Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Barangay Sindalan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Reah Crezz
    The barangay of Sindalan filed a complaint for eminent domain against landowners Jose Magtoto and Patricia Sindayan to convert part of their land into a feeder road. Sindalan claimed this was for public use to benefit residents. However, the respondents argued the road solely benefited a private subdivision, not the public. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that while public use does not depend on number of users, the intended use here was confined only to subdivision residents, not the barangay community. As the subdivision owner was obligated to provide access roads, expropriating private land instead was an abuse of eminent domain power and unlawful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Barangay Sindalan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Reah Crezz
    2K views3 pages
    The barangay of Sindalan filed a complaint for eminent domain against landowners Jose Magtoto and Patricia Sindayan to convert part of their land into a feeder road. Sindalan claimed this was for public use to benefit residents. However, the respondents argued the road solely benefited a private subdivision, not the public. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that while public use does not depend on number of users, the intended use here was confined only to subdivision residents, not the barangay community. As the subdivision owner was obligated to provide access roads, expropriating private land instead was an abuse of eminent domain power and unlawful.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    Barangay Sindalan vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The barangay of Sindalan filed a complaint for eminent domain against landowners Jose Magtoto and Patricia Sindayan to convert part of their land into a feeder road. Sindalan claimed this was for public use to benefit residents. However, the respondents argued the road solely benefited a private subdivision, not the public. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that while public use does not depend on number of users, the intended use here was confined only to subdivision residents, not the barangay community. As the subdivision owner was obligated to provide access roads, expropriating private land instead was an abuse of eminent domain power and unlawful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views3 pages

    Barangay Sindalan Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Reah Crezz
    The barangay of Sindalan filed a complaint for eminent domain against landowners Jose Magtoto and Patricia Sindayan to convert part of their land into a feeder road. Sindalan claimed this was for public use to benefit residents. However, the respondents argued the road solely benefited a private subdivision, not the public. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that while public use does not depend on number of users, the intended use here was confined only to subdivision residents, not the barangay community. As the subdivision owner was obligated to provide access roads, expropriating private land instead was an abuse of eminent domain power and unlawful.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Barangay Sindalan v. CA, G.R. No. G.R. No.

    150640, 22 March 2007

    Plaintiff: Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, represented by Barangay


    Captain, Ismael Guttierez

    Respondent: Court of Appeals, Jose Magtoto III and Patricia Sindayan

    Facts
    Pursuant to a resolution passed by the barangay council, petitioner Barangay
    Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, represented by Barangay Captain Ismael
    Gutierrez, filed a Complaint for eminent domain against respondents spouses Jose
    Magtoto III and Patricia Sindayan, the registered owners of a parcel of land covered by
    Transfer Certificate of Title No. 117674-R. Petitioner sought to convert a portion of
    respondents land into Barangay Sindalans feeder road. The alleged public purposes
    sought to be served by the expropriation were stated in Barangay Resolution No. 6.

    Petitioners Contention:
    Petitioner claimed that respondents property "as the most practical and nearest
    way to the municipal road. Pending the resolution of the case at the trial court, petitioner
    deposited an amount equivalent to the fair market value of the property.

    Respondents Contention:

    Respondents alleged that the expropriation of their property was for private use,
    that is, for the benefit of the homeowners of Davsan II Subdivision. They contended that
    petitioner deliberately omitted the name of Davsan II Subdivision and, instead, stated
    that the expropriation was for the benefit of the residents of Sitio Paraiso in order to
    conceal the fact that the access road being proposed to be built across the respondents
    land was to serve a privately owned subdivision and those who could purchase the lots
    of said subdivision. They also pointed out that under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 957,
    it is the subdivision owner who is obliged to provide a feeder road to the subdivision
    residents.

    Issue

    Whether the proposed exercise of the power of eminent domain would be for a
    public purpose

    Held
    No, the contemplated road to be constructed by the barangay would benefit only
    the residents of a subdivision.

    In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, it is basic that the taking of
    private property must be for a public purpose. In this jurisdiction, "public use" is defined
    as "whatever is beneficially employed for the community." The intended feeder road
    sought to serve the residents of the subdivision only. It has not been shown that the
    other residents of Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, will be benefited by
    the contemplated road to be constructed. While the number of people who use or can
    use the property is not determinative of whether or not it constitutes public use or
    purpose, the factual milieu of the case reveals that the intended use of respondents lot
    is confined solely to the Davsan II Subdivision residents and is not exercisable in
    common. Considering that the residents who need a feeder road are all subdivision lot
    owners, it is the obligation of the Davsan II Subdivision owner to acquire a right-of-way
    for them. To deprive respondents of their property instead of compelling the subdivision
    owner to comply with his obligation under the law is an abuse of the power of eminent
    domain and is patently illegal. Without doubt, expropriation cannot be justified on the
    basis of an unlawful purpose.

    Notes:

    There is no precise meaning of public use and the term is susceptible of myriad
    meanings depending on diverse situationslimited meaning attached to public use is
    use by the public or public employment, that a duty must devolve on the person or
    corporation holding property appropriated by right of eminent domain to furnish public
    with the use intended, and that there must be a right on the part of the public, or some

    portion of it, or some public or quasi-public agency on behalf of the public, to use the
    property after it is condemned.

    The public nature of the prospective exercise of expropriation cannot depend on


    the numerical count of those to be served or the smallness or largeness of the
    community to be benefited. The number of people is not determinative of whether or not
    it constitutes public use , provided the use is exercisable in common and is not limited to
    particular individuals.

    You might also like