BF Homes P'que Gates open to public.

[mbt]

hehe sabi nga sa diyaryo na nagpadala yung city hall ng sulat sa mga homeowners, explaining that the mayor merely wanted to protect the homeowners from harassing BF security (or something like that)

pakialam ba ng city hall yan? BF is a private association, and if the homeowners are not satisfied with the security they pay for, then i'd think that it is within their power to settle it by themselves.

[Altis6453]

bro -- under the local government code in book 1, title 1, chapter 2, it provides:

"SECTION 19. Eminent Domain. − A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose, or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property."

thus, taking can be done for the following reasons: a) for public use; b) public purpose; c) public welfare for the benefit of the poor and landless

the 1987 philippine constitution also provides in article III (the bill of rights):

"Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation"

the constitutional basis for taking is simply and generally "public use"

the above gives you the legal basis for the act of the local government of paranaque

as to what is public use, we have jurisprudence on that matter

I believe that pertinent to the issue is...did the City of Paranaque exercise the power of eminent domain or merely exercise police power?

From what I gather, there wasn't any expropriation to speak of. So, in effect, there was a seizure of private property without just compensation.

Just to clarify a point made earlier, the individual residents do not own the roads within their subdivision. It is the homeowners' association which holds title to the property. So, while the purpose of the property is for public use, its ownership --- at least within the confines of the subdivision, is still private and the association is tasked with the maintenance of these roads.

[RedHotBlood]

pag uwi ko kanina maluwag na sa standard, yun pala pinaalis na din yung mga guard ng BF at yung makeshift sa elizalde wala na din! mukhang ganito na ito open to everybody. It's so unfair.

[oldblue]

I believe that pertinent to the issue is...did the City of Paranaque exercise the power of eminent domain or merely exercise police power?

From what I gather, there wasn't any expropriation to speak of. So, in effect, there was a seizure of private property without just compensation.

Just to clarify a point made earlier, the individual residents do not own the roads within their subdivision. It is the homeowners' association which holds title to the property. So, while the purpose of the property is for public use, its ownership --- at least within the confines of the subdivision, is still private and the association is tasked with the maintenance of these roads.

question po yun ba pag-aari ng subdivision say roads may real estate tax din, kasi d2 sa min nde nakabayad yun subd. sa real estate tax ng basketball court, nag-default na daw sabi ng munisipyo kaya may power na munisipsyo to take over our basketball court. I just wanna know if it applies to subd. roads as well.

[111prez]

I believe that pertinent to the issue is...did the City of Paranaque exercise the power of eminent domain or merely exercise police power?

From what I gather, there wasn't any expropriation to speak of. So, in effect, there was a seizure of private property without just compensation.

Just to clarify a point made earlier, the individual residents do not own the roads within their subdivision. It is the homeowners' association which holds title to the property. So, while the purpose of the property is for public use, its ownership --- at least within the confines of the subdivision, is still private and the association is tasked with the maintenance of these roads.

under book 1 title 1 chapter 2, it states:

SECTION 16. General Welfare. − Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted,those necessarily implied there from, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self−reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote
full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

further, it states:

SECTION 21. Closure and Opening of Roads.

(a) A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or open any local road, alley, park, or square falling within its jurisdiction: Provided, however, That in case of permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved by at least two−thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Sanggunian, and when necessary, an adequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to closure is provided.

xxx"

the provisions above, taken hand in hand with the power of eminent domain or expropriation cannot be taken in isolation of each other but rather as a whole

thus, if the exercise of police power results in expropriation of private property for public use, then just compensation is due

the general welfare clause triggers the "right" of the local government unit to effect the necessary police action and if the "public use" is established (i.e. the grounds for expropriation is proper), then compensation is due as a result of this taking.

thus, if we limit the cause of action or issue of the BF residents to merely the exercise of police power, it may stand on precarious grounds compared to a situation where you question the exercise of police power as well as the capability of the local government to pay just compensation because without just compensation, there can be no taking or expropriation.

[scarab]

pag uwi ko kanina maluwag na sa standard, yun pala pinaalis na din yung mga guard ng BF at yung makeshift sa elizalde wala na din! mukhang ganito na ito open to everybody. It's so unfair.

...teka, diba yung BF gate sa may standard eh sakop na ng las piñas yun o alabang? so di na pwede pakialaman ni bernabe yun?

O.T. may tubig ba kayo? pinutulan daw ng kuryente ang BF waterworks? ampanget ng tubig sa deepwell namin eh.

[gearspeed]

Sana naman ayusin na nila yung mga kalsada sa BF Homes at ang lalim pa nung lubak dun sa tapat na nagbebenta ng mga plants napapapunta ako sa kabilang lane dahil sumayad ako dati dun....
Dyan din ako dumadaan sa standard kapag papunta ng rota wheels dati ang trapik lalo na kapag palabas ka na ng BF Homes dun sa President's Ave.

[Altis6453]

under book 1 title 1 chapter 2, it states:

SECTION 16. General Welfare. − Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted,those necessarily implied there from, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self−reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote
full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

further, it states:

SECTION 21. Closure and Opening of Roads.

(a) A local government unit may, pursuant to an ordinance, permanently or temporarily close or open any local road, alley, park, or square falling within its jurisdiction: Provided, however, That in case of permanent closure, such ordinance must be approved by at least two−thirds (2/3) of all the members of the Sanggunian, and when necessary, an adequate substitute for the public facility that is subject to closure is provided.

xxx"

the provisions above, taken hand in hand with the power of eminent domain or expropriation cannot be taken in isolation of each other but rather as a whole

thus, if the exercise of police power results in expropriation of private property for public use, then just compensation is due

the general welfare clause triggers the "right" of the local government unit to effect the necessary police action and if the "public use" is established (i.e. the grounds for expropriation is proper), then compensation is due as a result of this taking.

thus, if we limit the cause of action or issue of the BF residents to merely the exercise of police power, it may stand on precarious grounds compared to a situation where you question the exercise of police power as well as the capability of the local government to pay just compensation because without just compensation, there can be no taking or expropriation.

Well, two questions arise: (1) Was there an ordinance from the City Council of Paranaque ordering the opening of their gates?; (2) if there is an ordinance, was there just compensation paid?

As far as I know, the power to exercise eminent domain is initiated through the courts and the "taking" may only be done after the local government unit pays "just compensation". A city ordinance which purports to compel the opening of private roads for public use is an exercise of eminent domain which must be done through the courts. Otherwise, there will be taking of property without just compensation by having the city council omit a provision in the ordinance which provides for payment to the property owner.

[Altis6453]

question po yun ba pag-aari ng subdivision say roads may real estate tax din, kasi d2 sa min nde nakabayad yun subd. sa real estate tax ng basketball court, nag-default na daw sabi ng munisipyo kaya may power na munisipsyo to take over our basketball court. I just wanna know if it applies to subd. roads as well.

In a word, yes. Check your subdivision's Master Deed and Declaration of Restrictions. I would think that the developer included the basketball court as an amenity which is part of the common areas of the subdivision. Meaning, it still is private property. The local government can't take over right away, though unless the subdivision has not been paying the real property taxes for a number of years now. It has to sell the property by public auction and only after due notices have been given.

[111prez]

Well, two questions arise: (1) Was there an ordinance from the City Council of Paranaque ordering the opening of their gates?; (2) if there is an ordinance, was there just compensation paid?

As far as I know, the power to exercise eminent domain is initiated through the courts and the "taking" may only be done after the local government unit pays "just compensation". A city ordinance which purports to compel the opening of private roads for public use is an exercise of eminent domain which must be done through the courts. Otherwise, there will be taking of property without just compensation by having the city council omit a provision in the ordinance which provides for payment to the property owner.

tama ka rin bro

there is an ordinance. its ordinance no 00-15 passed in 2000 providing for the opening to public roads in subdivisions linked to major city thoroughfares.. apparently, this was preceded by ordinance 97-08 issued in 1997 reclassifying aguirre and el grande avenues into commercial zones

the passing of the ordinance was most likely done in accordance with the above provisions in line with the general welfare clause

but if this results in the taking of property (such as what is being done by the paranaque city government now by taking control of the ingress and egress), then a case of expropriation and just compensation is proper

the paranaque rtc just issued a tro. it will be interesting to see how this will play out

OT: sign up ka sa sa tsikot law.