G.R. No. L-21064 February 18, 1970
J.M. TUASON and CO., INC., petitioner-appellee, vs. THE LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION, THE SOLICITOR GENERAL and THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves a constitutional challenge to the congressional power of expropriation granted under the Philippine Constitution. The specific provision authorizes Congress to expropriate lands for subdivision into small lots and conveyance at cost to individuals. The main opinion of Justice Fernando described this power as having a “well-nigh all embracing sweep” but also stated it was not without limits. Justice Barredo, in his concurring opinion, seeks to clarify these seemingly inconsistent statements regarding the scope and limits of this expropriation power.

ISSUE

The primary issue addressed in Justice Barredo’s concurring opinion is the proper interpretation of the constitutional grant to Congress of the power to expropriate lands for subdivision and resale at cost. Specifically, whether this power is unlimited or subject to judicial review regarding the “public use” requirement.

RULING

Justice Barredo concurs with the main decision but provides a separate opinion to clarify his position. He holds that the constitutional power granted to Congress to authorize the expropriation of lands for subdivision and resale at cost to individuals is unlimited by any other provision of the Constitution. He views the requirement of “just compensation” as an inherent part of the power of eminent domain, not a limitation on the grant itself. He asserts that while the valid exercise of the power requires the taking to be for “public use,” the constitutional provision itself declares that objective—the amelioration of socio-agrarian conditions. Therefore, once Congress enacts legislation declaring the condemnation of particular land for that specified constitutional purpose, the judiciary should not inquire into whether the taking is for public use. The role of the judiciary is limited to determining the existence of enabling legislation, verifying that the facts fall within the contemplation of that act, and ensuring procedural due process. However, Barredo agrees that if, contrary to the congressional assumption, a land is already subdivided and subject to conventional transactions between owners and occupants, the law would be inoperative in that instance, but not unconstitutional. He bases his view on the deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention, which he annexes to his opinion, showing a clear consensus to grant this power to Congress to address social problems.