BARANGAY SINDALAN, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA rep. by BARANGAY CAPTAIN ISMAEL GUTIERREZ, Petitioner vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE MAGTOTO III, and PATRICIA SINDAYAN, Respondents G.R. N . !"#$%#, Mar&' ((, (##) Facts: Pursuant to a resolution passed by the barangay council, petitioner Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, represented by Barangay Captain Ismael Gutierrez, filed a Complaint for eminent domain against respondents spouses ose !agtoto III and Patricia Sindayan, the registered o"ners of a parcel of land covered by #ransfer Certificate of #itle $o. %%&'&()R. Petitioner sought to convert a portion of respondents* land into Barangay Sindalan*s feeder road. #he alleged public purposes sought to be served by the e+propriation "ere stated in Barangay Resolution $o. '. Petitioner claimed that respondents* property "as the most practical and nearest "ay to the municipal road. Pending the resolution of the case at the trial court, petitioner deposited an amount e,uivalent to the fair mar-et value of the property. Respondents alleged that the e+propriation of their property "as for private use, that is, for the benefit of the homeo"ners of .avsan II Subdivision. #hey contended that petitioner deliberately omitted the name of .avsan II Subdivision and, instead, stated that the e+propriation "as for the benefit of the residents of Sitio Paraiso in order to conceal the fact that the access road being proposed to be built across the respondents* land "as to serve a privately o"ned subdivision and those "ho "ould purchase the lots of said subdivision. #hey also pointed out that under Presidential .ecree $o. /P.0 12&, it is the subdivision o"ner "ho is obliged to provide a feeder road to the subdivision residents. Issues: 3hether or not the ta-ing of the land "as for a public purpose or use. Ruling: #he petition lac-s merit. In general, eminent domain is defined as 4the po"er of the nation or a sovereign state to ta-e, or to authorize the ta-ing of, private property for a public use "ithout the o"ner*s consent, conditioned upon payment of 5ust compensation.6 It is ac-no"ledged as 4an inherent political right, founded on a common necessity and interest of appropriating the property of individual members of the community to the great necessities of the "hole community.6 #he e+ercise of the po"er of eminent domain is constrained by t"o constitutional provisions7 /%0 that private property shall not be ta-en for public use "ithout 5ust compensation under 8rticle III /9ill of Rights0, Section 1 and /:0 that no person shall be deprived of his;her life, liberty, or property "ithout due process of la" under 8rt. III, Sec. %. <o"ever, there is no precise meaning of 4public use6 and the term is susceptible of myriad meanings depending on diverse situations. #he limited meaning attached to 4public use6 is 4use by the public6 or 4public employment,6 that 4a duty must devolve on the person or corporation holding property appropriated by right of eminent domain to furnish the public "ith the use intended, and that there must be a right on the part of the public, or some portion of it, or some public or ,uasi)public agency on behalf of the public, to use the property after it is condemned.6 #he more generally accepted vie" sees 4public use6 as 4public advantage, convenience, or benefit, and that anything "hich tends to enlarge the resources, increase the industrial energies, and promote the productive po"er of any considerable number of the inhabitants of a section of the state, or "hich leads to the gro"th of to"ns and the creation of ne" resources for the employment of capital and labor, "hich contributes to the general "elfare and the prosperity of the "hole community.6 In this 5urisdiction, 4public use6 is defined as 4"hatever is beneficially employed for the community.6 It is settled that the public nature of the prospective e+ercise of e+propriation cannot depend on the 4numerical count of those to be served or the smallness or largeness of the community to be benefited.6 #he number of people is not determinative of "hether or not it constitutes public use, provided the use is e+ercisable in common and is not limited to particular individuals. #hus, the first essential re,uirement for a valid e+ercise of eminent domain is for the e+propriator to prove that the e+propriation is for a public use. In Municipality of Bian v. Garcia, this Court e+plicated that e+propriation ends "ith an order of condemnation declaring 4that the plaintiff has a la"ful right to ta-e the property sought to be condemned, * r +'e p,b-.& ,/e r p,rp /e de/&r.bed .n +'e & 0p-a.n+, upon the payment of 5ust compensation.6

In the case at bar, petitioner harps on eminent domain as an inherent po"er of sovereignty similar to police po"er and ta+ation. 8s a basic political unit, its Sangguniang Barangay is clothed "ith the authority to provide barangay roads and other facilities for public use and "elfare. Petitioner*s delegated po"er to e+propriate is not at issue. #he legal ,uestion in this petition, ho"ever, is "hether the ta-ing of the land "as for a public purpose or use. In the e+ercise of the po"er of eminent domain, it is basic that the ta-ing of private property must be for a public purpose. 8 corollary issue is "hether private property can be ta-en by la" from one person and given to another in the guise of public purpose. In this regard, the petition must fail. #he po"er of eminent domain can only be e+ercised for public use and "ith 5ust compensation. #a-ing an individual*s private property is a deprivation "hich can only be 5ustified by a higher good="hich is public use=and can only be counterbalanced by 5ust compensation. 3ithout these safeguards, the ta-ing of property "ould not only be unla"ful, immoral, and null and void, but "ould also constitute a gross and condemnable transgression of an individual*s basic right to property as "ell. For this reason, courts should be more vigilant in protecting the rights of the property o"ner and must perform a more thorough and diligent scrutiny of the alleged public purpose behind the e+propriation. >+treme caution is called for in resolving complaints for condemnation, such that "hen a serious doubt arises regarding the supposed public use of property, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the property o"ner and against the State.