Understanding Eminent Domain

Eminent domain in the Philippines is enshrined in the 1987 Constitution under Article III, Section 9, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. This provision underscores the government’s power to acquire private property for public use, provided that fair compensation is provided to the affected landowners.

What is the power of eminent domain?

Eminent domain is generally so described as “the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in the government” that may be acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State. It is a right to take or reassert dominion over property within the state for public use or to meet a public exigency. It is said to be an essential part of governance even in its most primitive form and thus inseparable from sovereignty. ¹

What is the proscription on the power of eminent domain under the Constitution?

The only direct constitutional qualification is that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” This proscription is intended to provide a safeguard against possible abuse and so to protect as well the individual against whose property the power is sought to be enforced.²

What are the requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain?

The requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain are the following:

1. There is a public necessity³;
2. It must involve the Taking of the property by the government, whether actual⁴ or constructive⁵;
3. What is taken must be private property, except money and choses in action⁶;
4. The taking must be for public use;
5. The owner of the private property must be paid Just compensation for the property taken⁷; and
6. Due process must be observed in the taking of the property.

What does “public use” signify?

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. It is measured in terms of right of public to use proposed facilities for which condemnation is sought and. as long as public has right to use, whether exercised by one or many members of public, a public advantage or public benefit accrues sufficient to constitute a public use.⁸

What is the expansive concept of “public use”?

Public use, as an eminent domain concept has now acquired an expansive meaning to include any use that is of “usefulness, utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit of the public”.⁹

What is just compensation?

Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss¹⁰. It embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking.¹¹

How is just compensation computed in cases of partial expropriation?

The formula for determination of just compensation is consequential damage to the property not taken minus consequential benefits to the property taken plus the fair market value (FMV) of the property i.e. [(Consequential Damage – Consequential Benefits) + FMV]. However, in no case shall the owner be deprived of the fair market value of his property.

Note: The Local Government Code provides that the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court based on the FMV at the time of taking of the property.

When is just compensation not required?

Just compensation is not required in wielding police power. This is precisely because there is no taking involved, but only an imposition of burden.¹²

Source:

1987 Constitution

The Rules of Court

---

1. Manosca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106440. January 29, 1996 ↩︎
2. Id. ↩︎
3. City of Manila v. The Arellano Law Colleges Inc, G.R. No. L-2929. February 28, 1950 ↩︎
4. Republic v. Vda. De Castellvi, G.R. No. L-20620, August 15, 1974
   ↩︎
5. National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, August 24, 2011 ↩︎
6. Republic v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, G.R. No. L- 18841. January 27. 1969 ↩︎
7. Reyes, et al. v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 147511, January 20. 2003 ↩︎
8. Manosca v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996 ↩︎
9. Vda. De Ouano v. Republic, G.R. No. 168770, February 9, 2011 ↩︎
10. Republic v. Kabacan, Inc. et. al, G.R. No. 185124, January 25, 2012 ↩︎
11. Estate of Salud Jimenez v. Philippines Export Processing Zone, G.R. No. 137285. January 26, 2001). ↩︎
12. Southern Luzon Drug Corporation v. Department of Social Welfare and Development, G.R. No. 199669, April 25, 2017 ↩︎