9/26/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

[No. L-2929. February 28, 1950]

THE CITY OF MANILA, plaintiff and appellant, vs. THE

ARELLANO LAW COLLEGES, INC., defendant and
appellee.

1. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; POWER OF CITIES TO

EXPROPRIATE; REPUBLIC ACT No. 267 CONSTRUED.
—Republic Act No. 267 empowers cities to expropriate as
well as to purchase lands for homesites. The word
"expropriating," taken singly or with the text, is
susceptible of only one meaning. But this power to
expropriate is necessarily subject to the limitations and
conditions noted in the cases of Guido vs. Rural Progress
Administration (G. R. No. L-2089), and Commonwealth of
the Philippines vs. Borja (G. R. No. L-1496). The National
Government may not confer upon its instrumentalities
authority which it itself may not exercise. A stream can
not run higher than its source.

2. EMINENT DOMAIN, POWER OF; EXISTENCE OF

NECESSITY FOR USES AND PURPOSES FOR ITS
EXERCISE.—To authorize the condemnation of any
particular land by a grantee of the power of

664

664 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

City of Manila vs. Arellano Law Colleges

eminent domain, a necessity must exist for the taking

thereof for the proposed uses and purposes.

3. ID.; WORDS AND PHRASES; "NECESSITY".—Necessity

within the rule that the particular property to be

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174ca60526ddc38e5a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
9/26/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

expropriated must be necessary, does not mean an

absolute but only a reasonable or practical necessity, such
as would combine the greatest benefit to the public with
the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning
party and property owner consistent with such benefit.

4. ID.; LIMITATION OF ITS EXERCISE; PREFERENCE

TO PREPARATION OF YOUTHS FOR USEFUL
CITIZENSHIP.—Any good that would accrue to the public
from providing homes to a few families fades into
insignificance in comparison with the preparation of
young men and young women for useful citizenship and
for service to the government and the community, a task
which the government alone is not in a position to
undertake.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Manila. Castelo, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant City Fiscal
Arsenio Nañawa for appellant.
Emmanuel Pelaez for appellee.

TUASON, J.:

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 267 provides:

"Cities and municipalities are authorized to contract loans from

the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the Philippine National
Bank, and/or any other entity or person at a rate of interest not
exceeding eight per cent per annum for the purpose of purchasing
or expropriating homesites within their respective territorial
jurisdiction and reselling them at cost to residents of the said
cities and municipalities."

The court below ruled that this provision empowers cities

to purchase but not to expropriate lands for the purpose of
subdivision and resale, and so dismissed the present action,
which seeks to condemn, for the purpose just stated,
several parcels of land having a combined area of 7,270
square meters and situated on Legarda Street, City of
Manila.
665

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174ca60526ddc38e5a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
9/26/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

VOL. 85, FEBRUARY 28, 1950 665

City of Manila vs. Arellano Law Colleges

In the cases of Guido

1
vs. Rural Progress Administration (G.
R. No. L-2089) and Commonwealth
2
of the Philippines vs.
De Borja (G. R. No. L-1496), we discussed at great length
the extent of the Philippine Government's power to
condemn private property for resale. Among other things,
we said:

"It has been truly said that the assertion of the right on the part
of the legislature to take the property of one citizen and transfer it
to another, even for a full compensation, when the public interest
is not promoted thereby, is claiming a despotic power, and one
inconsistent with every just principle and fundamental maxim of
a free government. (29 C. J. S., 820.)
"In a broad sense, expropriation of large estates, trusts in
perpetuity, and land that embraces a whole town, or a large
section of a town or city, bears direct relation to the public
welfare. The size of the land expropriated, the large number of
people benefited, and the extent of social and economic reform
secured by the condemnation, clothes the expropriation with
public interest and public use. The expropriation in such cases
tends to abolish economic slavery, feudalistic practices, endless
conflicts between landlords and tenants, and other evils inimical
to community prosperity and contentment and public peace and
order. Although courts are not in agreement as to the tests to be
applied in determining whether the use is public or not, some go
so far in the direction of a liberal construction as to hold that
public use is synonymous with public benefit, public utility, or
public advantage, and to authorize the exercise of the power of
eminent domain to promote such public benefit, etc., especially
where the interests involved are of considerable magnitude. (29 C.
J. S.; 823, 824; see also People of Puerto Rico vs. Eastern Sugar
Associates et al., 156 Fed [2d], 316.) In some instances, slumsites
have been acquired by condemnation. The highest court of New
York State has ruled that slum clearance and erection of houses
for low-income families were public purposes for which New York
City Housing authorities could exercise the power of
condemnation. And this decision was followed by similar ones in
other states. The underlying reasons for these decisions are that
the 'destruction of congested areas and insanitary dwellings
diminishes the potentialities of epidemics, crime and waste,
prevents the spread of crime and diseases to unaffected areas,
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174ca60526ddc38e5a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
9/26/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

enhances the physical and moral value of the surrounding

communities, and promotes the safety and welfare of the public in
general. (Murray et al. vs. La Guardia, 52 N. E. [2d], 884; General
Development Coop. vs. City of Detroit, 33 N. W. [2d], 919;
Weizner vs. Stichman,

_______________

1 84 Phil., 847.
2 85 Phil., 51.

666

666 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

City of Manila vs. Arellano Law Colleges

64 N. Y. S. [2d], 50.) But it will be noted that in all these cases

and others of similar nature extensive areas were involved and
numerous people and the general public benefited by the action
taken.
"The condemnation of a small property in behalf of 10, 20 or 50
persons and their families does not insure to the benefit of the
public to a degree sufficient to give the use public character. The
expropriation proceedings at bar have been instituted for the
economic relief of a few families devoid of any consideration of
public health, public peace and order, or other public advantage.
What is proposed to be done is to take plaintiff's property, which
for all we know she acquired by sweat and sacrifices for her and
her family's security, and sell it at cost to a few lessees who refuse
to pay the stipulated rent or leave the premises.
"No fixed line of demarcation between what taking is for public
use and what is not can be made; each case has to be judged
according to its peculiar circumstances. It suffices to say for the
purpose of this decision that the case under consideration is far
wanting in those elements which make for public convenience or
public use. It is patterned upon an ideology far removed from that
consecrated in our system of government and embraced by the
majority of the citizens of this country. If upheld, this case would
open the gates to more oppressive expropriations. If this
expropriation be .constitutional, we see no reason why a 10-, 15-,
or 25-hectare farm land might not be expropriated and
subdivided, and sold to those who want to own a portion of it. To
make the analogy closer, we find no reason why the Rural
Progress Administration could not take by condemnation an
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174ca60526ddc38e5a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
9/26/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

urban lot containing and area of 1,000 or 2,000 square meters for
subdivision into tiny lots for resale to its occupants or those who
want to build thereon."

We are inclined to believe that Act No. 267 empowers cities

to expropriate as well as to purchase lands for homesites.
The word "expropriating," taken singly or with the text, is
susceptible of only one meaning. But this power to
expropriate is necessarily subject to the limitations and
conditions noted in the decisions above cited. The National
Government may not confer upon its instrumentalities
authority which it itself may not exercise. A stream can not
run higher than its source.
Viewed from another angle, the case at bar is weaker for
the condemnor. In the first place, the land that is the
subject of the present expropriation is only one-third of
667

VOL. 85, FEBRUARY 28, 1950 667

City of Manila vs. Arellano Law Colleges

the land sought to be taken in the Guido case, and about

two-thirds of that involved in the Borja condemnation
proceeding. In the second place, the Arellano Colleges' land
is situated in a highly commercial section of the city and is
occupied by persons who are not bona fide tenants. Lastly,
this land was bought by the defendant for a university site
to take the place of rented buildings that are unsuitable for
schools of higher learning.
To authorize the condemnation of any particular land by
a grantee of the power of eminent domain, a necessity must
exist for the taking thereof for the proposed uses and
purposes. (29 C. J. S., 884-885.) In City of Manila vs.
Manila Chinese Community (40 Phil., 349), this Court,
citing American decisions, laid down this rule:

"The very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a

genuine necessity, and that necessity must be of a public
character. The ascertainment of the necessity must precede or
accompany, and not follow, the taking of the land. (Morrison vs.
Indianapolis, etc. Ry. Co., 166 Ind., 511; Stearns vs. Barre, 73 Vt.,
281; Wheeling, etc. R. R. Co. vs. Toledo, Ry. etc. Co., 72 Ohio St.,
368.)"
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174ca60526ddc38e5a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
9/26/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

And this passage in Blackstone's Commentaries on the

English Law is cited in that decision: "So great is the
regard of the law for private property that it will not
authorize the least violation of it, even for the public good,
unless there exists a very great necessity thereof."
Perhaps modern decisions are not so exigent. Necessity
within the rule that the particular property to be
expropriated must be necessary, does not mean an absolute
but only a reasonable or practical necessity, such as would
combine the greatest benefit to the public with the least
inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and
property owner consistent with such benefit. (29 C. J. S.,
386.) But measured even by this standard, and forgetting
for a moment the private character of the intended use,
necessity for the condemnation has not been shown. The
land in question has cost the owner P140,000. The people
for whose benefit the condemnation is being undertaken

668

668 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

City of Manila vs. Arellano Law Colleges

are so poor they could ill afford to meet this high price,
unless they intend to borrow the money with a view to
disposing of the property later for a profit. Cheaper lands
not dedicated to a purpose so worthy as a school and more
suited to the occupants' needs and means, if really they
only want to own their own homes, are aplenty elsewhere.
On the other hand, the defendant not only has invested a
considerable amount for its property but had the plans for
construction ready and would have completed the project a
long time ago had it not been stopped by the city
authorities. And again, while a handful of people stand to
profit by the expropriation, the development of a university
that has a present enrolment of 9,000 students would be
sacrificed. Any good that would/accrue to the public from
providing homes to a few families fades into insignificance
in comparison with the preparation of young men and
young women for useful citizenship and for service to the
government and the community, a task which the
government alone is not in a position to undertake- As the
Rural Progress Administration, the national agency

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174ca60526ddc38e5a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
9/26/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 085

created by the Government to purchase or expropriate

lands for resale as homesites, and to which the petition to
purchase the land in question on behalf of the occupants
was referred by the President, turning down the occupants'
request after proper investigation, commented that "the
necessity of the Arellano Law College to acquire a
permanent site of its own is imperative not only because
denial of the same would hamper the objectives of that
educational institution, but it would likewise be taking a
property intended already for public benefit." The Mayor of
the City of Manila himself confessed that he believes the
plaintiff is entitled to keep this land.
The order of the Court of First Instance of Manila is
affirmed without costs.

Moran, C. J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla,

Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

669

VOL. 85, MARCH 4, 1950 669

Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao vs. Alcantara

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174ca60526ddc38e5a4003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7