Municipality of Meycauayan vs. Appellate Court

Municipality (P) vs. Property owner (D)
GR 134100	[T]

Summary: _

Rule of Law: _

Facts: _

Issues: Is the expropriation of property a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain?

Ruling: No. There is no question here as to the right of the State to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation. What is questioned is the existence of a genuine necessity therefor.

As early as City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila (40 Phil. 349) this Court held that the foundation of the right to exercise the power of eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must be of a public character. Condemnation of private property is justified only if it is for the public good and there is a genuine necessity of a public character. Consequently, the courts have the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity therefor (Republic v. La Orden de PP. Benedictos de Filipinas, 1 SCRA 646; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413).
__________
Keywords : eminent domain