Republic vs. PLDTFacts:Sometime in 1933, the defendant PLDT entered into an agreement with RCA Communications Inc., an American corporation, whereby telephone messages coming from the US and received by RCAs domestic station, could automatically be transferred to the lines of PLDT, and vice versa. The plaintiff through the Bureau of Telecommunications, after having set up its own Government Telephone System, by utilizing its own appropriation and equipment and by renting trunk lines of the PLDT, entered into an agreement with RCA for a joint overseas telephone service. Alleging that plaintiff is in competition with them, PLDT notified the former and receiving no reply, disconnected the trunk lines being rented by the same; thus, prompting the plaintiff to file a case before the CFI praying for judgment commanding PLDT to execute a contract with the Bureau for the use of the facilities of PLDTs telephone system, and for a writ of preliminary injunction against the defendant to restrain the severance of the existing trunk lines and restore those severed.

Issue: Whether or not the defendant PLDT can be compelled to enter into a contract with the plaintiff.

Held:No. While the Republic may not compel the PLDT to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined by the court.

People vs. Fajardo

Facts:Fajardo was mayor in Baao, Camrines Sur when the municipal council passed the ordinance that prohibits the construction of a building that blocks the view of the town plaza. Moreover, it redirects the grant of permission to the mayor. After his incumbency, Fajardo applied for a permit to build a building beside the gasoline station near the town plaza. His request was repeatedly denied. He continued with the construction under the rationale that he needed a house to stay in because the old one was destroyed by a typhoon. He was convicted and ordered to pay a fine and demolish the building due to its obstructing view. He appealed to the CA, which in turn forwarded the petition due to the question of the ordinances constitutionality.

Issue: Is the ordinance constitutional?

Held: No. The ordinance doesnt state any standard that limits the grant of power to the mayor. It is an arbitrary and unlimited conferment.Ordinances which thus invest a city council with a discretion which is purely arbitrary, and which may be exercised in the interest of a favored few, are unreasonable and invalid. The ordinance should have established a rule by which its impartial enforcement could be secured. All of the authorities cited above sustain this conclusion.The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that it operates to permanently deprive appellants of the right to use their own property; hence, it oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts to a taking of appellants property without just compensation.While property may be regulated to the interest of the general welfare, and the state may eliminate structures offensive to the sight, the state may not permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community.Fajardo would be constrained to let the land be fallow and not be used for urban purposes. To do this legally, there must be just compensation and they must be given an opportunity to be heard.An ordinance which permanently so restricts the use of property that it can not be used for any reasonable purpose goes, it is plain, beyond regulation and must be recognized as a taking of the property.The validity was also refuted by the Admin Code which states:SEC. 2243. Certain legislative powers of discretionary character. The municipal council shall have authority to exercise the following discretionary powers:x x x x x x x x x(c) To establish fire limits in populous centers, prescribe the kinds of buildings that may be constructed or repaired within them, and issue permits for the creation or repair thereof, charging a fee which shall be determined by the municipal council and which shall not be less than two pesos for each building permit and one peso for each repair permit issued. The fees collected under the provisions of this subsection shall accrue to the municipal school fund.Since, there was absolutely no showing in this case that the municipal council had either established fire limits within the municipality or set standards for the kind or kinds of buildings to be constructed or repaired within them before it passed the ordinance in question, it is clear that said ordinance was not conceived and promulgated under the express authority of sec. 2243 (c)

Republic vs. Vda De Castell VIFacts:After the owner of a parcel of land that has been rented and occupied by the government in 1947 refused to extend the lease, the latter commenced expropriation proceedings in 1959. During the assessment of just compensation, the government argued that it had taken the property when the contract of lease commenced and not when the proceedings begun. The owner maintains that the disputed land was not taken when the government commenced to occupy the said land as lessee because the essential elements of the taking of property under the power of eminent domain, namely (1) entrance and occupation by condemnor upon the private property for more than a momentary period, and (2) devoting it to a public use in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property, are not present.

Issue:Whether or not the taking of property has taken place when the condemnor has entered and occupied the property as lesse.

Held:No, the property was deemed taken only when the expropriation proceedings commenced in 1959.

The essential elements of the taking are: (1) Expropriator must enter a private property, (2) for more than a momentary period, (3) and under warrant of legal authority, (4) devoting it to public use, or otherwise informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as (5) substantially to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.

In the case at bar, these elements were not present when the government entered and occupied the property under a contract of lease.