REYES V NHA
In 1977, respondent National Housing Authority
(NHA) filed separate complaints for the expropriation
of sugarcane lands of the cadastral survey of
Dasmarinas, Cavite, belonging to the petitioners.
The stated public purpose of the expropriation was
the expansion of the Dasmarinas Resettlement
Project , to accommodate the squatters who were
relocated from Metro Manila area
The trial court ordered the expropriation of these lots
and the payment of just compensation.
For the alleged failure of the Respondent NHA to
comply with the above order, Petitioners filed a
complaint for forfeiture of rights before the RTC of
Quezon City r 79. They alleged that NHA had not
relocated squatters from Metro Manila area on the
expropriated lands in violation of the stated public
purpose for expropriation and had not paid the just
compensation fixed by the court.
Respondent NHA averred that it had already paid a
substantial amount to herein petitioners and that the
expropriation judgment could not e executed in view
of several issues raised by NHA.
The trial court dismissed the complaint finding that
the failure of the respondent NHA to pay just
compensation and of petitioners to pay the capital
gains tax are both unjustified and unreasonable.
ISSUE RULING
WON, the The SC held in favor of the respondent NHA. Accordingly
judgment of petitioners cannot insist on a restrictive view of eminent
expropriation provision contending that the contract for low cost housin
was forfeited deviation from the stated public use. It is now a settled d
in the light of that the concept of public use is no longer limited to trad
the failure of purposes. The term public use has been held synonymo
the with public interest, public benefit, public welfare and pu
Respondent convenience.
NHA to use the
expropriated The 1987 Constitution explicitly provides for the exercise
property for power of eminent domain over private properties upon p
the intended of just compensation. Article III Sec 9 states that private
purpose property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.
The taking to be valid must be for public use. Whatever
is undertaken must be for the public to enjoy, as in the ca
streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable
As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to re
any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the
expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for
at cost to individuals. The other is in the transfer , throug
exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enter
the government. It is accurate to state then that at prese
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general w
satisfies the requirement of public use.
Wherefore, the appealed judgment is modified as follows
1. Ordering Respondent NHA to pay petitioners the am
 of 1,218, 57.35 Php with legal interest thereon at 1
annum computed from the taking of the expropria
properties in 1997 until the amount due shall have
fully paid;
2. Ordering petitioners to pay the capital gains tax , a
3. Ordering petitioners to surrender to Respondent NH
owners duplicate certificates of title of the expropr
properties upon full payment of just compensation