This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The right of eminent domain is "the ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public but the private property of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, to public purpose."[37] But the exercise of such right is not unlimited, for two mandatory requirements should underlie the Government's exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely: (1) that it is for a particular public purpose; and (2) that just compensation be paid to the property owner.[38] These requirements partake the nature of implied conditions that should be complied with to enable the condemnor to keep the property expropriated.[39] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In light of these premises, we now expressly hold that the taking of private property, consequent to the Governments exercise of its power of eminent domain, is always subject to the condition that the property be devoted to the specific public purpose for which it was taken. Corollarily, if this particular purpose or intent is not initiated or not at all pursued, and is peremptorily abandoned, then the former owners, if they so desire, may seek the reversion of the property, subject to the return of the amount of just compensation received. In such a case, the exercise of the power of eminent domain has become improper for lack of the required factual justification.[39] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||