Eminent Domain Definition and Scope

The court ruled that the respondents are not obligated to provide
The Office of the Solicitor General petitioner
vs. Ayala Land Incorporated, Robinsons Land Corporation, Shangri
-La-Plaza Corporation and SM Prime Holdings, respondents.
Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal and
setting aside of the decision of the court of appeals which affirmed the
decision of the Makati RTC in two civil cases and the resolution of the
appellate court in the same case which denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by the OSG.
Respondents herein are operators of shopping malls in various locations
in Metro Manila that have parking facilities (inside the main buildings, in
separate buildings and/or in adjacent lots solely provided for parking
use).
parking spaces that are free of charge, compelling them to do so would
be an unlawful taking of property right without just compensation.
The petitioners sought for relief by filing a Motion for Reconsideration
in the Court of Appeals but the appellate court denied the appeal and
affirmed the joint decision by the RTC.
Hence, this present petition with a single assignment of error that the
Court of Appeals erred in affirming the ruling of the lower
court.
Issue: Whether or not the property right of the respondents can be
taken so as to provide free parking spaces for the general
public welfare.

The respondents are also the one which maintains the parking spaces Held: The court affirmed the previous decision that the respondents are
and in turn, they collect parking fees subject to their imposed parking not obliged to provide free parking spaces.
rates.
There is no pertaining provision in the National Building Code that
The Senate Committee on Trade and Commerce and on Justice and expressly provides the same. The law is clear and unequivocal that it
Human Rights conducted a joint investigation to inquire on the legality of needs no further interpretation, it only provides for measurement
the parking fees and to find out the basis and reasonableness of the requirements of the parking spaces. The OSG cannot rely on their
parking rates. invoked provisions; they even failed to consider the substantial
differences and legal backgrounds on the jurisprudence they are
More importantly, to determine the legality of the policy of the shopping insisting.
malls denying liability in cases of theft, robbery or car napping by
invoking the waiver clause at the back of the parking tickets. Wherefore, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Previous ruling
AFFIRMED. No Costs
After the public hearings, the Senate Committees jointly concluded that
the collection parking fee is contrary to the National Building Code and
that the reasonable interpretation of the code is that the parking spaces
are for free; thus, the Committee recommended that the Office of the
Solicitor General should institute the necessary action to enjoin the
collection of parking fees as well as to enforce the penal sanctions of the
National Building Code.

Two civil cases arise and by being of the same subject matter, the RTC
Makati issued an order to consolidate the cases.