G.R. No. L-14355; October 31, 1919
THE CITY OF MANILA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
The City of Manila filed a petition for expropriation in the Court of First Instance to acquire ownership of certain parcels of land within Block 83 of the Binondo district. The stated public purpose was the extension of Rizal Avenue. The defendants, including the Chinese Community of Manila (a corporation owning parcels of the land) and other individual landowners, opposed the expropriation. They argued, among other defenses, that: (1) the expropriation was neither necessary nor expedient as existing streets provided ample communication; (2) alternative routes were available at less expense; and (3) the land in question was a cemetery containing numerous graves and monuments, and its conversion into a street would desecrate the resting place of the dead, cause irreparable loss, and incur significant costs for relocation. The trial court, after hearing evidence, ruled that there was no necessity for the expropriation of the particular strip of land and absolved the defendants. The City of Manila appealed, contending that in expropriation proceedings, the courts cannot inquire into the necessity of the taking once the expropriating entity has the general authority to condemn property.

ISSUE:
In expropriation proceedings initiated by the City of Manila, may the courts inquire into and hear proof on the necessity of the expropriation?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. The Court held that while the City of Manila has the general authority to exercise the power of eminent domain under its charter (Act No. 2711, Sec. 2429), the courts are not mere appraisers of value. The applicable procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ) requires the court to first find that “the right to expropriate exists” before appointing commissioners to assess compensation. This judicial determination includes the right to inquire into the necessity of the expropriation for the declared public use. The Court found that the trial judge correctly exercised this power, examined the evidence, and concluded that no necessity was shown for taking the specific cemetery land, especially given the availability of other routes and the special nature of the property as a burial ground. The Court emphasized that the power of eminent domain, while supreme, must be exercised justly and not capriciously or arbitrarily. The judgment absolving the defendants was therefore upheld.