This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners likewise seek a reversal of the ruling in Carlos Superdrug Corporation[16] that the tax deduction scheme adopted by the government is justified by police power.[17] They assert that "[a]lthough both police power and the power of eminent domain have the general welfare for their object, there are still traditional distinctions between the two"[18] and that "eminent domain cannot be made less supreme than police power."[19] Petitioners further claim that the legislature, in amending RA 7432, relied on an erroneous contemporaneous construction that prior payment of taxes is required for tax credit.[20] | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The RTC compounded its error when, acting on the motions for reconsideration filed by the parties, it issued the assailed 31 May 2004 Order, denying petitioner's right of expropriation over Lot Nos. 21609-A, 21609-D, 21609-F, 21609-G, 21609-H, 21609-I and 21609-J, on the ground that the same were already used by respondents for their businesses and/or residences. Subject to the direct constitutional qualification that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,"[57] the power of eminent domain is, after all, the ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate any property within its territorial sovereignty for a public purpose[58] thru a method that partakes the nature of a compulsory sale.[59] The fact that said lots are being utilized by respondents Legaspis for their own private purposes is, consequently, not a valid reason to deny exercise of the right of expropriation, for as long as the taking is for a public purpose and just compensation is paid. | |||||
|
2006-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Eminent domain is generally described as "the highest and 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.[32] Also often referred to as expropriation and, with less frequency, as condemnation, it is, like police power and taxation, an inherent power of sovereignty and 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. It is a right to take or reassert dominion over property within the state for public use or to meet a public exigency and is said to be an essential part of governance even in its most primitive form and thus inseparable from sovereignty.[33] In fact, "all separate interests of individuals in property are held of the government under this tacit agreement or implied reservation. Notwithstanding the grant to individuals, the eminent domain, the highest and most exact idea of property, remains in the government, or in the aggregate body of people in their sovereign capacity; and they have the right to resume the possession of the property whenever the public interest so requires it."[34] | |||||
|
2005-08-09 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We reject the contention of the petitioner that its property can no longer be expropriated by the respondent because it is intended for the construction of a place for religious worship and a school for its members. As aptly explained by this Court in Manosca v. Court of Appeals,[65] thus:It has been explained as early as Seña v. Manila Railroad Co., that: | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Eminent domain is generally described as "the highest and 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.[32] Also often referred to | |||||