Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Arellano Law
GR. No. L-2929 (1950)
J. Tuason / Tita K
Antecedent Facts:
CFI:
1. City of Manila filed an action seeking for the condemnation of several parcels of land with a total area of 7,270 sqm.
situated in Manila. City of Manila, after expropriating, would resell the parcels of land as homesites.
2. The action was dismissed. The CFI ruled sec. 1 1 of RA 267 empowers cities to purchase but not to expropriate lands for the
purpose of subdivision and resale.
Issues:
1. WON City of Manila may expropriate the subject parcels of land. (NO)
Ratio:
NO – The City of Manila may NOT expropriate the subject parcels of land.
Act No. 267 empowers cities to expropriate as well as to purchase lands for homesites.
The power to expropriate is necessarily subject to the limitations and conditions cited in Guido v. Progress Administration:
(i.e. that expropriation be for public benefit, public utility, or public advantage, especially where the interests involved are
of considerable magnitude.)
o The case at bar is a weak case for condemnation.
o The Arellano College’s land is situated in a highly commercial section of the city and is occupied by persons who
are not bona fide tenants.
o This land was bought by the respondent Arellano for a university site to take the place of rented buildings that are
unsuitable for schools of higher learning.
To authorize the condemnation of any particular land by a grantee of the power of eminent domain, a necessity must exist
for the taking thereof for the proposed uses and purposes. This is because the very foundation of the right to exercise
eminent domain is a genuine necessity, and that necessity must be of a public character.
The ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany, and not follow, the taking of the land.