VI. Eminent Domain Power, Article III, Section 9; Article XII, Section 18 (Compare to Art XII, Sec 17)

A. Definition, Concept
B. Requisites for valid exercise

1. Requisites for valid exercise
   1. The expropriator must enter a private property;
   2. Entry must be for more than a momentary period;
   3. Entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority;
   4. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected;
   5. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property;
2. Requirement
   1. Taking
      1. What constitutes taking; Types
         1. Possessory – taking occurs when the government confiscates or physically occupies property;
         2. Regulatory – taking occurs when the government’s regulation leaves no reasonable economically viable use of the property.
      2. Cases:
         1. Republic v Vda. De Castelvi, GR L-20620, 15 Aug 1974
         2. City of Manila v Laguio, GR 118127, 12 Apr 2005 (Possessory v Regulatory taking)
         3. RP (Napocor) v Heirs of Borbon, CA, GR 165354, 12 Jan 2015
   2. Deprivation of Use
      1. Cases:
         1. Republic v Sps. Llamas (Illegal Taking of Subdivision Roads), GR 194190, 25 Jan 2017
         2. Bartolata v Republic, GR 223534, 7 Jun 2017
         3. Napocor v Gutierrez, GR L-60077, 18 Jan 1991
         4. PPI v Comelec, GR L-11994, 22 May 1995
   3. Private Property
      1. Distinguish
         1. Property of public dominion
         2. Property for public use
         3. patrimonial property
         4. property of private ownership Art. 420-425, New Civil Code
      2. Cases:
         1. City of Baguio v Nawasa, GR L-12032, 31 Aug 1959
         2. Zamboanga del Norte v City of Zamboanga, GR L-24440, 28 Mar 1968
   4. For Public Use
      1. Cases:
         1. Manosca v CA, GR 106440, 29 Jan 1996
         2. Mactan-Cebu Int’l Airport Authority v CA, GR 139495, 27 Nov 2000 (Right to repurchase/re-acquire the property)
         3. Mactan-Cebu Int’l Airport v Lozada, GR 176625, 25 Feb 2010, (Change of public purpose)
   5. Payment of Just Compensation
      1. Cases:
         1. Republic v Macabagdal, GR 227215, 30 Jan 2018 (definition)
         2. Napocor v Sps. Chiong, GR 152436, 20 Jun 20 2003 (Consequential damage and benefit)
         3. EPZA v Dulay, GR L-59603, 29 Apr 1987 (who determines?)
         4. Heirs of Feliciano, Jr. v Land Bank, GR 215290, 11 Jan 2017 (DAR formula)
         5. Esteban v De Onorio, GR 146062, 28 Jun 28 2001 (when determined?)
         6. City of Cebu v Sps. Dedamo, GR 142971, 7 May 7 2002 (time of taking)
         7. Asso. of Small Landowners v DAR, GR 78742, 14 Jul 1989 (form/manner of payment)
         8. Meralco v Pineda, GR L-59791, 13 Feb 1992, (Trial with Commissioners),
         9. NPC v Henson,), GR 129998, 29 Dec 1998, (Report of Commissioners)
         10. Sec. of DPWH and Engr. Contreras v Sps Tecson, GR 179334, 21 Apr 2015 (Delay in payment; Legal Rate of Interest)
         11. Republic v Lim, GR 161656, 29 Jun 29 2005, (Right to Recover)
         12. Napocor v Heirs of Sangkay, GR 165828, 24 Aug 24 2011 (Inverse Condemnation)

C. Delegation to Administrative Bodies, Local Government Units, and Private Corporations

1. Genuine Necessity of Taking
   1. RA 7279 (Urban Devt. and Housing Act of 1992), Secs. 9-10
   2. RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), Secs 4 & 9, art. XIII
   3. RA 7160 (Local Govt. Code of 1991), Sec. 19, Art. 32-42 IRR of LGC
2. Cases:
   1. Filstream International v CA, GR 125218, 23 Jan 1998
   2. Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation v Mun. of Pasig, GR 152230, 4 Aug 2005