Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    MANOSCA Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Yosi Isoy
    The Supreme Court ruled that the "public use" requirement for eminent domain was met in this case. While "public use" is not defined in the constitution, it generally refers to meeting a public need or exigency. Here, the parcel of land was declared a historical landmark by the NHI as it was the birthsite of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo. The purpose of expropriating the land was to recognize Manalo's contribution to Philippine culture, not to benefit the church. Any advantage to church members would only be incidental. The fact that few may directly benefit does not negate the public use as long as it meets a public need. Thus, the expropri

    Copyright:

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

    MANOSCA Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Yosi Isoy
    53 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the "public use" requirement for eminent domain was met in this case. While "public use" is not defined in the constitution, it generally refers to meeting a public need or exigency. Here, the parcel of land was declared a historical landmark by the NHI as it was the birthsite of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo. The purpose of expropriating the land was to recognize Manalo's contribution to Philippine culture, not to benefit the church. Any advantage to church members would only be incidental. The fact that few may directly benefit does not negate the public use as long as it meets a public need. Thus, the expropri

    Original Title

    MANOSCA 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 Supreme Court ruled that the "public use" requirement for eminent domain was met in this case. While "public use" is not defined in the constitution, it generally refers to meeting a public need or exigency. Here, the parcel of land was declared a historical landmark by the NHI as it was the birthsite of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo. The purpose of expropriating the land was to recognize Manalo's contribution to Philippine culture, not to benefit the church. Any advantage to church members would only be incidental. The fact that few may directly benefit does not negate the public use as long as it meets a public need. Thus, the expropri

    Copyright:

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

    MANOSCA Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Yosi Isoy
    The Supreme Court ruled that the "public use" requirement for eminent domain was met in this case. While "public use" is not defined in the constitution, it generally refers to meeting a public need or exigency. Here, the parcel of land was declared a historical landmark by the NHI as it was the birthsite of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo. The purpose of expropriating the land was to recognize Manalo's contribution to Philippine culture, not to benefit the church. Any advantage to church members would only be incidental. The fact that few may directly benefit does not negate the public use as long as it meets a public need. Thus, the expropri

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    MANOSCA vs.

    CA
    G.R. No. 106440
    January 29, 1996

    Facts:

    Petitioners inherited a piece of land.


    When the parcel was ascertained by the National Historial Institute (NHI) to have been the birthsite of Felix
    Y. Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed a Resolution declaring the land to be a national
    historical landmark which was approved later by the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports. Later, the
    Secretary of Justice affirmed the legality of the measure and declared that NHI may initiate the institution of
    condemnation proceedings for the purpose of acquiring the lot in question.
    Accordingly, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor- General, instituted a complaint for
    expropriation3 before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig for and in behalf of the NHI. At the same time,
    respondent Republic filed an urgent motion for the issuance of an order to permit it to take immediate
    possession of the property. The motion was opposed by petitioners.
    The trial court issued an order fixing the provisional market and assessed values of the property and
    authorizing the Republic to take over the property once the required sum would have been deposited with the
    Municipal Treasurer of Taguig, Metro Manila.
    Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis that the intended expropriation was not for a
    public purpose and, incidentally, that the act would constitute an application of public funds, directly or
    indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of
    Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioners sought, in the meanwhile, a suspension in the
    implementation of the order of the trial court.
    The trial court issued its denial of said motion to dismiss.
    Petitioners then lodged a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court
    dismissed the petition. Likewise, the motion for the reconsideration of the decision was further denied.

    Issue: Whether or not the "public use" requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted expropriation
    by the Republic of the parcel of land so declared by the National Historical Institute ("NHI") as a national
    historical landmark.
    Ruling:

    Yes. The "public use" requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted expropriation by the Republic
    of the parcel of land so declared by the National Historical Institute ("NHI") as a national historical landmark.

    The term "public use," not having been otherwise defined by the constitution, must be considered in its general
    concept of meeting a public need or a public exigency. Xxx

    The validity of the exercise of the power of eminent domain for traditional purposes is beyond question; it is not
    at all to be said, however, that public use should thereby be restricted to such traditional uses. The idea that
    "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has long been discarded.

    The Supreme Court further dismissed the contention of petitioners and held that the attempt to give some
    religious perspective to the case deserves little consideration what should be significant is the principal
    objective of, not the casual consequences that might follow from, the exercise of the power. The purpose in
    setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the
    culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo.

    The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others
    could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to be merely incidental and secondary in nature.
    Indeed, that only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish
    the essence and character of public use.

    You might also like