Sumulong vs. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987)

Sumulong  vs. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461 (1987)

Sumulong vs. Guerrero

Facts:

On December 5, 1977 the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a complaint for expropriation of parcels of land covering approximately twenty-five (25) hectares in Antipolo, Rizal including the lots of petitioners Lorenzo Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes-Balaoing with an area of 6,667 square meters and 3,333 square meters respectively. The land sought to be expropriated were valued by the NHA at one peso (P1.00) per square meter adopting the market value.

Together with the complaint was a motion for immediate possession of the properties. The NHA deposited the amount of P158,980.00 with the Philippine National Bank, representing the "total market value" of the subject 25 hectares of land, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1224 which defines "the policy on the expropriation of private property for socialized housing upon payment of just compensation."

On January 17, 1978, Judge Buenaventura Guerrero issued a writ of possession when the NHA deposited with the Philippine National Bank the amount of P158, 980.00. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that they had been deprived of the possession of their property without due process of law, which was however denied. Hence, the resort to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not PD 1224 is violative of the due process clause since “socialized housing'' for the purpose of condemnation proceeding is not really for a public purpose.

Ruling:

No. PD 1224 is not violative of the due process clause since “socialized housing'' for the purpose of condemnation proceeding is really for a public purpose.

The "public use" requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. In this jurisdiction, the statutory and judicial trend has been summarized as follows: The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time when it was felt that a literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not anymore. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what public use is. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is in the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.