On, September 25, 1938, Republic of the Philippines instituted a special

civil action for expropriation with the court of Instance (CFI) of Cebu
involving Lots 932 and 939 of the Banilad Friar Land Estate, Lahug,
Cebu City, for the purpose of establishing a military reservation for the
Philippine Army. Lot 932 was registered in the name of Gervasia
Denzon while Lot 939 was in the name of Eulalia Denzon. On May 14,
1940, the CFI rendered its Decision ordering the Republic to pay the
Denzons the sum of ₱4,062.10 as just compensation. The republic failed
to pay for the lots, on September 20, 1961, the Denzons’ successors-in-
interest, Francisca Galeos-Valdehueza and Josefina Galeos-Panerio,2
filed with the same CFI an action for recovery of possession with
damages against the Republic and officers of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines in possession of the property. On July 31, 1962, the CFI
promulgated its Decision in favor of Valdehueza and Panerio, holding
that they are the owners and have retained their right as such over Lots
932 and 939 because of the Republic’s failure to pay the amount of
₱4,062.10,

Meanwhile, in 1964, Valdehueza and Panerio mortgaged Lot 932 to

Vicente Lim as security for their loans. For their failure to pay Lim
despite demand, he had the mortgage foreclosed in 1976. On May 4,
2001, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent, the judgment
is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff Vicente Lim the absolute and
exclusive owner of Lot No. 932 with all the rights of an absolute owner
including the right to possession. For respondent’s part, mortgage is
inseparable from the property. Respondent must have known that even if
Lot 932 is ultimately expropriated by the Republic, still, his right as a
mortgage is protected. In summation, while the prevailing doctrine is
that "the non-payment of just compensation does not entitle the private
landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots, However, in
cases where the government failed to pay just compensation within five
5 years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation
proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover
possession of their property. It is the duty of the government, whenever
it takes property from private persons against their will, to facilitate the
payment of just compensation. In

Public use is the use of property by the government for the benefit of the
public. In this case, the Republic used Lots 932 and 939 for the purpose
of establishing a military reservation for the Philippine Army. Lot 932
had ceased to operate as an airport. Thirteen structures was made as
residence apartments of military personnel and two buildings are used as
training centers. The concept of public use is essential to the
government's ability to acquire private property for public purposes.
Without the power of eminent domain, the government would be unable
to build the infrastructure that is necessary.

However, the power of eminent domain is not unlimited. The

government cannot take property for the sole benefit of a private
individual or group. Additionally, the government must pay just
compensation to the property owner. In the present case, fifty-seven (57)
years have lapsed from the time the Decision in the subject expropriation
proceedings became final, but still the Republic of the Philippines,
herein petitioner, has not compensated the owner of the property. The
right covers the person’s life, his liberty and his property under Section 1
of Article III of the Constitution. With regard to his property, the owner
enjoys the added protection of Section 9, which reaffirms the familiar
rule that private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation. The Court of Appeals says "just compensation embraces
not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners
of the land, but also the payment for the land within a reasonable time
from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered ‘just.’ The government cannot simply take property without
paying the owner fair market value.

b. Can the state acquire properties where the informal settlers are
located?
Yes, the state can acquire properties where informal settlers are located,
but it must do so through a legal process and must pay just compensation
to the property owner.

The 1987 Constitution, in Article III, Section 9, provides that the

government may acquire private property by expropriation, but only for
public use and upon payment of just compensation.

c. Is it the obligation of the state to relocate them?

Yes, it is the obligation of the state to relocate informal settlers who are
displaced by government projects. The state must provide relocation
assistance to the informal settlers, which may include housing,
transportation, and financial assistance.

The 1987 Constitution, in Article III, Section 1, provides that the

government has a duty to protect the rights of its citizens, including no
personal shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. This provision has been interpreted by the Supreme
Court to mean that the government has a duty to provide relocation
assistance to informal settlers who are displaced by government projects.

In the case of Urban Land Reform Institute v. Secretary of Agrarian

Reform (2007), the Supreme Court held that the government has a duty
to protect the rights of informal settlers and that the government must
take steps to ensure that informal settlers are not displaced from their
homes without just compensation.

Local Government Taxation in the Philippines

The power of local governments to impose taxes is enshrined in the
1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Article X, Section 5 states that
"each local government unit shall have the power to create its own
sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such
guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with
the basic policy of local autonomy."

This provision grants local governments the authority to raise revenue

through various means, including property taxes, business taxes, and
user fees. The purpose of this provision is to empower local
governments to finance their own operations and provide essential
services to their constituents.

The specific powers of local governments to tax vary depending on the

type of local government unit (LGU). Municipalities, cities, and
provinces have different taxation powers. For instance, municipalities
have the authority to impose property taxes, business taxes, and other
local taxes, while cities have the additional power to impose amusement
taxes and franchise taxes.

Local governments are also authorized to levy fees and charges for the
use of their facilities and services. These fees and charges are typically
used to cover the cost of providing these services.

The exercise of the power to tax by local governments is subject to

certain guidelines and limitations set by Congress. These guidelines and
limitations are designed to ensure that local taxes are fair, equitable, and
consistent with national policies.

b.

The primary distinction between local and national taxes lies in the level of government
that imposes them. Local taxes are levied by local governments, such as cities,
municipalities, and provinces. These taxes are typically used to fund local government
operations and services, such as infrastructure development, education, and public
safety.
On the other hand, national taxes are imposed by the national government, as
stipulated in Article VI, Section 28 of the 1987 Constitution. These taxes are used to
finance national programs and services that extend across the entire country, such as
social welfare programs, national infrastructure projects, and defense.

Scope of the Tax Base

Local and national taxes also differ in the scope of their tax bases. Local taxes are
typically levied on a narrower tax base, encompassing activities or properties within the
local government's jurisdiction. For instance, property taxes apply to real estate situated
within the municipality or province, while business taxes target businesses operating
within the local area.

In contrast, national taxes have a broader tax base, covering activities or properties
across the entire country. Income taxes, for example, are imposed on individuals'
income earned anywhere in the Philippines, regardless of their residence.

Purpose of Tax Revenue

The intended use of tax revenue also distinguishes local and national taxes. Local taxes
are primarily used to fund local government operations and services, directly benefiting
the residents within the local government's jurisdiction. These funds support essential
services like infrastructure maintenance, education, and public safety, ensuring the well-
being of the local community.

National taxes, on the other hand, are used to finance national programs and services
that extend across the entire country. These funds support initiatives that benefit the
nation as a whole, such as social welfare programs, national infrastructure projects, and
defense.

Constitutional Provisions

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines recognizes the distinct roles of local and
national governments in imposing taxes. Article X, Section 5 grants local governments
the authority to levy taxes, fees, and charges to fund their operations and services. This
provision underscores the importance of local autonomy in addressing the specific
needs of communities.

Meanwhile, Article VI, Section 28 empowers the national government to impose taxes,
emphasizing its responsibility for national programs and services that benefit the entire
country. This provision highlights the national government's role in ensuring equitable
distribution of resources across the nation.
Conclusion

The distinction between local and national taxes lies in the level of government, the
scope of the tax base, and the purpose of tax revenue. Local taxes cater to the specific
needs of local communities, while national taxes address broader national concerns.
Both types of taxes play crucial roles in ensuring the effective functioning of the
Philippine government at all levels.

c. Lifeblood Theory of Taxation in the Philippines

The power of taxation is called the "lifeblood theory" because it is essential for the
functioning of government. Without tax revenue, the government would not
be able to provide essential services to its citizens. This ia a breakdown of
essential services, such as police and fire protection, education, and infrastructure.

The lifeblood theory of taxation is based on the idea that government is like a living
organism. Just as a living organism needs blood to function, government needs tax
revenue to function. Without tax revenue, government would be like a body without
blood: it would be unable to function properly. The lifeblood theory of taxation is
reflected in the 1987 Constitution. The Constitution explicitly grants
both the national and local governments the power to tax. Government is a
public entity that relies on the support of its citizens in order to function. This support is
often provided in the form of taxes. This recognition of the importance of
taxation underscores the vital role that it plays in the Philippine
government's ability to fulfill its mandate to serve its citizens.