Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Visayan Refining vs. Camus

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    101 views2 pages
    The Philippine Government initiated expropriation proceedings to condemn a tract of land in Paranaque for military and aviation purposes. The owners of the land questioned the validity of the proceedings, arguing there was no law authorizing the exercise of eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Government has the authority to exercise eminent domain as conferred by the Philippine Bill and Administrative Code. While this authority is subject to limitations of public purpose and just compensation, the taking of the land for military and aviation purposes served a public purpose. Further, depositing funds for compensation ahead of judgment fulfilled the requirement of just compensation. Therefore, the expropriation proceedings were conducted in accordance with law.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Philippine Government initiated expropriation proceedings to condemn a tract of land in Paranaque for military and aviation purposes. The owners of the land questioned the validity of the proceedings, arguing there was no law authorizing the exercise of eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Government has the authority to exercise eminent domain as conferred by the Philippine Bill and Administrative Code. While this authority is subject to limitations of public purpose and just compensation, the taking of the land for military and aviation purposes served a public purpose. Further, depositing funds for compensation ahead of judgment fulfilled the requirement of just compensation. Therefore, the expropriation proceedings were conducted in accordance with law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    101 views2 pages

    Visayan Refining vs. Camus

    Uploaded by

    Jessamine Orioque
    The Philippine Government initiated expropriation proceedings to condemn a tract of land in Paranaque for military and aviation purposes. The owners of the land questioned the validity of the proceedings, arguing there was no law authorizing the exercise of eminent domain. The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Government has the authority to exercise eminent domain as conferred by the Philippine Bill and Administrative Code. While this authority is subject to limitations of public purpose and just compensation, the taking of the land for military and aviation purposes served a public purpose. Further, depositing funds for compensation ahead of judgment fulfilled the requirement of just compensation. Therefore, the expropriation proceedings were conducted in accordance with law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    VISAYAN REFINING VS.

    CAMUS

    Title does not pass until after payment

    Facts:

    Upon the direction of the Governor-General, the Attorney-General filed a


    complaint with the CFI (Rizal) in the name of the Government of the Philippines
    for the condemnation of a certain tract of land in Paranaque for military and
    aviation purposes. The petitioners herein are among the defendants named.
    Likewise, it was prayed that the court will give the Government the possession of
    the land to be expropriated after the necessary deposit (provisional) of P600,
    000.00 as the total value of the property. Through the order of the public
    respondent, Judge Camus, the prayer was granted.

    During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners raised a demurrer questioning
    the validity of the proceedings on the ground that there is no law authorizing the
    exercise of the power of eminent domain. Likewise, they moved for the revocation of the
    order on the same ground stated and with additional allegation that the deposit had
    been made without authority of law since the money was taken from the unexpended
    balance of the funds appropriated by previous statutes for the use of the Militia
    Commission and the authority for the exercise of the power of eminent domain could not
    be found in those statutes. The demurrer and motion were overruled and denied
    respectively by Camus. This prompted the petitioners to file this instant petition to stop
    the proceedings in the CFI.
     
    Issue:
    Can the Philippine Government initiate expropriation proceedings in the absence of a
    statute authorizing the exercise of the power of eminent domain?
     
    Held:
    Yes, it can. The Philippine Government has the general authority to exercise the power
    of eminent domain as expressly conferred by Section 63 of the Philippine Bill (Act of
    Congress of July 1, 1902). It says that the Philippine Government is authorized to
    acquire, receive, hold, maintain, and convey title to real and personal property, and may
    acquire real estate for public uses by the exercise of the right to eminent domain. The
    same is subject to the limitation of due process of law. In consonance with this, Section
    64 of the Administrative Code of the Philippine Islands (Act No. 2711) expressly confers
    on the Government General the power to determine when it is necessary or
    advantageous to exercise the right of eminent domain in behalf of the Government of
    the Philippine Island; and to direct the Attorney-General, where such at is deemed
    advisable, to cause the condemnation proceedings to be begun in the court having
    proper jurisdiction. There is no question as to the Governor General’s authority to
    exercise this power.
    However, this authority is not absolute. It is subject to two limitations, namely,
    that the taking shall be for public purpose and there must be just compensation.
    Apparently, the reason behind the taking of the subject land was for military and aviation
    purposes. This considered a public purpose given the importance of the military and
    aviation in the operation of the State.
    As to the second requirement, it must be remembered that at that time there was no law
    requiring that compensation shall actually be paid prior to the judgment of
    condemnation. The deposit was made, despite the absence of said law, to afford
    absolute assurance that no piece of land can be finally and irrevocably taken from an
    unwilling owner until compensation is paid. This is in conformity with the just
    compensation requirement.
    Given these reasons, the proceedings were made in accordance with law.
    Petition is denied. Proceedings of the lower court were in all respects regular and within
    the jurisdiction of the court.

    You might also like