This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-04-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The RTC compounded its error when, acting on the motions for reconsideration filed by the parties, it issued the assailed 31 May 2004 Order, denying petitioner's right of expropriation over Lot Nos. 21609-A, 21609-D, 21609-F, 21609-G, 21609-H, 21609-I and 21609-J, on the ground that the same were already used by respondents for their businesses and/or residences. Subject to the direct constitutional qualification that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,"[57] the power of eminent domain is, after all, the ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate any property within its territorial sovereignty for a public purpose[58] thru a method that partakes the nature of a compulsory sale.[59] The fact that said lots are being utilized by respondents Legaspis for their own private purposes is, consequently, not a valid reason to deny exercise of the right of expropriation, for as long as the taking is for a public purpose and just compensation is paid. | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The power of eminent domain is an inherent and indispensable power of the State. Being inherent, the power need not be specifically conferred on the government by the Constitution.[36] Section 9, Article III states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The constitutional restraints are public use and just compensation.[37] | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Forfom further avers that the leasing out of portions of the property to third persons is beyond the scope of public use and thus should be returned to it. We do not agree. The public-use requisite for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. At present, it may not be amiss to state that whatever is beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.[45] The term "public use" has now been held to be synonymous with "public interest," "public benefit," "public welfare," and "public convenience."[46] It includes the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage.[47] Whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.[48] | |||||