemnation, is, like police power and taxation, an inherent power of
sovereignty. It need not be clothed with any constitutional gear to exist;
instead, provisions in our Constitution on the subject are meant more to
regulate, rather than to grant, the exercise of the power. Eminent domain is
generally so described as "the highest and most exact idea of property
remaining in the government" that may be acquired for some public purpose
through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State.9 It is a right to take or reassert dominion over property within the
state for public use or to meet a public exigency. It is said to be an
essential part of governance even in its most primitive form and thus
inseparable from sovereignty. The only direct
constitutional qualification is that "private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation." This proscription is
intended to provide a safeguard against possible abuse and so to protect as
well the individual against whose property the power is sought to be enforced.
The term "public use," not having been
otherwise defined by the constitution, must be considered in its general
concept of meeting a public need or a public exigency. Black summarizes the
characterization given by various courts to the term; thus:
Public Use. Eminent domain. The constitutional and
statutory basis for taking property by eminent domain. For
condemnation purposes, "public use" is one which confers same benefit
or advantage to the public; it is not confined to actual use by public. It is
measured in terms of right of public to use proposed facilities for which
condemnation is sought and, as long as public has right of use, whether
exercised by one or many members of public, a "public advantage" or
"public benefit" accrues sufficient to constitute a public use.
The
validity of the exercise of the power of eminent domain for traditional
purposes is beyond question; it is not at all to be said, however, that public
use should thereby be restricted to such traditional uses. The idea that
"public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the
public" has long been discarded.
WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED. No costs
No comments:
Post a Comment