The document outlines 29 points on the legal principles of eminent domain and expropriation. Some key points include: the power of eminent domain allows the taking of private property for public use with just compensation; a taking occurs when owners are deprived of proprietary rights over their property; just compensation is generally determined at the time of taking; private property cannot be taken for purely private use. The document also discusses what constitutes a taking, when compensation is owed, and the process for determining compensation in expropriation cases.
The document outlines 29 points on the legal principles of eminent domain and expropriation. Some key points include: the power of eminent domain allows the taking of private property for public use with just compensation; a taking occurs when owners are deprived of proprietary rights over their property; just compensation is generally determined at the time of taking; private property cannot be taken for purely private use. The document also discusses what constitutes a taking, when compensation is owed, and the process for determining compensation in expropriation cases.
The document outlines 29 points on the legal principles of eminent domain and expropriation. Some key points include: the power of eminent domain allows the taking of private property for public use with just compensation; a taking occurs when owners are deprived of proprietary rights over their property; just compensation is generally determined at the time of taking; private property cannot be taken for purely private use. The document also discusses what constitutes a taking, when compensation is owed, and the process for determining compensation in expropriation cases.
1. THE POWER TO REGULATE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE POWER TO
CONFISCATE UNLESS THERE IS A NECESSITY TO DESTROY IT AS IN THE CASE OF ILLEGALLY POSSESSED ARTICLES. QUEZON CITY VS ERICTA
2. THE ACQUISITION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY CONSTITUTES
TAKING. IT PERPETUALLY DEPRIVES OWNERS OF THEIR PROPRIETARY RIGHTS . NPC V GUTIERREZ
3. THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT THE TAKING IS THE CRITICAL
DATE IN DETERMINING THE JUST COMPENSATION. THERE WILL BE AN INJUSTICE TO THE EXPROPRIATOR IF THE INCERMENTAL ADVANTAGES ARISING FROM THE USE TO WHICH THE GOVERNMENT DEVOTED THE PROPERTY EXPROPRIATED WILL ACCRUE IN FAVOR OF THE OWNER.
4, ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF TAKING IS THE ENTRY INTO THE
PROPERTY UNDER WARRANT OF COLOR OF LEGAL AUTHORITY. WHEN THE ENTRY IS NOT WITH THE INTENT TO EXPROPRIATE, THERE IS NO TAKING.
5. A ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH LIMITS A WHOLESOME
PROPERTY TO A USE WHICH CANNOT REASONABLY BE MADE OF IT CONSTITUTES TAKING OF SUCH PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION. A DISTINCTION SHOULD BE MADE BETWEEN DESTRUCTION FROM NECESSITY AND EMINENT DOMAIN.
6. PROPERTY TAKEN IN THE EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER IS
DESTROYED BECAUSE IT IS NOXIOUS OR INTENDED FOR A NOXIOUS PURPOSE WHILE PROPERTY TAKEN UNDER THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS INTENDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND IS WHOLESOME.
7. THE PRIVILEGE ENJOYED BY SENIOR CITIZENS DOES NOT COME
DIRECTLY FROM THE STATE BUT RATHER FROM THE PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS CONCERNED. THE TAX CREDIT BENEFITS GRANTED BY LAW TO THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS CAN BE DEEMED AS THEIR JUST COMPENSATION.
8. THE FACT THAT PRIVATE BUSINESSES USE PUBLIC STREETS
DOEST NOT DETRACT FROM THE PUBLIC CHARACTED OF THE EXPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY FOR STREETS. 2
9. THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
IS NOT A BARRIER TO THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN.
10. EXPROPRIATION IS NOT CONFINED TO LANDED ESTATES. THE
STATE HAS BROAD DISCRETION TO DESIGNATE THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN AND HOW MUCH MAY BE EXPROPRIATED. ITS CHOICE WILL BE LEFT UNDISTURBED IN THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR SHOWING OF FRAUD, BAD FAITH OR GROSS ABUSE OF DISCRETION
11. PRIVATE PROPERTY CANNOT BE EXPROPRIATED TO THE USE
THAT IS NOT PUBLIC.
12. WHERE THE INTENDED BENEFICIARY IS A PRIVATE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE PURPOSE IS NOT PUBLIC AND THE NECESSITY ISNOT SHOWN.
13. TO DETERMINE THE JUST COMPENSATION, THE BASIS SHOULD
BE THE VALUE AT THE TIME THE PROPERTY WAS TAKEN. THE NATURE OF THE LAND AT THE TIME OFTAKING IS THE PRINCIPAL CRITERION FOR DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION. LEGAL INTEREST SHOULD ACCRUE FROM THAT DATE.
14. THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION IN EMINENT
DOMAIN CASES IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION. THE METHOD OF ASCERTAINING THE JUST COMPENSATION UNDER PD 1533 IS AN IMPERMISSIBLE ENCROACHMENT ON JUDICIAL PREROGATIVE.
15. WHILE REPUBLIC ACT 6657 PROVIDES THAT THE JUST
COMPENSATION WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THE DETERMINATION IS ONLY PRELIMINARY. THE COURTS STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVIEW IT.
16. THE PROCESS OF EXPROPRIATION IS NOT COMPLETED UNTIL
PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION. THE FAILURE OF THE REPUBLIC TO PAY FOR A PERIOD OF 57 YEARS RENDERED THE EXPROPRIATION PROCESS INCOMPLETE. RECOVERY OF POSSESSION IS IN ORDER.
17. WHERE PRIVATE PROPERTY IS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT
FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT FIRST ACQUIRING TITLE TO IT THROUGH EXPROPRIATION OR NEGOTIATED SALE, THE ACTION OF THE OWNER TO RECOVER THE LAND OR ITS VALUE DOES NOT PRESCRIBE.
18. UNTIL EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS ARE ACTUALLY FILED, A
LANDOWNER CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS OVER THE LAND. 3
19. THE OWNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND CAN RECOVER POSSESSION
FROM SQUATTERS EVEN IF HE AGREED TO TRANSFER THE PROPERTY TO THE GOVERNMENT UNTIL THE TRANSFER IS CONSUMMATED OR AN EXPROPRIATION CASE IS FILED.
20. UNTIL THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY EXPROPRIATED IS PAID
JUST COMPENSATION, HIS TITLE CANNOT BE CANCELLED.
21. PROPERTY ALREADY DEVOTED TO PUBLIC USE CAN STILL BE
THE SUBJECT OF EXPRORPIATION PROVIDED THIS IS DONE DIRECTLY BY THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE OR UNDER A SPECIFIC POINT OF AUTHORITY TO THE DELEGATE. A MERE GENERAL AUTHORITY MAY NOT SUFFICE.
22. THE ISSUE OF NECESSITY IS ESEENTIALLY POLITICAL WHEN
DECIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND AS A RULE, NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. BUT WHERE THE QUESTION IS DECIDED BY AMERE DELEGATE OF THE LEGISLATURE, THE COURT MAY ASSUME THE POWER TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE AUTHORITY CONFERRED UPON THE DELEGATE HAS BEEN CORRECTLY OR PROPERLY EXERCISED.
23. NOT EVERY TAKING IS COMPENSABLE AS TI MAY BE JUSTIFIED
UNDER THE POLICE POWER. WHERE THERE IS A VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER AIMED AT IMPORVING THE GENERAL WELFARE, WHATEVER DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PROPERTY OWNERS ARE REGARDED AS MERELY INCIDENTAL TO A PROPER EXECUTION OF SUCH POWER.
24. WHEN ONE OR MORE OF THE PROPERTY INTERESTS ARE
APPROPRIATED AND APPLIED TO SOMEPUBLIC PURPOSE, THERE IS ALREADY COMPENSABLE TAKING EVEN IF BARE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY STILL REMAINS WITH THE PRIVATE OWNER.
25. IF IT IS PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY OF THEMUNICIPALITY, THAT
PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPALITY WITH ITS PRIVATE FUNDS IN ITS CORPORATE OR PRIVATE CAPACITY AND COMPENSATION IS REQUIRED.
26. IF IT IS ANY PROPERTY HELD BY THE MUNICIPALITY FOR THE
STATE IN TRUST FOR THE INHABITANTS, THE STATE IS FREE TO DISPOSE OF IT AT WILL.
27. THE LGU CANNOT EXERCISE POWER FO EMINENT DOMAIN
UNLESS A VALID AND DEFINITE OFFER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY MADE TO THE OWNER AND SUCH OFFER WAS NOT ACCEPTED.
28, AS A RULE, JUST COMPENSATION SHOULD BE FIXED AS OF THE
DATE OF FILING OF THE COMPLAINT. EXCEPTION IS IF THE EXPROPRIATOR ENTERS UPON THE PROPERTY TO BE 4
CONDEMED BEFORE FILING THE COMPLAINT FOR
EXPROPRIATION AND THE OWNER IS DEPRIVED OF THE BENEFICIAL USE OF HIS PROPERTY, THEN, JUST COMPENSATION IS DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF TAKING.
29. IF THE OWNER IS NOT PAID THE FULL AMOUNT OF HIS
PROPERTY EXPROPRIATED AFTER A FINAL JUDGMENT WAS MADE, HIS OPTIONS ARE A\ HE CAN FILE A SUIT FOR GARNISHMENT AND B/ THE OWNER CAN FILE A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS.
Motion for Leave to File Brief for Amici Curiae and Brief for the Cato Institute, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, Reason Foundation, Southeast Legal Foundation, National Association of Reversionary Property Owners, Property Rights Foundation of America, and Professors James W. Ely, Jr., Shelley Ross Saxer and Ilya Somin as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. Mississippi Trans. Comm'n, No. 16-1077 (Mar. 6, 2017)