Atherighttoappealisnotanaturalrightorpart of due

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ry of the property? A: When land has been acquired for public use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by the exercise of eminent domain or by purchase, the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner. (ATO petitioners, vs. Apolonio Gopuco, Jr. G.R No. 158563, June 30, 2005) 2. Miscellaneous Application Q: An ordinance of Quezon City requires memorial park operators to set aside at least 6% of their cemetery for charity burial of deceased persons. Is this a valid exercise of police power? A: No, it constitutes taking of property without just compensation. Instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the burden to private cemeteries. (City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta, G.R. No. L‐34915, Jun. 24, 1983) Q: Can there be expropriation in right of way easement? A: Yes. Expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real property with a corresponding transfer of title or possession – the right of way easement resulting in a restriction of limitation on property right over the land traversed by transmission lines also falls within the ambit of the term expropriation. (NPC v. Maria Mendoza San Pedro G.R. No. 170945 September 26, 2006) Q: Causby sued the United States for trespassing on his land, complaining specifically about how "low‐flying military planes caused the plaintiffs' chickens to 'jump up against the side of the chicken house and the walls and burst themselves open and die. Are they entitled to compensation by reason of taking clause? A: There is taking by reason of the frequency and altitude of the flights. Causby could not use his land for any purpose. (US v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 , 1946) 96 Q: The National Historical Institute declared the parcel of land owned by Petitioners as a national historical landmark, because it was the site of the birth of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo. The Republic of the Philippines filed an action to appropriate the land. Petitioners argued that the expropriation was not for a public purpose. Is this correct? A: Public use should not be restricted to the traditional uses. The taking is for a public use because of the contribution of Felix Manalo to the culture and history of the Philippines. (Manosca v. CA , GR No...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/12/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online