REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. LA ORDEN DE PP. BENEDICTINOS DE FILIPINAS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

Republic versus La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas

The Case

This is an expropriation case. The Republic of the Philippines, as plaintiff and appellant, sought to acquire a portion of a larger parcel of land owned by La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, a domestic religious corporation that owns San Beda College, a private educational institution on Mendiola Street in Manila. The Government wanted the land to extend Azcarraga Street from its junction with Mendiola Street up to the Santa Mesa Rotonda in Sampaloc, Manila, in order to ease and solve the daily traffic congestion on Legarda Street. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between the political branches and the courts in the exercise of the power of eminent domain: the courts may inquire into the legality of that exercise and into whether a genuine necessity exists, but that question of necessity is a question of fact that must be established by evidence, not assumed.

Procedural History

The Government first offered to buy the portion of about six thousand square meters, but no agreement was reached with the owner, so the Government instituted expropriation proceedings in the trial court. On May 27, 1957, the trial court issued an order fixing the provisional value of the property at 270,000 pesos and authorizing the Government to take immediate possession upon depositing that amount. The deposit was made with the City Treasurer of Manila, and the trial court directed the Sheriff of Manila to place the Government in possession.

On June 8, 1957, the defendant, in lieu of an answer, filed a motion to dismiss. The Government filed a written opposition, and the defendant filed a reply. On July 29, 1957, without receiving evidence on the questions of fact arising from the complaint, the motion to dismiss, and the opposition, the trial court issued an order dismissing the case. The trial court limited itself to deciding whether the expropriation was necessary and, having concluded that it was not of extreme necessity, dismissed the proceedings. The Government appealed, and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Facts

To ease and solve the daily traffic congestion on Legarda Street, the Government drew plans to extend Azcarraga Street from its junction with Mendiola Street up to the Santa Mesa Rotonda in Sampaloc, Manila. To carry out this plan, it offered to buy a portion of approximately six thousand square meters of a bigger parcel belonging to La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, the domestic religious corporation that owns San Beda College, a private educational institution situated on Mendiola Street.

Not having been able to reach an agreement with the owner, the Government instituted the present expropriation proceedings. The complaint expressly alleged that the Government needs, among other properties, the portion in question for the purpose of constructing the Azcarraga Street extension, and that, in accordance with Section 64(b) of the Revised Administrative Code, the President of the Philippines had authorized the acquisition through condemnation proceedings, as evidenced by the third indorsement dated May 15, 1957 of the Executive Secretary.

The defendant moved to dismiss on several grounds, among them that the property was already dedicated to public use, that there was no necessity for the proposed expropriation, that the extension could pass through a different site at less expense, that the action was discriminatory, and that the Government lacked sufficient funds. The trial court, without receiving evidence, dismissed the case on the sole point that the expropriation was not of extreme necessity.

Issues

• Whether or not the courts may inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and determine whether there is a genuine necessity for the expropriation.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the expropriation proceedings without receiving evidence on the question of fact of necessity.

Applicable Provisions

Section 64(b) of the Revised Administrative Code, as invoked in the complaint, provides the authority relied upon by the Government:

Section 64(b) of the Revised Administrative Code authorizes the President of the Philippines to acquire, through condemnation proceedings, private property needed for public use.

This provision bears on the case because the complaint alleged that the President had authorized the acquisition through condemnation proceedings, an allegation the defendant denied by asserting that there was no necessity for the proposed expropriation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that private property may be expropriated for public use and upon payment of just compensation, and that condemnation of private property is justified only if it is for the public good and there is a genuine necessity therefor of a public character. Consequently, the courts have the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether or not there is a genuine necessity therefor.

On the second issue, the Court held that whether or not the proposed opening of the Azcarraga extension is a necessity in order to relieve the daily congestion of traffic on Legarda Street is a question of fact, dependent not only upon the facts of which the trial court very liberally took judicial notice but also upon other factors that do not appear of record and must therefore be established by means of evidence. The Court ruled that the parties should have been given an opportunity to present their respective evidence upon these factors and others that might be of direct or indirect help in determining the vital question of fact involved, namely, the need to open the extension of Azcarraga Street to ease and solve the traffic congestion on Legarda Street.

Doctrine

Private property may be expropriated for public use and upon payment of just compensation, and condemnation is justified only if it is for the public good and there is a genuine necessity therefor of a public character. The courts may inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and determine whether there is a genuine necessity for the expropriation. But the question of necessity is a question of fact that must be established by evidence; it cannot be resolved on judicial notice alone, and the parties must be given the opportunity to present their evidence on the factors bearing on that question.

Disposition

The appealed order of dismissal was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the decision, without costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: the courts may inquire into the legality of the exercise of eminent domain and into the genuine necessity therefor, but necessity is a question of fact that must be proved by evidence, not assumed. Examiners like to use this case on the scope of judicial review in expropriation and on the requirement of a hearing on the question of necessity.