POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila [G.R. No. 14355, October 31, 1919]

Facts:
The city of Manila wants to expropriate certain parcels of land located in the district of Binondo
within Block 83 of the district for the purpose of extending Rizal Avenue, Manila. Defendant, the
Comunidad de Chinos de Manila [Chinese Community of Manila] contented that the expropriation
neither necessary or expedient because it will disturb the dead. They further argued that if the road
is to be considered as a necessity, other routes will be available without alienating the land that they
have been using as a cemetery as adjoining and adjacent lots were offered to the city free of charge
for the planned public improvement. According to City of Manila, they may condemn private lands
for public purpose under the Charter of City of Manila, such being an exclusive function of the
legislature and the only function of the court is to assess the value of the land expropriated.
Upon the issue presented, the lower court ruled in favor of the Chinese Community of Manila stating
that there was no necessity for the expropriation of the land in question.

Issue:
Whether or not the court cannot inquire into the necessity of expropriation?

Held:
The court ruled that the power of judicial review on expropriation is not limited to the inquiry of the
existence of law that grants a municipal corporation to expropriate private lands for public purpose.
The court has the responsibility to (1) ensure that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the
right of eminent domain, and (2) that the right or authority is being exercised in accordance with
the law. There are two conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to the City of Manila: (1)
the land must be private; and, (2) the purpose must be public. The taking of land in the exercise of
power of eminent domain of the state is not a judicial question but the court is bound to interfere
to prevent an abuse of the discretion delegated by the legislature. 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. The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain must not be confused with the
right to exercise it in a particular case. The power of the legislature to confer, upon municipal
corporations and other entities within the State, general authority to exercise the right of eminent
domain cannot be questioned by the courts, but that general authority of municipalities or entities
must not be confused with the right to exercise it in particular instances. The moment the municipal
corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must comply with the
conditions accompanying the authority. The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal
corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of the
legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a
particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a question which the courts
have the right to inquire into. The court ruled that the cemetery is a public property and it found no
great necessity to allow the expropriation of the land by the City of Manila thus thereby affirmed
the decision of the lower court.