Scribd
Upload
281 views2 pages

125 de Knecht V Bautista

The State has the right to take private property for public use upon paying just compensation. However, it cannot arbitrarily choose which private properties to take. The case involved a change in the planned route for an EDSA extension. Originally it was planned to go through Cuneta Avenue but was suddenly changed to go through Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets, requiring expropriation of properties. The court found the change to be arbitrary as the cost difference between routes was minimal and functionality favored Cuneta Avenue over the new route. Further, greater social and economic impact would be borne by residents of Cuneta. Therefore, the petition challenging the route change was granted.

Uploaded by

JOSHUA KENNETH LAZARO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
281 views2 pages

125 de Knecht V Bautista

The State has the right to take private property for public use upon paying just compensation. However, it cannot arbitrarily choose which private properties to take. The case involved a change in the planned route for an EDSA extension. Originally it was planned to go through Cuneta Avenue but was suddenly changed to go through Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets, requiring expropriation of properties. The court found the change to be arbitrary as the cost difference between routes was minimal and functionality favored Cuneta Avenue over the new route. Further, greater social and economic impact would be borne by residents of Cuneta. Therefore, the petition challenging the route change was granted.

Uploaded by

JOSHUA KENNETH LAZARO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

125. De Knecht v.

Bautista
G.R. No. L-51078 | October 30, 1980
Jeah Noreen Dalaten and Jewel Culala

DOCTRINE: The State has the right to take private property for public use upon the payment
of just compensation but it may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private property
should be taken.

FACTS:

Petitioner Cristina De Knecht filed a formal petition for the Ministry of Public Highways (MPH) to
adopt the latter’s original plan of making the extension of EDSA through Cuneta Avenue instead
of the new plan going through Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets. Expropriation of properties
are called for the extension.

Knecht claims that the condemnor may not choose any property it wants. Where the legislature
has delegated a power of eminent domain, the question of the necessity for taking a particular
line rests in the discretion of the grantee subject to review by the courts only in cases of fraud,
bad faith or gross abuse of discretion.

Respondents, on the other hand, argue that there was no sudden change of plan in the
selection of the site. Both lines, Cuneta Avenue and Del Pan-Fernando Rein Street, meet
satisfactorily planning and design criteria and therefore are both acceptable. The change in the
plan was brought to minimize the cost of PHP 2 Million and the social impact factor or problem
involved.

ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the change of location for extension was arbitrary (YES).

RULING:
There is no question as to the right of the Republic of the Philippines to take private property for
public use upon the payment of just compensation. Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution (now
Section 9, Article III of the 1987 Constitution) of the Philippines provides: 'Private property shall
not be taken for public use without just compensation."

It is recognized, however, that the government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what
private property should be taken.

In the instant case, it is a fact that the MPH originally [planned to] establish the extension of
EDSA along Cuneta Avenue. It is to be presumed that the Department of Public Highways
made studies before deciding on Cuneta Avenue. It is indeed odd why suddenly the proposed
extension of EDSA to Roxas Boulevard was changed to go through Fernando Rein — Del Pan
Streets.

The Court relies on the findings made by the Human Settlements Commission which considered
functionality, social impact, and cost of each line.
The cost difference factor between the two alignments is so minimal that it can be disregarded in
making a choice. The factor of functionality discourages strongly against the selection of Del Pan-
Fernando Rein while the factor of great social and economic impact bears grievously on the residents of
Cuneta.

The choice has been boiled down between people and progress and development. The Court
recognizes that the progress and development are carried out by the State precisely and
ultimately for the benefit of the people and therefore, recommends the reversion of the
extension project to Cuneta.

HELD:
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereby granted.

HELD:
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereby granted.

You might also like