Tuesday, January 8, 2019

Power of the Gov't to Buy Your Property


By Mortz C. Ortigoza

This is about real property owners who resisted to sell their houses and lands to the government. Can the State forces them to sell at the prevailing price of the area?

A mayor asked me about how Eminent Domain and Expropriation works after some residential and land owners would not acquiesce for his offer for the owner of a Filipino and foreign owned multi billion pesos public utility corporation to buy their lots for the good of the town, province, and the country.
Image result for eminent domain
The presence of the utility will not only lessen the burden of the public but provide hundreds of millions of pesos of revenues every year to the town.
Its industrial presence will not only be a multiplier effect to the bustling activities of the municipality but of the entire province whose economy moves in a turtle pace because of its reliant on still backward practices of agriculture.   
Aside from buying their lands at a handsome prices he cited, they will be relocated to other areas to build their houses for free.

‘Some politicians egged them to stone wall that until now the investors could not start the ground breaking for the construction of the hundreds of billion of pesos utility,” he told me.

I will cite here how  eminent domain as my advice to him as based on the laws and jurisprudence.

Salamabit, I thought a political columnist like yours truly only write political opinions and not saunter on advisement, tee he!
Columnist na, adviser pa ha ha ha!

Eminent Domain is the “ultimate right of sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public, but even the private property of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, to public purposes.1


One of the constitutional provisions on the inherent power of eminent domain is Article III (Bill of Rights) Section 9 that says “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

The scope of the power of eminent domain can reach every form of property which the State might need for public use. It can reach every private property already dedicated to public use or even property devoted, son of a gun, to religious worship.

Expropriation, according to Merriam Webster Dictionary, is the action of the state in taking or modifying the property rights of an individual in the exercise of its sovereignty.

The elements of the exercise of the power of eminent domain are  (1) there is “Taking” of private property; (2) the taking must be for “public use”; (3) there must be “just compensation”.

 Taking  is when the government seizes private property for public use.

Just Compensation is the fair value of property as between one who desires to purchase and one who desires; the current price; the general or ordinary price for which property may be sold in that locality.3 

Just compensation includes not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable period of time from taking.4 

But the 2016 RA No. 10752 or An Act Facilitating The Acquisition of Right-Of-Way or Location For National Government Infrastructure Projects says in Section 5 or Rules on Negotiated Sale: 

(a) The implementing agency shall offer to the property owner concerned, as compensation price, the sum of:
(1) The current market value of the land,
(2) The replacement cost of structures and improvements therein; and
(3) The current market value of crops and trees therein.
Section 6 of RA No. 10752 on the Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings mandates: a) Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately deposit to the court in favor of the owner the amount equivalent to the sum of:

(1) One hundred percent (100%) of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued not more than three (3) years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaint subject to subparagraph (c) of this section;

Here’s what you need my dear mayor if you used the voice of the people through the legislature called Sanggunian to force those stone walling to sell their real properties to the public utility that will put shop:

The essential requisites for a local government unit (LGU) to validly exercise eminent domain are (1) “An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council like the Sangguniang Bayan authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property.” ; (2) “The power of eminent domain is exercised for public purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless,”: (3) There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws,”; and (4) “A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.5

Remember: A local government (applicable too with the national government) may not expropriate on the strength of a sanggunian resolution alone. There should be a valid and definite offer first to the owner of those real properties located near the idyllic coastal area of your rustic town.

 So there you are!

Footnotes

1.     Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 641 (U.S. 1837). It is the power inherent in sovereignty.
2.     Barlin v. Ramirez, 7 Phil. 41, 56 (1906).
3.     Manila Railroad Co. v. Fabie, 17 Phil. 206, 208 (1910); City of manila v. Estrada, 25 Phil. 208, 215 (1913); City of Manila v. Corrales, 32 Phil. 85, 92, 98 (1915); Manila Railroad Co. v. Velesquez, 32 Phil. 286 (1915).
4.     Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 206, 213 (1990).
5.     Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M Reality Corporation, G.R No. 127820, july 20, 1998, 292 SCRA 678, 688; SCRA 678; Jesus is Lord School v. Municipality of Pasig, G.R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005.


(You can read my selected columns at http://mortzortigoza.blogspot.com and articles at Pangasinan News Aro. You can send comments too at totomortz@yahoo.com)

1 comment:

  1. From the Philippines Daily Inquirer: Right of way problems plague road projects in Batangas


    SAN PASCUAL, Batangas — A single-story house stands in the middle of a newly built concrete road at Barangay Bayanan in this town, an oddity that speaks volumes about planning for an infrastructure project funded by the national government.

    But requirements to claim compensation include land titles or, in the case of imperfect titles such as the Brucals’, at least 30 years of “continuous, peaceful possession” of the property.

    Several other residents also only have tax declarations to present, said a 65-year-old landowner, who asked not to be named.



    Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1072690/right-of-way-problems-plague-road-projects-in-batangas#ixzz5ci5XvvJz
    Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook


    Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1072690/right-of-way-problems-plague-road-projects-in-batangas#ixzz5ci5XzeGu
    Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook


    The projects were proposed by Deputy Speaker Raneo Abu and Sen. Ralph Recto, respectively. Abu represents the second district of Batangas, while Recto, a former Batangas representative, is the husband of Lipa City Rep. Vilma Santos-Recto.

    The DPWH said over 50 percent of the projects had been completed and some portions were already passable to pickup trucks or sport utility vehicles.

    To this day, however, not a single landowner had received compensation.

    At Lipa’s Barangay Talisay, the DPWH had completed the first 1-km segment of the concrete road but stopped construction right before the approach to Jubilant Homes, a 10-year-old low-cost private subdivision, leaving a long stretch of dirt road.

    “We’ve already spent more than P300,000 [to have the land titles fixed and comply with
    DPWH requirements] but haven’t received a single centavo [from the government],” said resident Marcelino Labo, 59, whose family owned two properties (covering a total of 4,000 sq m) in Talisay.








    ReplyDelete