POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

CAMARINES NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CANORECO),

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 109338, November 20, 2000

FACTS:

On May 18, 1989, Conrad L. Leviste filed with the Regional Trial Court, Daet, Camarines Norte,
a complaint for collection of a sum of money and foreclosure of mortgage against Philippine
Smelter Corporation (PSC).

For failure to file an answer to the complaint, the trial court declared PSC in default and allowed
plaintiff Leviste to present evidence ex-parte.

A copy of the writ of possession was served on petitioner as owner of the power lines standing
on certain portions of the subject property. Later, on August 12, 1992, Vines Realty filed an
amended motion for an order of demolition and removal of improvements on the subject land.

Among the improvements for removal were the power lines and electric posts belonging to
petitioner.

Petitioner opposed the motion on the ground, among other reasons, that petitioner was not a
party to the case and therefore not bound by the judgment of the trial court and that it had
subsisting right-of-way agreements over said property.

The sheriff, at the request of Vines Realty demolished the remaining electric posts resulting in
the cutting off of power supply to various business establishments and barangays.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to retain possession of the power lines located in the land
sold at public auction as a result of extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage.

RULLING:

Yes.

To exercise the power of eminent domain in the manner provided by law for the exercise of such
power by other corporations constructing or operating electric generating plants and electric
transmission and distribution lines or systems."
The acquisition of an easement of a right-of-way falls within the purview of the power of
eminent domain. Such conclusion finds support in easements of right-of-way where the Supreme
Court sustained the award of just compensation for private property condemned for public use.37
The Supreme Court, in Republic vs. PLDT38 thus held that:

"Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title
to, and possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why said power
may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property, without
loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that real property may, through expropriation, be
subjected to an easement of right-of-way."

Public utilities’ power of eminent domain may be exercised although title is not transferred to the
expropriator.

Consequently, we rule that a court’s writ of demolition can not prevail over the easement of a
right-of-way which falls within the power of eminent domain.
LAGCAO V LABRA

G.R. No. 155746 October 13, 2004

PRINCIPLE: Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain; they can
exercise the power only when expressly authorized by the Legislature.

FACTS:

The case is about the validity of Ordinance No. 1843 authorizing the mayor of Cebu City to
initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of lot (1029) of petitioners Diosdado,
Doroteo and Ursula Lagcao.

In 1964, Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu, one of which is the lot 1029.
1965,petitioners purchased said lot on installment but in late 1925, these 210 lots reverted to the
Province of Cebu. The latter tried to annul sale which resulted to the filing of the case of the
petitioners.

RTC and CA ruled in their favor and as such a deed of sale was executed and a TCT was issued
in their favor. When they tried to take possession of the land, they found out that it was occupied
by squatters. Thus, they instituted ejectment proceedings which was later on granted by the
MTCC and affirmed by RTC.

However, Mayor Garcia wrote letters requesting the deferment of the demolition since the city
was still looking for a relocation site for the squatters; this was granted. During the suspension
the Sanguiang Panlungsod of Cebu passed a resolution and 2 ordinances (all about the lot 1029).
Ord. No. 1843likewise appropriated the amount of 6, 881, 600 for the payment of subject land;
this was approved bythe Mayor.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the exercise of eminent domain is valid in the case at bar.
RULLING:

NO, it is NOT VALID. The foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine
necessity and that necessity must be of public character.

Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose which private property should be expropriated. In
this case, there was no showing at all why petitioners’ property was singled out for expropriation by the
city ordinance or what necessity impelled the particular choice or selection. Ordinance No. 1843 stated no
reason for the choice of petitioners’ property as the site of a socialized housing project.

For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the city or
municipality to enact but must also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It
must be in accordance with certain well-established basic principles of a substantive nature.
These principles require that an ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive (3) must not be partial or discriminatory (4) must not
prohibit but may regulate trade (5) must be general and consistent with public policy, and (6)
must not be unreasonable.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V PLDT

G.R. No. L-18841 January 27, 1969

PRINCIPLE: All private property capable of ownership may be expropriated, except money
and choses in action. Even services may be subject to eminent domain.

FACTS:
The Bureau of Telecommunications set up its own Government Telephone System by utilizing
its own appropriation and equipment and by renting trunk lines of the PLDT to enable
government officers to call private parties. One of the rules of PLDT is the prohibition on the
Bureau’s public use of the service furnished for the private use of said Bureau. The Bureau has
extended its services to the general public since its inception (also using the lines of PLDT).
PLDT contends that said bureau was violating the conditions under which their Private Branch
Exchange is inter-connected with the PLDT’s facilities and after giving an ultimatum, PLDT
disconnected the trunk lines rented by the Bureau, effectively isolating the Philippines from the
rest of the world (except United States).

Petitioner thus filed for judgment commanding PLDT to execute a contract with plaintiff.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the PLDT may be forced to execute a contract with petitioner

HELD:
The parties cannot be coerced to enter into a contract where no agreement is had between them.
While the Republic may not compel the PLDT to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic may,
in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, require the telephone company to
permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT subject to just
compensation. The use of PLDT’s lines and services are subjected to a burden to the respondent
for the public use and benefit, thus, they constitute properties over which the power of eminent
domain may be exercised.