Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ZALDIVAR, J.:p
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Pampanga in its Civil Case No.
1623, an expropriation proceeding.
Plaintiff-appellant, the Republic of the
Philippines, (hereinafter referred to as the
Republic) filed, on June 26, 1959, a complaint
for eminent domain against defendantappellee, Carmen M. Vda. de Castellvi, judicial
administratrix of the estate of the late Alfonso
Regarding the two parcels of land of ToledoGozun, also sought to be expropriated, which
had never been under lease to the Republic,
the Republic was placed in possession of said
lands, also by authority of the court, on August
10, 1959, The taking of those lands, therefore,
must also be reckoned as of June 26, 1959, the
date of the filing of the complaint for eminent
domain.
2. Regarding the first assigned error
discussed as the second issue the Republic
Provincial Treasurer of
Pampanga; ...
JOHNSON, J.:
The important question presented by this
appeal is: In expropriation proceedings by the
city of Manila, may the courts inquire into, and
hear proof upon, the necessity of the
expropriation?
That question arose in the following manner:
On the 11th day of December, 1916, the city of
Manila presented a petition in the Court of First
Instance of said city, praying that certain lands,
therein particularly described, be expropriated
for the purpose of constructing a public
improvement. The petitioner, in the second
paragraph of the petition, alleged:
That for the purpose of constructing a public
improvement, namely, the extension of Rizal
Avenue, Manila, it is necessary for the plaintiff
to acquire ownership in fee simple of certain
parcels of land situated in the district of
Binondo of said city within Block 83 of said
district, and within the jurisdiction of this court.
The defendant, the Comunidad de Chinos de
Manila [Chinese Community of Manila],
answering the petition of the plaintiff, alleged
that it was a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the
Philippine Islands, having for its purpose the
expropriation?
Issue:
unconstitutional.
non-profit organization
RESOLUTION
FELICIANO, J.:
claimed
that
the
lands
were
agreement as
to
Dulay
to
determine
the
fair
and
according
to
the fair
market
no
statute,
decree,
or executive
ordercan
or
Not
the
mode
exclusive
of
just compensation in
and
determining
PD
1533
is
unconstitutional.
Court ruled
that the
1533
The
method
is
unconstitutional.
of
ascertaining
impermissible
EN BANC
of
the
factors
in
determining
The
determination
of
Held:
1. A servitude has been imposed upon the land
for which respondents are entitled to
compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Pp.
328 U. S. 260-267.
(a) The common law doctrine that ownership of
land extends to the periphery of the universe
has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S.
260-261.
COUNSEL:
Mr. Walter J. Cummings, Jr., of Washington,
D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. William E. Comer, of Greensboro, N.C., for
respondent.