Philippine Tourism Authority's Power of Eminent Domain for Tourism Development | Summaries Law

HEIRS OF ARDONA,petitioner,

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

October 26, 1983 G.R. No L-60549, 60553 to 60555 GUTTIEREZ JR., J.

FACTS

The Philippine Tourism Authority filed four (4) Complaints with the Court of First Instance of Cebu City for the

expropriation of some 282 hectares of rolling land situated in barangays Malubog and Babag, Cebu City,

under PTA's express authority "to acquire by purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any

private land within and without the tourist zones" for the purposes indicated in Section 5, paragraph B(2), of its

Revised Charter (PD 564), more specifically, for the development into integrated resort complexes of selected

and well-defined geographic areas with potential tourism value.

Due to this, the petitioners alleged that the expropriation is not for the purpose of public use and that there is

no specific constitutional provision authorizing the taking of private property for tourism purposes; that

assuming that PTA has such power, the intended use cannot be paramount to the determination of the land as

a land reform area.

The petitioners look for the word "tourism" in the Constitution. Understandably the search would be in vain.

The petitioners adopts a strict construction and declare that "public use" means literally use by the public and

that "public use" is not synonymous with "public interest", "public benefit", or "public welfare" and much less

"public convenience. "

ISSUE/S

Do the purposes of the taking in this case constitute "public use"?

RULING

Yes. The petitioners' contention that the promotion of tourism is not "public use" because private

concessioners would be allowed to maintain various facilities such as restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. inside the

tourist complex is impressed with even less merit. The policy objectives of the framers of the constitution can

be expressed only in general terms such as social justice, local autonomy, conservation and development of

the national patrimony, public interest, and general welfare, among others. The programs to achieve these

objectives vary from time to time and according to place, To freeze specific programs like Tourism into express

constitutional provisions would make the Constitution more prolix than a bulky code. The particular mention in

the Constitution of agrarian reform and the transfer of utilities and other private enterprises to public ownership

merely underscores the magnitude of the problems sought to be remedied by these programs. They do not

preclude nor limit the exercise of the power of eminent domain for such purposes like tourism and other

Partial preview of the text

Download Philippine Tourism Authority's Power of Eminent Domain for Tourism Development and more Summaries Law in PDF only on Docsity!

HEIRS OF ARDONA, petitioner,

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

October 26, 1983 G.R. No L-60549, 60553 to 60555 GUTTIEREZ JR., J. FACTS The Philippine Tourism Authority filed four (4) Complaints with the Court of First Instance of Cebu City for the expropriation of some 282 hectares of rolling land situated in barangays Malubog and Babag, Cebu City, under PTA's express authority "to acquire by purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any private land within and without the tourist zones" for the purposes indicated in Section 5, paragraph B(2), of its Revised Charter (PD 564), more specifically, for the development into integrated resort complexes of selected and well-defined geographic areas with potential tourism value. Due to this, the petitioners alleged that the expropriation is not for the purpose of public use and that there is no specific constitutional provision authorizing the taking of private property for tourism purposes ; that assuming that PTA has such power, the intended use cannot be paramount to the determination of the land as a land reform area. The petitioners look for the word "tourism" in the Constitution. Understandably the search would be in vain. The petitioners adopts a strict construction and declare that "public use" means literally use by the public and that "public use" is not synonymous with "public interest", "public benefit", or "public welfare" and much less "public convenience. " ISSUE/S Do the purposes of the taking in this case constitute "public use"? RULING Yes. The petitioners' contention that the promotion of tourism is not "public use" because private concessioners would be allowed to maintain various facilities such as restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. inside the tourist complex is impressed with even less merit. The policy objectives of the framers of the constitution can be expressed only in general terms such as social justice, local autonomy, conservation and development of the national patrimony, public interest, and general welfare, among others. The programs to achieve these objectives vary from time to time and according to place, To freeze specific programs like Tourism into express constitutional provisions would make the Constitution more prolix than a bulky code. The particular mention in the Constitution of agrarian reform and the transfer of utilities and other private enterprises to public ownership merely underscores the magnitude of the problems sought to be remedied by these programs. They do not preclude nor limit the exercise of the power of eminent domain for such purposes like tourism and other

development programs. As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is in the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. The petitioners have failed to overcome the burden of anyone trying to strike down a statute or decree whose avowed purpose is the legislative perception is the public good. A statute has in its favor the presumption of validity. All reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a law. The courts will not set aside a law as violative of the Constitution except in a clear case The right of the PTA to proceed with the expropriation of the 282 hectares already Identified as fit for the establishment of a resort complex to promote tourism is, therefore, sustained. WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. ADDITIONAL NOTES The power of eminent domain is expressly provided for under Section 5 B(2) as follows: xxx xxx xxx

Acquisition of Private Lands, Power of Eminent Domain. — To acquire by purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation proceedings any private land within and without the tourist zones for any of the following reasons: (a) consolidation of lands for tourist zone development purposes, (b) prevention of land speculation in areas declared as tourist zones, (c) acquisition of right of way to the zones, (d) protection of water shed areas and natural assets with tourism value, and (e) for any other purpose expressly authorized under this Decree and accordingly, to exercise the power of eminent domain under its own name, which shall proceed in the manner prescribed by law and/or the Rules of Court on condemnation proceedings. The Authority may use any mode of payment which it may deem expedient and acceptable to the land owners: Provided, That in case bonds are used as payment, the conditions and restrictions set forth in Chapter III, Section 8 to 13 inclusively, of this Decree shall apply.

supplemental motion for reconsideration. ISSUE/S Whether the respondent illegally engaged in private practice when she notarized the documents in August and September 2009 while she was still employed by the National Housing Authority? RULING Since there was no petition filed on the said dates, and the authority given by the NHA comes as an attachment to the petition, the logical conclusion is that there was no authority given by the NHA in order for respondent to engage in the limited practice of notarial services when she notarized the documents in August and September 2008. Section 7, paragraph b(2), R.A. 6713, prohibits any public official and employee to engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law. Respondent is a government employee and is prohibited from engaging in the private practice of her profession unless authorized by the NHA. Complainant has established that on two occasions respondent engaged in notarial practice while employed as Legal Officer of [the] NHA in 2008, without prior authority from the NHA. WHEREFORE , the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Resolution dated May 16, 2016 and the Joint Order dated December 2, 2016 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-C-15-0487 are hereby AFFIRMED. ADDITIONAL NOTES Public officials and employees during their incumbency are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by law or the Constitution and such practice should not be in conflict with their official functions. Memorandum Circular No. 17 of the Executive Department allows government employees to engage directly in the private practice of their profession provided there is a written permission from the Department head.

MUNTUERTO vs. ALBERTO, A.C. No. 12289, ATTY. ANASTACIO T. MUNTUERTO, JR.; ATTY. RAMON JOSE G. DUYONGCO; ATTY. MARIO Y. CA VADA; and ATTY. CHAD RODOLFO M. MIEL, complainant, vs. ATTY. GERARDO WILFREDO L. ALBERTO, respondents April 02, 2019 April 02, 2019 April 02, 2019 FACTS A lawyer who notarizes documents without a notarial commission, and assists and abets the unauthorized practice of law by a non-lawyer, deliberately violates the Lawyer's Oath and transgresses the canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In the case at bar, respondent was the counsel of record of Cristeto E. Dinopol, Jr., who had instituted an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession and damages against Singfil Hydro Builders. Attached to the complaint filed is a supplemental agreement and an amended joint venture agreement separately acknowledged before him as a notary public for and in Cavite City. However, the Notarial Division of the RTC in Cavite City certified that it had " no record of any Commission/Order the respondent as Notary Public for the City of Cavite”. He also had not indicated his MCLE certificate of compliance number and the date of issue of such certificate. He also had his client sign and file the so- called Motion for Prior Leave of Court to Admit the Herein Attached Amended Complaint , with the amended complaint attached; he had further falsified the supposed secretary's certificate to make it appear that he had been duly appointed as the acting corporate secretary of Singtrader JV Corporation. According to the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice , which expressly defines a notary public as "any person commissioned to perform official acts under the [2004 Rules on Notarial Practice ]." The commission, which is the grant of authority to perform notarial acts, is issued upon due application by the Executive Judge of the province or city where the applicant is to have a regular place of work or business after a summary hearing conducted by the Executive Judge following the publication of the notice of summary hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in said province or city, and after posting of the notice of summary hearing in a conspicuous place in the offices of the Executive Judge and of the Clerk of Court. Clearly, the exercise of the authority to notarize cannot simply be done by anyone. An administrative complaint was filed against the respondent, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) directed him to file his answer. However, he did not comply, and for that reason he was declared in default. The IBP then conducted a mandatory conference on June 18, 2016, but the respondent did not attend the same despite notice. Furthermore, he did not file his position paper.

Philippine Tourism Authority's Power of Eminent Domain for Tourism Development, Summaries of Law

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Philippine Tourism Authority's Power of Eminent Domain for Tourism Development and more Summaries Law in PDF only on Docsity!

HEIRS OF ARDONA, petitioner,

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