Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Manosca v. Court of Appeals
GR No. 106440, January 29, 1996
FACTS:
Petitioners inherited a piece of land located at P. Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig. Metro Manila, with an area of about four hundred ninety-two (492) square meters. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
The parcel has been the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Because of that, the Naitional Historical Institute (NHI) passed a resolution declaring the land to be a national historical landmark which was then approved by the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports.
Regional Trial Court: The Republic, through the OSG instituted a complaint for expropriation alleging that the land is a public purpose. RTC then ordered the Republic to take over the property after fixing the provisional market and assessed value of the property. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals: The petition for certiorari and prohibition was dismissed.
Read: Belen v. Court of Appeals
ISSUE:
Whether or not the "public use" requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted expropriation by the Republic of a 492-square-meter parcel of land so declared by the National Historical Institute ("NHI") as a national historical landmark. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
HELD:
Yes.
Eminent domain, also often referred to as expropriation and, with less frequency, as condemnation, is, like police power and taxation, an inherent power of sovereignty. It need not be clothed with any constitutional gear to exist; instead, provisions in our Constitution on the subject are meant more to regulate, rather than to grant, the exercise of the power. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
Eminent domain is generally so described as "the highest and the most exact idea of property remaining in the government" that may be acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State.
Read: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) vs. Bel-Air
It is a right to take or reassert dominion over property within the state for public use or to meet a public exigency. It is said to be an essential part of governance even in its most primitive form and thus inseparable from sovereignty.
The only direct constitutional qualification is that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." This proscription is intended to provide a safeguard against possible abuse and so to protect as well the individual against whose property the power is sought to be enforced. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
Petitioners ask:
. . . "(w)hat is the so-called unusual interest that the expropriation of (Felix Manalo's) birthplace become so vital as to be a public use appropriate for the exercise of the power of eminent domain". . . when only members of the Iglesia ni Cristo would benefit?
This attempt to give some religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration, for what should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual consequences that might follow from, the exercise of the power. The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. 106440, January 29, 1996
FACTS:
Petitioners inherited a piece of land located at P. Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig. Metro Manila, with an area of about four hundred ninety-two (492) square meters. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
The parcel has been the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Because of that, the Naitional Historical Institute (NHI) passed a resolution declaring the land to be a national historical landmark which was then approved by the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports.
Regional Trial Court: The Republic, through the OSG instituted a complaint for expropriation alleging that the land is a public purpose. RTC then ordered the Republic to take over the property after fixing the provisional market and assessed value of the property. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals: The petition for certiorari and prohibition was dismissed.
Read: Belen v. Court of Appeals
ISSUE:
Whether or not the "public use" requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted expropriation by the Republic of a 492-square-meter parcel of land so declared by the National Historical Institute ("NHI") as a national historical landmark. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
HELD:
Yes.
Eminent domain, also often referred to as expropriation and, with less frequency, as condemnation, is, like police power and taxation, an inherent power of sovereignty. It need not be clothed with any constitutional gear to exist; instead, provisions in our Constitution on the subject are meant more to regulate, rather than to grant, the exercise of the power. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
Eminent domain is generally so described as "the highest and the most exact idea of property remaining in the government" that may be acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State.
Read: Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) vs. Bel-Air
It is a right to take or reassert dominion over property within the state for public use or to meet a public exigency. It is said to be an essential part of governance even in its most primitive form and thus inseparable from sovereignty.
The only direct constitutional qualification is that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." This proscription is intended to provide a safeguard against possible abuse and so to protect as well the individual against whose property the power is sought to be enforced. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
Petitioners ask:
. . . "(w)hat is the so-called unusual interest that the expropriation of (Felix Manalo's) birthplace become so vital as to be a public use appropriate for the exercise of the power of eminent domain". . . when only members of the Iglesia ni Cristo would benefit?
This attempt to give some religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration, for what should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual consequences that might follow from, the exercise of the power. The purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. Manosca v. Court of Appeals
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment