Primary Holding

In expropriation proceedings initiated by the City of Manila, the courts have the authority to inquire into and hear evidence regarding the necessity of the expropriation; the determination of necessity is not solely a legislative prerogative but a judicial question subject to review when general authority to expropriate is granted.

Background

The City of Manila sought to extend Rizal Avenue and filed a petition to expropriate certain parcels of land in Binondo, Manila, owned by the Chinese Community of Manila, which included a cemetery. The Chinese Community opposed the expropriation, arguing it was unnecessary, would desecrate a cemetery, and alternative routes were available.

Facts

• 1. The City of Manila aimed to extend Rizal Avenue and needed to acquire land in Binondo, Block 83.
• 2. The Chinese Community of Manila owned parcels one and two of the land, which was a cemetery with Torrens Title.
• 3. The cemetery was in use, containing numerous graves and monuments of Chinese individuals.
• 4. The Chinese Community argued that existing streets were sufficient, alternative routes were available at less expense and without disturbing graves, and offered a right of way over other land for free.
• 5. Ildefonso Tambunting and other defendants presented similar defenses, highlighting the cemetery's historical and cultural significance.
• 6. The city claimed its authority to expropriate was absolute, and the court's role was limited to determining just compensation.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The City of Manila has the legal authority to expropriate private lands for public purposes under its Charter and Act No. 190.
• 2. Once the city establishes its authority to expropriate, it can take any land it desires.
• 3. The court's sole function is to ascertain the value of the land; it cannot inquire into the advisability or necessity of the expropriation.
• 4. Necessity for expropriation is a legislative, not a judicial question.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The expropriation of the cemetery is not necessary or expedient as existing roads are sufficient and alternative routes exist.
• 2. The land is a cemetery, used for burial purposes, and expropriation would desecrate graves and cause irreparable loss.
• 3. The city has no right to expropriate a cemetery or part thereof for street purposes.
• 4. The expropriation is not actually for a public improvement.
• 5. The land is quasi-public property, dedicated to burial purposes.

Issues

• 1. In expropriation proceedings initiated by the City of Manila, can the courts inquire into and hear proof regarding the necessity of the expropriation?
• 2. Is the determination of necessity for expropriation a purely legislative function, or can it be reviewed by the courts?
• 3. When a municipality is granted general authority to expropriate private land for public purposes, is the municipality the sole judge of the necessity, or can the courts intervene?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Chinese Community, affirming the lower court's decision. The Court held that when the legislature grants general authority to a municipal corporation to expropriate private land for public purposes, courts have the authority to inquire into and hear proof on the necessity of the expropriation. The Court reasoned that the power of eminent domain is not unlimited, and while the legislature can determine necessity in specific cases, when general authority is delegated, courts can ensure that the power is exercised within legal bounds, including verifying the necessity and public purpose of the taking. The court found that the necessity of taking the cemetery land was not sufficiently established, especially given available alternatives, and the sensitive nature of the property.

Doctrines

• 1. Eminent Domain: The inherent power of the state to take private property for public use, with just compensation. The court clarified that while the power exists, its exercise is not absolute and is subject to judicial review, particularly regarding necessity and public use.
• 2. Public Use: Expropriation must be for a genuine public purpose. The court indicated that the proposed street extension might not meet the threshold of public necessity in this specific situation, especially given the nature of the land as a cemetery and the availability of alternatives.
• 3. Necessity: The taking of private property must be necessary for the public purpose. The court asserted that necessity is not solely a legislative question when general expropriation authority is delegated, and courts can review the factual basis for the alleged necessity.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "In expropriation proceedings by the city of Manila, may the courts inquire into, and hear proof upon, the necessity of the expropriation?"
• 2. "The theory of the plaintiff is, that once it has established the fact, under the law, that it has authority to expropriate land, it may expropriate any land it may desire; that the only function of the court in such proceedings is to ascertain the value of the land in question..."
• 3. "We are of the opinion that the power of the court is not limited to that question. The right of expropriation is not an inherent power in a municipal corporation... When the courts come to determine the question, they must not only find (a) that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent domain, but (b) also that the right or authority is being exercised in accordance with the law."
• 4. "The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity, and that necessity must be of a public character."
• 5. "While we do not contend that the dead must not give place to the living...yet, nevertheless such sacrifices and such uses of the places of the dead should not be made unless and until it is fully established that there exists an eminent necessity therefor."
• 6. "The wheels of commerce must stop at the grave." (Concurring opinion by Malcolm, J., quoting Memphis State Line Railroad Company vs. Forest Hill Cemetery Co.)

Precedents Cited

• 1. Norwich City vs. Johnson, 86 Conn., 151; Bell vs. Mattoon Waterworks, etc. Co., 245 111., 544; Wheeling, etc. R. R. Co. vs. Toledo Ry. etc. Co., 72 Ohio St., 368; State vs. Stewart, 74 Wis., 620.: Used to support the view that courts can intervene to prevent abuse of eminent domain.
• 2. Section 158 of volume 10 of Ruling Case Law: Cited by the appellant to argue necessity is not a judicial question, but the court distinguished this by referring to section 159 of the same volume, which acknowledges judicial intervention against abuse.
• 3. Wheeling, etc. R. R. Co. vs. Toledo, Ry., etc. Co. (72 Ohio St., 368 [106 Am. St. Rep., 622, 628]): Cited to show that when the statute doesn't designate property, necessity becomes a judicial question.
• 4. Lynch vs. Forbes, 161 Mass., 302 [42 Am. St. Rep., 402, 407].: Cited to support the view that the allegation of necessity is an issuable allegation for courts to decide.
• 5. Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure (Cyc.), page 629: Cited by appellant, but the court distinguished it by stating that it primarily applies when the legislature itself directly determines necessity, not when it delegates general authority.
• 6. Traction Co. vs. Mining Co. (196 U. S., 239): Cited to show that courts can review necessity and public use in eminent domain.
• 7. School Board of Carolina vs. Saldana (14 Porto Rico, 339, 356): Cited to reinforce the court's power to review the public nature of the use.
• 8. Board of Water Com'rs,, etc. vs. Johnson (86 Conn., 571 [41 L. R. A., N. S., 1024]): Cited supporting the view that necessity is a judicial question.
• 9. Wilkinson vs. Leland (2 Pet. [U. S.], 657): Cited to emphasize the protection of private property rights.
• 10. Lewis on Eminent Domain: Frequently cited authority throughout the decision, particularly regarding necessity and public use, and the nature of cemeteries.
• 11. Evergreen Cemetery Association vs. The City of New Haven ([1875], 43 Conn., 284) and Memphis State Line Railroad Company vs. Forest Hill Cemetery Co. ([1906], 116 Tenn., 400.): Analogous cemetery cases used to demonstrate that taking land already dedicated to public use for another public use requires greater justification and necessity, especially for sensitive sites like cemeteries.
• 12. On the Application of Board of Street Openings of New York City to acquire St. Johns Cemetery (133 N. Y., 329) and In Re Opening of Twenty-second Street (102 Penn. State Reports, 108): Cited by dissenting opinions to support the view that cemeteries can be taken for public use under eminent domain.
• 13. Sears vs. City of Akron (246 U. S., 242) and Cincinnati vs. S. & N. R. R. Co., 223 U. S., 390) and U.S. vs. Jones, 109, U. S., 519) and Hairston vs. Danville & W. R. Co., 208 IT. S. 598 and Shoemaker vs. United States, 147 U. S., 282 and United States vs. Gettysburg Electric R. Co., 160 U. S. 668 and United States vs. ChandlerDunbar Water Power Co., 229 U. S., 53: Cited by dissenting opinions to show that necessity is generally a legislative question.
• 14. Many other cases are mentioned to illustrate the breadth of jurisprudence on the issue.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Act No. 2711 (Charter of the City of Manila), Section 2429: Grants the City of Manila the power to condemn private property for public use.
• 2. Act No. 190, Sections 241, 242, 243, 248 (Code of Civil Procedure): Outlines the procedure for exercising eminent domain in the Philippines.
• 3. Philippine Bill (Act of Congress of July 1, 1902), Section 63: Authorizes the Philippine Government to acquire real estate for public use.
• 4. Administrative Code of 1917, Section 2429: Reiteration of the city's power to condemn private property.
• 5. Code of Civil Procedure, Section 241: Defines the scope of eminent domain as "private property for public use."
• 6. Acts of Congress of July 1, 1902 and August 29, 1916: Prohibit laws depriving persons of property without due process of law.
• 7. Article 349 of the Civil Code: States conditions for deprivation of property: competent authority, public utility, and just compensation.