G.R. No. 106440
January 29, 1996
Facts
Petitioners inherited a piece of land with 492 sqm. When said parcel was ascertained by the NHI (Nat’l Historical Institute) to have been his birthsite of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No. 1, Series of 1986, pursuant to Section 4 of P.D. No. 260, declaring the land to be a national historical landmark. The resolution was approved by MECS and later affirmed by the Secretary of Justice.
The republic thru the OSG instituted a complaint for expropriation before the RTC for and in behalf of the NHI. And further filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an order to permit it to take immediate possession of the property. The motion was opposed by petitioners. After hearing, the trial court issued an order fixing the provisional market and assessed values of the property and authorizing the Republic to take over the property once the required sum would have been deposited with the Municipal Treasurer of Taguig, Metro Manila.
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 INC, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution.” On the other hand, Republic then filed a motion to dismiss. The RTC then filed an order declaring moot and academic the MFR and/suspension with the rejection of petitioner’s motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals likewise dismissed the case.
Issue
Whether or not the taking of the property is for public use which guarantees the exercise of eminent domain?
Held
Yes.
The guidelines in Guido were not meant to be preclusive in nature and, most certainly, the power of eminent domain should not now be understood as being conned only to the expropriation of vast tracts of land and landed estates. “ For condemnation purposes, ‘public use’ is one which confers some benefit or advantage to the public; it is not confined to actual use by public.
Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando states: “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 so any more. 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 is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is 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.”
In this case, the expropriation of Felix Manalo’s birthplace become so vital as to be a public use appropriate for the exercise of the power of eminent domain since the purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature. Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of public use.
Hence, petition denied considering that the taking of property is of public use.