Case No.: G.R. No.

223366
Topic: Inherent Powers of Government – Power of Eminent Domain
Case Title: National Transmission Corporation vs. Oroville Development Corporation

Facts: In 2006, National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) offered to buy two

properties from Oroville Development Corporation (Oroville). These two properties were
privately owned by different individuals when the National Transmission Corporation
constructed a power transmission line back in 1983. During the negotiations for
TransCo to buy the two properties, Oroville brought up the fact that they were not paid
the just compensation for the construction of the power transmission line back in 1983.
Once the amount for the just compensation was released, TransCo elevated an appeal
before the CA, which also disappointed him, but moved for reconsideration, however,
was denied, which is why he petitioned to the Supreme Court:

Issue:
(a) Whether TransCo had the right to construct power transmission line on private
properties

(b) Whether the computation of just compensation for the expropriated property should
be based on its value at the time of the taking of property

Ruling:
(a) Yes. Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate private
property for uses to promote public welfare. However, there are conditions to this
power, (1) that it is for a particular public purpose; and (2) that just compensation be
paid to the property owner.

(b) Yes. According to Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, Order of Expropriation,
“If the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the
property are overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the
court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to
take the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in
the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date
of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.”

Main Point: The government has the power to appropriate private property on the
grounds of (1) for a public purpose; and (2) with just compensation.
Case No.: G.R. No. 120082
Topic: Inherent Powers of Government – Power of Taxation
Case Title: Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Marcos

Facts: Under its charter, Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) shall be
exempt from realty taxes imposed by the National Government or any of its political
subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, an exemption that the MCIAA had been
enjoying since their conception. However, in 1994, the Local Government Unit (LGU) of
Cebu City demanded realty tax payments for several parcels of land belonging to
MCIAA. This is due to Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Governmental Code that took
effect on January 1, 1992, hence the withdrawn privileges.

Issue: Whether the MCIAA is exempt from realty taxation?

Ruling: No, MCIAA is not exempt from realty tax by the City of Cebu. Its tax exemption
under its charter has already been withdrawn, as according to Sections 234 of the Local
Governmental Code. Section 234 states that any exemption from payment of real
property tax previously granted to, or presently enjoyed by people and various
agencies, are hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.

Main Point: The government has the power to impose tax, as for the benefit of our
country. They also have the power to grant exemptions, as well as revoke them.
Case No.: 205 U.S. 349,353
Topic: Immunity from Suit
Case Title: Kawananakoa vs. Polyblank

Facts: The defendants pleaded to the jurisdiction that after the execution of the
mortgage, a part of the mortgaged land had been conveyed by them to one Damon, and
by Damon to the Territory of Hawaii, and was now part of a public street.

Issue: Whether the Territory of Hawaii is within the bounds for lawsuit

Ruling: No. A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or
obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right
as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. In this case, it is
not possible to sue the Territory of Hawaii for taking a part of a private land and making
it of a public street.

Main Point: A sovereign is exempt from suit on the logical and practical ground that
there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right
depends.
Case No.: G.R. No. L–46570
Topic: Doctrine of Qualified Agency
Case Title: Villena vs. Secretary of Interior

Facts: Mayor Villena of Makati, Rizal was investigated by the DOJ, upon the request of
the Secretary of the Interior. The investigation brought to light the mayor’s conduct of
bribery, extortion, malicious abuse of authority and unauthorized practice of the law
profession. Villena was then suspended from office, he then filed a petition for
preliminary injunction against the Secretary of the Interior to restrain him and his agents
from proceeding with the investigation.

Issue: Whether the Secretary of the Interior has jurisdiction or authority to order
investigation over Villena.

Ruling: Yes. The Secretary of the Interior has the power to order investigation and to
suspend Mayor Villena. The power to order investigation was provided in Section 79 (C)
of RAC that Department of Interior was given the authority to supervise bureaus and
offices under its jurisdiction. The power to suspend may be exercised by the President.
It follows that the heads of the Department under her may also exercise the same,
unless the law required the President to act personally or that situation demanded him
so, because the heads of the departments are assistants and agents of the President.

Main Point: The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency states that “the acts of the
department secretaries, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business,
are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the President, presumptively the acts of the
President.”
Case No.: G.R. No. L-14078
Topic: Non-Delegation of Power
Case Title: Rubi vs. Provincial Board

Facts: It is alleged that the Manguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by
the provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on
the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is
said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for
having run away from the reservation. The provincial governor of Mindoro and the
provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in question to take up their habitation
in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected by the provincial governor and
approved by the provincial board. The action was taken in accordance with section
2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, and was duly approved by the Secretary of
the Interior as required by said action.

Issue: Whether section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 constitute an unlawful
delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to a provincial official and a
department head, therefore making it unconstitutional?

Ruling: No. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province
of Mindoro, to be exercised by the provincial governor and the provincial board.
In determining whether the delegation of legislative power is valid or not, the distinction
is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a
discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its
execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.

Main Point: Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful
delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to provincial official and a
department head.
Case No.: G.R. No. L–7708
Topic: Power of Control
Case Title: Mondano vs. Silvosa

Facts: The Assistant Executive Secretary indorsed the complaint for rape and
concubinage of Caridad Monsende against Mondano, the duly elected and qualified
mayor of Mainit, Surigao, to Silvosa, provincial governor of Surigao, for immediate
investigation, appropriate action and report. Silvosa issued an Administrative Order
suspending Mondano from office. Mondano filed a petition for prohibition enjoining the
governor from further proceeding.

Issue: Whether the indorsement of the complaint, by the Assistant Executive Secretary,
to the respondent is legal.

Ruling: Yes because the heads of various executive departments are agents of the
President who, constitutionally, have general supervision over local governments, as
may be provided by law. “Supervision, in administrative law, means overseeing or the
power or authority of an official to see that subordinate officers perform their duties…”
The respondent Governor, upon the indorsement of the Assistant Executive Secretary,
is only acting as an agent of the President in investigating the petitioner. In this case,
however, Petitioner Mondano was correct in stating that despite the declared rape and
concubinage acts, he has not neglected his duties as a public servant.

Main Point: Control is the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside
what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute
the judgment of the former for that of the latter.
Case No.: G.R. No. L–7708
Topic: Power of Supervision
Case Title: Mondano vs. Silvosa

Facts: The Assistant Executive Secretary indorsed the complaint for rape and
concubinage of Caridad Monsende against Mondano, the duly elected and qualified
mayor of Mainit, Surigao, to Silvosa, provincial governor of Surigao, for immediate
investigation, appropriate action and report. Silvosa issued an Administrative Order
suspending Mondano from office. Mondano filed a petition for prohibition enjoining the
governor from further proceeding.

Issue: Whether the indorsement of the complaint, by the Assistant Executive Secretary,
to the respondent is legal.

Ruling: Yes because the heads of various executive departments are agents of the
President who, constitutionally, have general supervision over local governments, as
may be provided by law. “Supervision, in administrative law, means overseeing or the
power or authority of an official to see that subordinate officers perform their duties…”
The respondent Governor, upon the indorsement of the Assistant Executive Secretary,
is only acting as an agent of the President in investigating the petitioner.

Main Point: Supervision is overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that
subordinate officers perform their duties.
Case No.: G.R. No. 112497
Topic: Power of Supervision
Case Title: Drilon vs. Lim

Facts: The Secretary of Justice declared Ordinance No. 7794 (Manila Revenue Code)
null and void for non-compliance with the procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances
and for containing certain provisions contrary to law and public policy. The RTC
declared Sec 187 of the LGC as unconstitutional because it vests on the Secretary the
power to control over LGUs in violation of the policy of local autonomy mandated in the
Constitution.

Issue: Whether Section 187 of the Local Government Code is constitutional

Ruling: Yes. Section 187 authorizes the petitioner to review only the constitutionality or
legality of tax ordinance. What he found only was that it was illegal. That act is not
control but supervision.

Main Point: Control lays down the rules in the doing of act and if not followed order the
act undone or re-done. Supervision sees to it that the rules are followed.
Case No.: G.R. No. 131255
Topic: Power of Supervision
Case Title: Joson vs. Torres

Facts: Petitioner Governor Joson was filed a complaint before the Office of the
President for barging violently into the session hall of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in
the company of armed men. The case was endorsed to the DILG. For failure to file an
answer after three (3) extensions, petitioner was declared in default and ordered the
petitioner 60-day preventive suspension. Petitioner later “Motion to Conduct Formal
Investigation”. DILG denied the motion declaring that the submission of position papers
substantially complies with the requirements of procedural due process in administrative
proceedings. Later, the Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, adopted the
findings and recommendation of the DILG Secretary. The former imposed on petitioner
the penalty of suspension from office for six (6) months without pay.

Issue: Whether the preventive suspension is proper

Ruling: Yes. Preventive suspension may be imposed by the Disciplining Authority at

any time (a) after the issues are joined; (b) when the evidence of guilt is strong; and (c)
given the gravity of the offense, there is great probability that the respondent, who
continues to hold office, could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and
integrity of the records and other evidence.

Main Point: The power of supervision means "overseeing or the authority of an officer
to see that the subordinate officers perform their duties
Case No.: G.R. No. 122156
Topic: Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
Case Title: Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS

Facts: The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) decided to sell through
public bidding of the issued and outstanding shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC). In a
close bidding, two bidders participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC), a
Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC at P41.58 per share, and
Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for
the same number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than the bid of
petitioner. Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as the winning bidder and the
execution of the contracts, the MPHC matched the bid price in a letter to GSIS. MPHC
sent a manager’s check to the GSIS in a subsequent letter, which GSIS refused to
accept. Perhaps apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the tender of the matching
bid, MPHC came to the Court on prohibition and mandamus. MPHC argues that in
Section 10, Article XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel has
been identified with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical
monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture.

Issue: Whether the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article XII Section 10, are
self-executing.

Ruling: Yes. Section 10, Article. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing
provision. Usually, a provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found
in Article II of the 1987 Constitution, is not self-executing. But a provision which is
complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling
legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants
may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Hence, unless it is expressly provided
that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption
now is that all provisions of the constitution are self-executing.

Main Point: A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and
administration of a nation—it is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by
the authority from which it emanates.