POLICE POWER:

1. US v Toribio Cattle
2. Ramon Fabie Et Al v City of Manila Building Permit
3. (TOMM) Felicismo Cabigao and Ace Transportation v BOT and Director of the BLT
Taxi Registration
4. BAUTISTA v JUINIO Banning of H and EH Vehicles
a. To assure that the general welfare be promoted, which is the end of law, a
regulatory measure may cut into the rights to liberty and property. Those
adversely affected may under such circumstances invoke the equal protection
clause only if they can show that the governmental act assailed, far from
being inspired by the attainment of the common weal was prompted by the
spirit of hostility, or at the very least, discrimination that finds no support in
reason.
5. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK, v AGANA Fucking Bank Shit
a. *Redemption of preferred shares was prohibited for a just and valid reason.
The directive issued by the Central Bank Governor was obviously meant to
preserve the status quo, and to prevent the financial ruin of a banking
institution that would have resulted in adverse repercussions, not only to its
depositors and creditors, but also to the banking industry as a whole. The
directive, in limiting the exercise of a right granted by law to a corporate
entity, may thus be considered as an exercise of police power. The respondent
judge insists that the directive constitutes an impairment of the obligation of
contracts. It has, however, been settled that the Constitutional guaranty of
non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the
police power of the state, the reason being that public welfare is superior to
private rights.
EMINENT DOMAIN:
6. Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. v COMELEC
Free Air Time for COMELEC
a. All broadcasting, whether radio or by television stations, is licensed by the
government. Radio and television broadcasting companies, which are given
franchises, do not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they
transmit broadcast signals and images. They are merely given the temporary
privilege to use them. Thus, such exercise of the privilege may reasonably be
burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of public service.
In granting the privilege to operate broadcast stations and supervising radio
and television stations, the state spends considerable public funds in licensing
and supervising them.
b. The argument that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to
provide free air time as against newspapers and magazines which require
payment of just compensation for the print space they may provide is likewise
without merit. Regulation of the broadcast industry requires spending of public
funds which it does not do in the case of print media. To require the broadcast
industry to provide free air time for COMELEC is a fair exchange for what the
industry gets.

c. As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private
property is taken by the requirement that they provide air time to the
COMELEC. The use of property bears a social function and is subject to the
states duty to intervene for the common good. Broadcast media can find their
just and highest reward in the fact that whatever altruistic service they may
render in connection with the holding of elections is for that common good.
7. City of Manila v Laguio Whorehouse Stoppage
a. There must be a relation between the police power and the means employed
for its accomplishment. Hence Eradicating Amusement and penalizing the
Places does not have a direct relation to the ultimate goal which is to protect
the social and moral values of the community.
b. Taking of property without just compensation. 1. Possessory 2. Regulatory
8. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Central Luzon Drug Corporation Mercury Drug
20% Senior Citizen
a. The discount privilege to which our senior citizens are entitled is actually a
benefit enjoyed by the general public to whichthese citizens belong. The
discounts given would have entered the coffers and formed part of the gross
sales of the private establishments concerned, were it not for RA 7432. The
permanent reduction in their total revenues is a forced subsidy corresponding
to the taking of private property for public use or benefit. As a result of the 20
percent discount imposed by RA 7432, respondent becomes entitled to a just
compensation. This term refers not only to the issuance of a tax credit
certificate indicating the correct amount of the discounts given, but also to the
promptness in its release. Equivalent to the payment of property taken by the
State, such issuance -- when not done within a reasonable time from the grant
of the discounts -- cannot be considered as just compensation. In effect,
respondent is made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived
of its revenues while awaiting actual receipt, through the certificate, of the
equivalent amount it needs to cope with the reduction in its revenues.[79]
Besides, the taxation power can also be used as an implement for the exercise
of the power of eminent domain.[80] Tax measures are but enforced
contributions exacted on pain of penal sanctions[81] and clearly imposed for
a public purpose.[82] In recent years, the power to tax has indeed become a
most effective tool to realize social justice, public welfare, and the equitable
distribution of wealth.[83]
9. Manosca vs. CA Birth Place of Iglesia ni Cristo Founder/ Historical Place
a. Taking of Land is Constitutional. Yep its for public use. One expropriation is to
subdivide lands to small lots for the resale to individuals and second is the
taking private property to the government.
10. Land Bank of the Philippines v Wycoco Hectare of Land/ DAR
11. RP v Lim Cebu Land for RP Army
a. Just compensation. Republic did not pay therefore they are not owners.
Contrary to fair play. Govt failed to pay just compensation within 5 years,
therefore respondent can claim land back.

3 Inherent Powers of the State:

1. Police Power;
2. Power of Eminent Domain or Power of Expropriation; and
3. Power of Taxation
Purpose:
1. for public good or welfare - Police Power
2. for public use - Power of Eminent Domain
3. for revenu - Power of Taxation
1. POLICE POWER is the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of both liberty and
property of all the people. It is considered to be the most all-encompassing of the three powers. It may be exercised only by the
government. The property taken in the exercise of this power is destroyed because it is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose.
It lies primarily in the discretion of the legislature. Hence, the President, and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking
bodies on all municipal levels, including the barangay may not exercise it without a valid delegation of legislative power.Municipal
governments exercise this power by virtue of the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991.Even the courts
cannot compel the exercise of this power through mandamus or any judicial process.
Requisites of a valid police measure:
(a.) Lawful Subject the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the public welfare. It requires the primacy of
the welfare of the many over the interests of the few.
(b.) Lawful Means the means employed must be reasonable and must conform to the safeguards guaranteed by the Bill
of Rights.
2. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN affects only property RIGHTS. It may be exercised by some private entities. The
property forcibly taken under this power, upon payment of just compensation, is needed for conversion to public use or purpose.
The taking of property in law may include:
- trespass without actual eviction of the owner;
- material impairment of the value of the property; or
- prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was intended.
The property that may be subject for appropriation shall not be limited to private property. Public property may be expropriated
provided there is a SPECIFIC grant of authority to the delegate. Money and a chose in action are the only things exempt from
expropriation.
Although it is also lodged primarily in the national legislature, the courts have the power to inquire the legality of the right of
eminent domain and to determine whether or not there is a genuine necessity therefore.
3. POWER OF TAXATION affects only property rights and may be exercised only by the government. The property taken
under this power shall likewise be intended for a public use or purpose. It is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues, to
protect the people and extend them benefits in the form of public projects and services (I hope so). Hence, it cannot be allowed to
be confiscatory, except if it is intended for destruction as an instrument of the police power.
It must conform to the requirements of due process. Therefore, taxpayers are entitled to be notified of the assessment
proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation to be given the property. It is also subject to the general requirements
of the equal protection clause that the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELICIANO F. WYCOCO G.R. No. 146733 January 13, 2004
Bill of Rights

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELICIANO F. WYCOCOG.R. No. 146733January 13, 2004
FACTS:
This case is a consolidated petition of one seeking review of the decision of CA modifying the decision of RTC
acting as a Special Agrarian Court, and another for mandamus to compel the RTC to issue a writ of execution and to
direct Judge Caspillo to inhibit.
Feliciano F. Wycoco is the registered owner of a 94.1690 hectare land. Wycoco voluntarily offered to sell the
land to the Department of Agrarian Reform for P14.9 million. DAR offered P2,280,159.82. The area which the DAR
offered to acquire excluded idle lands, river and road located therein. Wycoco rejected the offer, prompting the DAR
to indorse the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) for the purpose of fixing the
just compensation in a summary administrative proceeding. Thereafter, the DARAB requested LBP to open a trust
account in the name of Wycoco and deposited the compensation offered by DAR. In the meantime, the property was
distributed to farmer-beneficiaries.
On April 13, 1993, Wycoco filed the instant case for determination of just compensation with the Regional
Trial Court of Cabanatuan City against DAR and LBP.
On March 9, 1994, the DARAB dismissed the case on its hand to give way to the determination of just
compensation by the RTC.
Meanwhile, DAR and LBP filed their respective answered that the valuation of Wycocos property was in
accordance with law and that the latter failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not participating in the
summary administrative proceedings before the DARAB which has primary jurisdiction over determination of land
valuation.
On November 14, 1995, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Wycoco. It ruled that there is no need
to present evidence in support of the land valuation in as much as it is of public knowledge that the prevailing market
value of agricultural lands sold in Licab, Nueva Ecija is from P135,000.00 to 150,000.00 per hectare. The court thus
took judicial notice thereof and fixed the compensation for the entire 94.1690 hectare land at P142,500.00 per
hectare or a total of P13,428,082.00. It also awarded Wycoco actual damages for unrealized profits plus legal
interest.
The DAR and the LBP filed separate petitions before the Court of Appeals. The petition brought by DAR on
jurisdictional and procedural issues was dismissed. This prompted Wycoco to file a petition for mandamus before this
Court praying that the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City be executed, and that Judge Caspillo be
compelled to inhibit himself from hearing the case.
The petition brought by LBP on both substantive and procedural grounds was likewise dismissed by the
Court of Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals modified its decision by deducting from the compensation due to
Wycoco the amount corresponding to the 3.3672 hectare portion of the 94.1690 hectare land which was found to
have been previously sold by Wycoco to the Republic.
LBP contended that the Court of Appeals erred in its ruling.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case acting as Special Agrarian Court.

2. Assuming that it acquired jurisdiction, whether or not the compensation arrived at supported by
evidence.
3. Whether or not Wycoco can compel DAR to purchase the entire land.
4. Whether or not the awards of interest and damages for unrealized profits is valid.
HELD:
1. Yes, the RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court, acquired jurisdiction of the case. Sections 50 and 57 of
Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) provides:
Section 50.Quasi-judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Section 57.Special Jurisdiction. The Special Agrarian Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal
offenses under this Act.
2. No, the compensation arrived is not supported by evidence. In arriving at the valuation of Wycocos land,
the trial court took judicial notice of the alleged prevailing market value of agricultural lands without apprising the
parties of its intention to take judicial notice thereof. Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules on Evidence provides:
Sec. 3. Judicial Notice. When Hearing Necessary. During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on
request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard
thereon.
After trial and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party,
may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a
material issue in the case.
The trial court should have allowed the parties to present evidence thereon instead of practically assuming
a valuation without basis. Only the market value was taken into account in determining the just compensation. Since
other factors were not considered, the case was remanded for determination of just compensation.
3. No, the DAR cannot be compelled to purchase the entire property voluntarily offered by Wycoco. The
power to determine whether a parcel of land may come within the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program is essentially lodged with the DAR. That Wycoco will suffer damages by the DARs non-acquisition of the
approximately 10 hectare portion of the entire land which was found to be not suitable for agriculture is no
justification to compel DAR to acquire the whole area.
4. Yes, Wycocos claim for payment of interest is partly meritorious. The trust account opened as the mode
of payment of just compensation should be converted to a deposit account. The conversion should be retroactive in
application in order to rectify the error committed by the DAR in opening a trust account and to grant the landowners
the benefits concomitant to payment in cash or LBP bonds. Otherwise, petitioners right to payment of just and valid
compensation for the expropriation of his property would be violated. The interest earnings accruing on the deposit
account of landowners would suffice to compensate them pending payment of just compensation.
of loss.

The award of actual damages for unrealized profits should be deleted because Wycoco failed to show proof

Wycocos petition for mandamus in G.R. No. 146733 was dismissed. The decision of the Regional Trial Court
of Cabanatuan City, acting as Special Agrarian Court cannot be enforced because there is a need to remand the case
to the trial court for determination of just compensation. Likewise, the prayer for the inhibition of Judge Rodrigo S.
Caspillo was denied for lack of basis.