Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12792)
Facts:
In 1957, the Government of the Philippines, acting under the authority granted by Section 64(b) of the Revised Administrative Code and endorsed by the Office of the President, filed an expropriation complaint against La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, owner of San Beda College located on Mendiola Street, Manila. The plan aimed to extend Azcárraga Street from its junction with Mendiola Street to the Sta. Mesa Rotonda in order to relieve severe traffic congestion on Legarda Street. Unable to agree on terms, the Government secured a provisional deposit of ₱270,000 with the City Treasurer of Manila on May 27, 1957, and took immediate possession pursuant to the trial court’s order. On June 8, 1957, appellee moved to dismiss the complaint on five grounds: (1) the property was already dedicated to public use; (2) the expropriation lacked necessity; (3) there existed alternative routes requiring less expense; (4) the action was discriminatory; and (5) the Government lacked suffiCase Digest (G.R. No. L-12792)
Facts:
- Government’s Road Extension Project
- The Government planned to extend Azcarraga Street from its junction with Mendiola Street to the Sta. Mesa Rotonda in Sampaloc, Manila to ease traffic congestion on Legarda Street.
- A portion of approximately 6,000 square meters needed for the extension belonged to La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, owner of San Beda College.
- Expropriation Proceedings Initiated
- Unable to agree on a purchase price, the Government instituted expropriation proceedings under the right of eminent domain.
- On May 27, 1957, the trial court fixed a provisional value of ₱270,000 and, upon deposit of that sum with the City Treasurer of Manila, authorized the Government to take immediate possession of the property.
- Motion to Dismiss by the Owner
- On June 8, 1957, appellee filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, alleging:
- The property was already dedicated to public use.
- There was no necessity for the proposed expropriation.
- An alternative route for the extension existed that would be less costly and avoid expropriating educational property.
- The action was discriminatory.
- The Government lacked sufficient funds for the project.
- The Government filed a written opposition, and the appellee filed a reply.
- Dismissal by the Trial Court
- Without receiving evidence on the factual questions raised, the trial court, on July 29, 1957, limited its inquiry to whether expropriation was of “extreme necessity” and concluded it was not.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of necessity.
Issues:
- Whether the proposed expropriation of the appellee’s property was supported by a genuine public necessity.
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the expropriation proceedings without receiving evidence on the question of necessity.
- Whether courts have the power to inquire into the necessity of an expropriation.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)