Sumulong vs.

Guerrero
Facts:
On December 5, 1977 the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed a complaint for expropriation of parcels of
land covering approximately twenty-five (25) hectares in Antipolo, Rizal including the lots of petitioners
Lorenzo Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes-Balaoing with an area of 6,667 square meters and 3,333 square
meters respectively. The land sought to be expropriated were valued by the NHA at one peso (P1.00) per
square meter adopting the market value.
Together with the complaint was a motion for immediate possession of the properties. The NHA
deposited the amount of P158,980.00 with the Philippine National Bank, representing the "total market value"
of the subject 25 hectares of land, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1224 which defines "the policy on the
expropriation of private property for socialized housing upon payment of just compensation."
On January 17, 1978, Judge Buenaventura Guerrero issued a writ of possession when the NHA
deposited with the Philippine National Bank the amount of P158, 980.00. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration on the ground that they had been deprived of the possession of their property without due
process of law, which was however denied. Hence, the resort to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not PD 1224 is violative of the due process clause since “socialized housing'' for the
purpose of condemnation proceeding is not really for a public purpose.

Ruling:
No. PD 1224 is not violative of the due process clause since “socialized housing'' for the purpose of
condemnation proceeding is really for a public purpose.
The "public use" requirement for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving
concept influenced by changing conditions. In this jurisdiction, the statutory and judicial trend has been
summarized as follows: The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a time when it was felt
that a literal meaning should be attached to such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be
for the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not allowable. It is not
anymore. 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
public use is. 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sumulong and Vidanes-Balaoing vs Guerrero and NHA Case Digest

G.R. No. L-48685 September 30, 1987 

FACTS: On December 5, 1977 the National Housing Authority (NIIA) filed a complaint for expropriation of
parcels of land covering approximately twenty five (25) hectares, (in Antipolo, Rizal) including the lots of
petitioners Lorenzo Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes-Balaoing with an area of 6,667 square meters and 3,333
square meters respectively. The land sought to be expropriated were valued by the NHA at one peso (P1.00)
per square meter adopting the market value fixed by the provincial assessor in accordance with presidential
decrees prescribing the valuation of property in expropriation proceedings. 

Together with the complaint was a motion for immediate possession of the properties. The NHA deposited the
amount of P158,980.00 with the Philippine National Bank, representing the "total market value" of the subject
twenty five hectares of land, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1224 which defines "the policy on the
expropriation of private property for socialized housing upon payment of just compensation." 

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that they had been deprived of the possession of
their property without due process of law. This was however, denied 
ISSUES: 

1) Respondent Judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by issuing
the Order of January 17, 1978 without notice and without hearing and in issuing the Order dated June 28,
1978 denying the motion for reconsideration. 

2) Pres. Decree l224, as amended, is unconstitutional for being violative of the due process clause,
specifically: 
 The Decree would allow the taking of property regardless of size and no matter how small the area to
be expropriated; 
 "Socialized housing" for the purpose of condemnation proceeding, as defined in said Decree, is not
really for a public purpose; 
 The Decree violates procedural due process as it allows immediate taking of possession, control and
disposition of property without giving the owner his day in court; 
 The Decree would allow the taking of private property upon payment of unjust and unfair valuations
arbitrarily fixed by government assessors; 
 The Decree would deprive the courts of their judicial discretion to determine what would be the "just
compensation" in each and every raise of expropriation. 
HELD: 

The exercise of the power of eminent domain is subject to certain limitations imposed by the constitution, to
wit: 

Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation (Art. IV, Sec. 9); 

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws (Art. IV, sec. 1). 

Petitioners contend that "socialized housing" as defined in Pres. Decree No. 1224, as amended, for the
purpose of condemnation proceedings is not "public use" since it will benefit only "a handful of people, bereft
of public character." 

The "public use" requirement for a and exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving
concept influenced by changing conditions. 

The restrictive view of public use may be appropriate for a nation which circumscribes the scope of
government activities and public concerns and which possesses big and correctly located public lands that
obviate the need to take private property for public purposes. Neither circumstance applies to the Philippines.
We have never been a laissez faire State. And the necessities which impel the exertion of sovereign power
are all too often found in areas of scarce public land or limited government resources. (p. 231) 

Specifically, urban renewal or redevelopment and the construction of low-cost housing is recognized as a
public purpose, not only because of the expanded concept of public use but also because of specific
provisions in the Constitution. The 1973 Constitution made it incumbent upon the State to establish, maintain
and ensure adequate social services including housing [Art. 11, sec. 7]. The 1987 Constitution goes even
further by providing that: 

The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of
the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote
full employment, a rising standard of living and an improved quality of life for all. [Art. II, sec. 9]