City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila et al. Case Digest

G.R. No. 14355
October 31, 1919

Facts

The City of Manila presented a petition at the Court of First Instance (CFI) praying that certain lands in Binondo City be expropriated for the purpose of constructing a public improvement, namely the extension of Rizal Avenue Manila. The plaintiff City of Manila alleged that the expropriation is necessary.

Defendants Comunidad de Chinos de Manila, Ildefonso Tambunting, and spouses Delgado – the owner of the lands, alleged that it was neither necessary nor expedient to expropriate the land for street purposes and that there were other routes available to construct the street or road without disturbing the peace of the dead. Moreover, the said expropriation was not a public improvement and the portion of the land is a cemetery which had become a quasi-public property.

The trial court decided that there was no necessity for the expropriation of the land in question. Hence, this appeal.

Plaintiff contended that (1) if it has been established under the law that he has the authority to expropriate land, it may expropriate any land it may desire; and (2) Section 2429 of Act No. 2711 gives the City of Manila an authority to expropriate public lands.

Issues

1. Whether or not the Courts can inquire into the necessity and the purpose of the government’s expropriation of certain lands?
2. Whether or not the City of Manila’s petition for expropriation valid and should be granted?

Held

First Issue

Yes, the court can inquire. Section 248 of Act No 190, which provides how the right of eminent domain may be exercised, provides that the Supreme Court was given authority to inquire into the right of expropriation. Moreover, the courts are not only find that (1) that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain but also (2) that the right or authority is being exercised in accordance with the law. Hence, the Courts can inquire not just on the authority of the one who is claiming to have an authority to exercise the right of eminent domain but whether the expropriation is necessary or exercised in accordance with law.

Second Issue

No. The right to eminent domain shall be granted only upon the satisfaction of two conditions namely: (1) the land must be private and (2) 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. In this case, 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. Moreover, the cemetery is a public property and therefore cannot be expropriated for public use. Hence, the right to eminent domain is not practiced in accordance with law.