GR 106440; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106440 ; January 29, 1996
ALEJANDRO MANOSCA, ASUNCION MANOSCA and LEONICA MANOSCA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BENJAMIN V. PELAYO, Presiding Judge, RTC-Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 168, HON. GRADUACION A. REYES CLARAVAL, Presiding Judge, RTC-Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 71, and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners inherited a 492-square-meter parcel of land in Taguig, Metro Manila. The National Historical Institute (NHI) passed a resolution declaring the land a national historical landmark because it was the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. The resolution was approved by the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports. Subsequently, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for expropriation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig to acquire the property for the stated public purpose of preserving it as a historical landmark.
The RTC issued an order fixing the provisional value of the property and authorizing the Republic to take possession upon deposit. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the expropriation was not for a genuine public purpose and that it would constitute an application of public funds for the benefit of a religious entity, violating Section 29(2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution . The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed petitioners’ special civil action for certiorari and prohibition.
ISSUE
Whether the expropriation of the subject property, declared a national historical landmark for being the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, satisfies the “public use” requirement for the valid exercise of eminent domain.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, upholding the validity of the expropriation. The Court explained that the power of eminent domain is inherent in sovereignty, and the constitutional mandate that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is a limitation, not a grant, of the power. The concept of “public use” has evolved beyond strict necessity or actual use by the public. It now encompasses any purpose that confers benefit to the general public, including the promotion of public welfare, which embraces the preservation of cultural heritage.
The Court held that the preservation of a historical landmark qualifies as a public purpose. The fact that the landmark is associated with the founder of a religious sect does not diminish its historical value or the public character of its preservation. The expropriation aims to recognize the historical contributions of an individual to national culture, which benefits the public by enriching historical knowledge. This purpose is distinct from promoting a religion. The incidental benefit to the religious group does not invalidate the public purpose, as the taking is for the State’s cultural and historical objectives. The Court also found no violation of the constitutional prohibition on using public funds for religious purposes, as the property is being acquired by the State for a secular public use.