10/19/2020 CASE DIGEST TOBI: CASE DIGEST : HEIRS OF JUANCHO ARDONA VS REYES

More michelleitable07@gmail.com Dashboard Sign Out

CASE DIGEST TOBI

► 2019 (7)
CASE DIGEST : HEIRS OF JUANCHO ARDONA VS
▼ 2017 (29)
REYES
► November (15)
FACTS : The Philippine Tourism Authority filed four (4) Complaints with the Court of First
▼ October (11)
Instance of Cebu City for the expropriation of some 282 hectares of rolling land situated in
barangays Malubog and Babag, Cebu City, under PTA's express authority "to acquire by CASE DIGEST :
purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any private land within and VITANGCOL
VS NEW
without the tourist zones" for the purposes indicated in Section 5, paragraph B(2), of its
VISTAS
Revised Charter (PD 564), more specifically, for the development into integrated resort PROPERTIES
complexes of selected and well-defined geographic areas with potential tourism value
CASE DIGEST :
The defendants in Civil Cases Nos. R-20701 and R-21608 filed their respective Opposition SINGSON VS
ISABELLA
with Motion to Dismiss and/or Reconsideration. The defendants in Civil Case No. R-19562
SAWMILL
filed a manifestation adopting the answer of defendants in Civil Case No. R-19864.
In their motions to dismiss, the petitioners alleged, in addition to the issue of public use, CASE DIGEST :
that there is no specific constitutional provision authorizing the taking of private property for UNGRIA VS CA
tourism purposes; that assuming that PTA has such power, the intended use cannot be CASE DIGEST :
paramount to the determination of the land as a land reform area; that limiting the amount MACABABBAD
of compensation by Legislative fiat is constitutionally repugnant; and that since the land is VS MASIRAG
under the land reform program, it is the Court of Agrarian Relations and not the Court of
CASE DIGEST :
First Instance that has jurisdiction over the expropriation cases.
CAPIOSO VS
CAPIOSO
The Philippine Tourism Authority having deposited with The Philippine National Bank,
Cebu City Branch, an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the properties pursuant to CASE DIGEST :
Presidential Decree No. 1533. the lower court issued separate orders authorizing PTA to FERDINAND R.
VILLANUEVA
take immediate possession of the premises and directing the issuance of writs of
VS JUDICIAL ...
possession.
CASE DIGEST :
On May 25, 1982, petitioners filed this petition questioning the orders of the respondent INTERPHIL
Judge LABORATORIE
S EMPLOYEES
UNI...
ISSUE : WON The Expropriation for Tourism Purposes of Lands Covered by the Land
Reform Program Violates the Constitution CASE DIGEST :
NUWHRAIN VS
HELD : There are three provisions of the Constitution which directly provide for the CA
exercise of the power of eminent domain. Section 2, Article IV states that private property CASE DIGEST :
shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Section 6, Article XIV allows IMBONG VS
the State, in the interest of national welfare or defense and upon payment of just OCHOA
compensation to transfer to public ownership, utilities and other private enterprises to be
CASE DIGEST :
operated by the government. Section 13, Article XIV states that the Batasang Pambansa
ANGARA VS
may authorize upon payment of just compensation the expropriation of private lands to be ELECTORAL
subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to deserving citizens. COMMISSION

While not directly mentioning the expropriation of private properties upon payment of just
CASE DIGEST :
HEIRS OF
compensation, the provisions on social justice and agrarian reforms which allow the
JUANCHO
exercise of police power together with the power of eminent domain in the implementation ARDONA VS
of constitutional objectives are even more far-reaching insofar as taking of private property REYES
is concerned
► February (3)
There can be no doubt that expropriation for such traditions' purposes as the construction
of roads, bridges, ports, waterworks, schools, electric and telecommunications systems, ► 2016 (6)
hydroelectric power plants, markets and slaughterhouses, parks, hospitals, government
► 2014 (32)
tobicasdigest2.blogspot.com/2017/10/case-digest-heirs-of-juancho-ardona-vs.html 1/3
10/19/2020 CASE DIGEST TOBI: CASE DIGEST : HEIRS OF JUANCHO ARDONA VS REYES
office buildings, and flood control or irrigation systems is valid. However, the concept of ► 2013 (23)
public use is not limited to traditional purposes. Here as elsewhere the Idea that "public
use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has been discarded. As long as
the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. As
just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what is About Me
public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at
cost to individuals. The other is in the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of Tobi
utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at View my complete profile
present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the
requirement of public use.

The petitioners' contention that the promotion of tourism is not "public use" because private
concessioners would be allowed to maintain various facilities such as restaurants, hotels,
stores, etc. inside the tourist complex is impressed with even less merit. Private bus firms,
taxicab fleets, roadside restaurants, and other private businesses using public streets end
highways do not diminish in the least bit the public character of expropriations for roads
and streets. The lease of store spaces in underpasses of streets built on expropriated land
does not make the taking for a private purpose. Airports and piers catering exclusively to
private airlines and shipping companies are still for public use. The expropriation of private
land for slum clearance and urban development is for a public purpose even if the
developed area is later sold to private homeowners, commercial firms, entertainment and
service companies, and other private concerns

The public respondents have stressed that the development of the 808 hectares includes
plans that would give the petitioners and other displaced persons productive employment,
higher incomes, decent housing, water and electric facilities, and better living standards.
Our dismissing this petition is, in part, predicated on those assurances. The right of the
PTA to proceed with the expropriation of the 282 hectares already Identified as fit for the
establishment of a resort complex to promote tourism is, therefore, sustained.

Posted by Tobi at 9:42 AM

1 comment:

ANDRAINO ADAMS January 9, 2020 at 9:38 PM

Good articles, Have you heard of LFDS (Le_Meridian Funding Service, Email:
lfdsloans@outlook.com --WhatsApp Contact:+1-9893943740--
lfdsloans@lemeridianfds.com) is as USA/UK funding service they grant me loan of
$95,000.00 to launch my business and I have been paying them annually for two
years now and I still have 2 years left although I enjoy working with them because
they are genuine Loan lender who can give you any kind of loan.
Reply

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Michelle Joy (G Sign out

Publish Preview Notify me

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.

tobicasdigest2.blogspot.com/2017/10/case-digest-heirs-of-juancho-ardona-vs.html 3/3