G.R. No. 19280; March 16, 1923
THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ASUNCION MITCHEL, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The Manila Railroad Company, a foreign corporation operating a railroad in Luzon, filed an expropriation complaint to condemn a parcel of land (Lot No. 1) owned by the estate of Pedro Sy Quia, adjacent to its Manila terminal. The trial court authorized the company to take possession. Asuncion Mitchel, as administratrix of the estate, answered, denying the company’s legal authority to expropriate and asserting the land was not necessary for railroad operations. Commissioners were appointed to assess compensation. Later, Mitchel moved to dismiss, arguing the company failed to prove its authority, the necessity of the taking, and that it attempted to negotiate purchase beforehand. The trial court found only the portion occupied by a building was necessary for condemnation, excluding the unoccupied part. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Manila Railroad Company has the legal authority to exercise the power of eminent domain.
2. Whether the company must prove the particular use and necessity for the property and that it attempted to purchase the property amicably before resorting to expropriation.
3. Whether the consent of the City of Manila was a condition precedent for the expropriation.

RULING

1. *Yes. Under its franchise (Act No. 1510), the Manila Railroad Company is expressly granted the power of eminent domain to acquire lands necessary for the construction, maintenance, and operation of its railroad, including terminals and other facilities. The law does not restrict this power to lands outside city limits.
2. On necessity: The company’s determination of necessity is generally conclusive unless shown to be fraudulent or in bad faith. The evidence established the land was necessary for terminal expansion to handle increasing traffic. The trial court’s finding of partial necessity was overruled; the entire lot was deemed necessary.
On prior negotiation: The company’s franchise contains no requirement to attempt amicable purchase before filing expropriation. The institution of the suit itself sufficiently demonstrates the failure to agree.
3. No, consent was not a condition precedent unfulfilled.* The franchise condition requiring consent of local authorities is for the benefit of the city, not a third party. In any event, the City of Manila, through its Fiscal, appeared and consented to the expropriation in court.
The order of the trial court was modified. The condemnation of the entire Lot No. 1 was declared necessary, and the company was held entitled to exercise its power of eminent domain over the whole lot. The case was remanded for further proceedings on compensation.