Estate of Jimenez v. PEZA G.R. No. 137285, January 16, 2001

Fact: Respondent initiated before the RTC of Cavite expropriation proceedings on three (3) parcels of land in Rosario, Cavite. More than ten (10) years later, the said trial court upheld the right of respondent to expropriate the land of the petitioner. Reconsideration of the said order was sought by petitioner contending that said lot would only be transferred to a private corporation, Philippines Vinyl Corp., and hence would not be utilized for a public purpose. Hence the petition.

Issue: Whether the said expropriation is for public purpose.

Held: Yes, the “public use” requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. In this jurisdiction, the statutory and judicial trend has been summarized as the court has ruled that the taking to be valid must be for public use. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. The term “public use” has acquired a more comprehensive coverage. To the literal import of the term signifying strict use or employment by the public has been added the broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage. the Court has also held that what ultimately emerged is a concept of public use which is just as abroad as “public welfare.”