Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Holy Trinity Realty v.

dela Cruz
- Nature of land under CARL
1. Use for agriculture
2. Irrigation system
3. Existence of landlord-tenant relationship
- No emancipation title can be issued without considering the factors w/c show the
land is ousted by CARL
- Resolution v. Ordinance

SJS v. Lim Atienza


- Ordinance reclassified land from industrial to commercial
- MOU executed between and among these oil companies, the City of Manila and DOE
w/c called on scale-down operations
- Elements to determining valid exercise of police power
1. Lawful purpose
2. Lawful means

Lucena Grand Central v. JAC


2 Ordinances
1. Grant of Exclusive Franchise to Lucena Grand Central to operate a common PUV
terminal – violates Equal Protection Clause
2. Order for existing bus companies cease from operating their individual bus terminals
– lack of sufficient standard; confiscatory in nature (violation of property rights)

White Light Corp v. City of Manila


- City ordinance which prohibits “short time” use of their lodging facilities
- Lease of room is allowed for 12 hours or 2 a day only
- City government as guardian of public morals
- Objections:
1. Violation of property rights
2. Loss of potential income
3. Violation of the right to privacy of other clients

Albon v. Hon Fernando


- Use of public funds for improvement (widening) of sidewalks of a private subdivision
- Alleged that this violated Sec. 335-336 of RA 7160
- RTC/CA: ruled in favor of the city government as a valid exercise of police power
- SC: Case is remanded to the RTC to determine: 1. If the sidewalks were already
donated to the city gov’t and 2. Proof of acceptance of the donation (ordinance)
Boracay Foundation Inc. v. Province of Aklan
- Challenged the MOA between the Province of Aklan and the Phil Reclamation
Authority
- Foreshore Lease Agreement from 2.1 hectares to 40 hectares to improvement the
port facilities In Caticlan to accommodate tourists going to Boracay
- Objections: no public consultation; ECC was irregularly issued
- Reliefs sought: Environmental Protection Order; Writ of Kalikasan
Aquino v. Muni of Malay, Province of Aklan
- Since area was a no build zone; business permit was denied to Aquino and building
was demolished by the municipality. Aquino filed pet for certiorari
- RTC/CA: wrong remedy of certiorari
- SC: Certiorari is correct remedy. When Mayor ordered demolition, he was exercising
quasi-judicial function pursuant to his police power. It was a valid act on the part of
the Mayor. Local government was not adjudged for any kind of damages. Legal Basis:
ordinance declared the area as no build zone. Mayor is allowed to exercise own
judgment/discretion.
- Demolition order of the Mayor is from exercise of quasi-judicial power pursuant to
the general welfare clause (police power)

Davao New Town Development Corp v. Sps. Espino


- CLUP: Comprehensive Land Use Plan
- LGUs are required to adopt CLUP with the technical assistance of HLURB
- Adoption of a Zoning Ordinance is a valid exercise of police power
- Zoning Ordinance: classifies land according to use (commercial, industrial,
residential, agricultural, institutional)
- Effectivity of zoning ordinances and effectivity of CARL

New Sun Valley Homeowners v. Sangguniang Barangay


- Required New Sun Valley Subdivision to open its streets for pedestrian and vehicular
traffic
- Sought to enjoin the implementation of the “resolution” of the SB
- Basis of the Resolution
1. Relieve traffic congestion in the area
2. Subject streets have been donated to the City of Paranaque
3. By virtue of the donation the streets were converted to public use
4. As public roads, it was error to have installed gates in the subject roads
- Perfected ang donation v. Talayan not perfected – no acceptance of the donation

City of Manila v. Chinese Community


- Validity of the exercise of the power of eminent domain
- Taking of private property which served as a “resting” place for deceased Chinese
- Taking for the expansion of Rizal Avenue
- SC: There will be no taking when the property sought to be expropriated already
serves a public purpose

Sps. Yusay v. City Gov’t of Mandaluyong


- Ordinance (authority to negotiate and/or expropriate) v. Resolution (intent to
acquire)
- Objection: Resolution is not sufficient for Mandaluyong to use its property for
socialized housing
- Ordinance (Requirements)
1. Identify the property
2. Identify the owner
3. State the purpose for taking
4. Authorize the Mayor to negotiate (if owner agrees) and to file expropriation case
(if owner opposes)
5. Allot budget for acquisition
6. Certification by the Treasurer that funds are available

02/28/18
Balikan yung Chinese Community for definition of public use (2 cases above)

Province of Cam Sur v. CA


- Expanded meaning of public use (to include public benefits)
- No restriction may be imposed by DAR in the exercise of the power of eminent
domain
- Delegated by Congress to LGUs without any restriction/limitation

Masikip v. Pasig City


- Relate this case to Fernando v. Abot
- 2 letters: (1) acquisition for multi-purpose center; (2) acquisition to house the poor
of Pasig City
- Why did it fail? May existing building for the Same purpose; Property will be
maintained by a private entity, not the government

Manapat v. CA
- Requisites for exercise of the power of eminent domain:
(1) Private property
(2) For a public purpose
(3) Genuine necessity for acquisition
(4) Payment of just compensation
(5) Due process – (1) government, (2) property owner
- 2 stages for which the court may take cognizance

Brgy. Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga v. CA


- power to expropriate to be exercised by a barangay
- public use must be justified by the government
- public funds to be used for the acquisition
- public use v. beneficiaries of the project
- delivery of just compensation must be prompt
- delay in delivery may cause penalty by way of 6% per annum

Ortega v. City of Cebu


- 2 independent actions
- Ortega: ejectment of occupants of property; Cebu: expropriation case
- Ordinance
(1) Identify property
(2) Identify property owner
(3) State public purpose
(4) Authority for the Mayor:
a. To offer in writing for acquisition
b. To negotiate the price
c. To file expropriation case if negotiations fail
(5) Provide funds for acquisition
(6) Certify funds are available
(7) Funds be deposited in trust account

UP v. Hon Judge Dizon – beyond garnishment bec. UP is an instrumentality of the govt

Alta Vista Golf and Country Club v. City of Cebu


- Authority to tax Sec. 5, Art X (Taxes, Fees and Charges)
- Power to tax legislative in nature
- Power of taxation to raise revenues to fund the operations of gov’t
- Limitations on power to tax
(1) Tax collected must be for public purpose
(2) Tax collected by the national government be imposed by LGU
(3) Tax must be uniform and progressive
(4) Collection must be limited to territorial jurisdiction
(5) Collection cannot be sublet to a private person
- Ordinance: Local Revenue Code
- Distinction between amusement tax and and amusement places
- Principle applied: Ejusdem Generis
- Alta Vista Golf and Country Club cannot be subjected to amusement tax because it is
not considered as amusement place.

MERALCO v. City Assessor and City Treasurer of Lucena City


- Responsibility of city assessor – classification of property
- Responsibility of asst. treasurer – collection of real property tax
- Tax Collection by LGUs
(1) Treasurer collects
(2) In case of an objection by the payor, matter shall be resolved by the Local Board
of Assessment Appeals
(3) Appeal before the Central Board of Assessment Appeals
(4) Court intervention – CTA
(5) Final appeal – SC

GSIS v. City Treasurer of Manila


- Liability of GSIS for real property taxes on the ff. properties:
(1) Katigbak property
(2) Concepcion/Arroceros property
- Present use of the properties: Nature of use will determine whether or not a GSIS
property is subject to RPT
- Concept of beneficial use: GSIS – govt financial institution exempted from payment
of local taxes

QC v. Bayantel
- Claim of Bayantel to be exempted from payment of local taxes
- Grant of congressional franchise
- Inconsistencies in interpretation
- Amendment of the franchise of Bayantel
- Enactment of a law which covered operations of telecom companies
- RTC and CA ruled in favor of Bayantel
- SC: Direct action to the court was proper since the QC govt already scheduled the
auction of Bayantel’s properties
- Question raised by Bayantel is purely legal

MIAA v. City of Paranaque


- Validity of real property tax assessment by the LGU
- Validity of levy on MIAA properties for non-payment of RPT
- Validity of LGU’s action to hold public auction of levied properties of MIAA and
nature of MIAA as government entity
- Nature of MIAA as a government entity
- Nature of services rendered by MIAA

Nursery Care v. Acevedo


- Challenged the collection of taxes under Sections 15 and 17 (business) of the Local
Revenue Code and under Sec. 21 (consumers)
- Factors to Determine if there is double taxation
(1) Same subject matter
(2) Same purpose
(3) Same taxing power
(4) Same territory
(5) Same taxing period
(6) Same nature

**Sps. Yusay v City of Mandaluyong


**Municipality Board of Cebu City v. CTA
**GSIS governmental purpose = tax-exempt