G.R. Nos. L-60549, 60553 to 60555 October 26, 1983
HEIRS OF JUANCHO ARDONA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN Y. REYES, Executive Judge and Presiding Judge of Branch I, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, and the PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) filed four expropriation complaints to acquire approximately 282 hectares of land in Cebu City, under the authority of its Revised Charter (P.D. No. 564) and Proclamation No. 2052, which declared the area a tourist zone. The PTA planned to develop the land into an integrated resort complex featuring a golf course, sports facilities, and complementary infrastructure to promote tourism. The landowners, petitioners herein, opposed the expropriation, filing motions to dismiss in the lower court. They argued the taking was not for a constitutionally mandated “public use,” contending tourism development was not a public purpose equivalent to traditional uses like roads or schools. They further asserted the land was part of a land reform area, making agrarian reform paramount, and that jurisdiction belonged to the agrarian court. The lower court, upon PTA’s deposit of the provisional value as per P.D. No. 1533, issued orders authorizing immediate possession and writs of possession. The petitioners then filed this certiorari petition directly with the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of P.D. No. 564 and the expropriation orders.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the expropriation of private property for the development of a tourism resort complex constitutes a valid exercise of eminent domain for “public use” as required by the Constitution.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition, upholding the expropriation. The Court ruled that the concept of “public use” is not confined to literal use by the public but extends to “public purpose” or “public benefit.” The development of a tourism resort complex, which includes sports facilities, recreational areas, and infrastructure like power and water systems open for public use, qualifies as a public purpose. It aims to promote tourism, generate employment, increase income, and improve community living standards, thereby conferring direct and indirect benefits to the public. The Court emphasized that the determination of public purpose is primarily a legislative prerogative. Presidential Decree No. 564, which grants PTA the power to expropriate for tourism development, carries a presumption of constitutionality. The petitioners failed to present compelling evidence to rebut this presumption. The Court also noted that the assurances of providing displaced persons with employment and better living conditions further supported the public character of the taking. The ancillary issues regarding land reform and jurisdiction were not deemed sufficient to invalidate the expropriation proceedings, as the power of eminent domain, when exercised for a legitimate public purpose, is sustained.