United States v Causby [328 U.S. 256]

Constitutional Law II - Eminent Domain

Facts:

Respondents owned land, within it the house and a chicken farm, is situated near an airport. It is situated within the low altitude glide path of the various military aircrafts onto the airport runway such that if they were to build a building it would be impossible as it would cause collision with the landing aircraft. Also, upon the glide path, respondents’ chicken run amok and crash into the walls of the farm due to the plane’s loud noises and bright lights. This caused many deaths for the chickens. Such is the reason why their chicken farm had to stop production. Due to this, respondents claim that their property was “taken” and therefore must be justly compensated.

Contention arose when petitioner provided that the air space is a public domain; a public highway

 

Issue:

Whether or not respondents’ property was indeed “taken” and thus entitled to compensation

 

Ruling:

Yes.

The Court ruled that the airspace is public domain. However, in this case, the glide path of the aircrafts was so low that the respondents can no longer fully enjoy the land. It posed a direct interference to the landowner (respondents) enjoyment of the land. As such, it constitutes a taking of respondents’ land and respondents are therefore entitled to compensation.

 

*Government planes fly over private property at such low altitude as to practically touch the tops of the trees thereon, there would be an intrusion into the superjacent rights of the owner as to entitle him to payment of just compensation although again there is no divestiture of title


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Leviste v CA [G.R. 189122 March 17, 2010]

Constitutional Law II - Rights of the Accused Facts: Herein petitioner, Jose Antonio Leviste, was convicted by the RTC for the crime of homicide and to suffer an indeterminate penalty of prision mayor as minimum to reclusion temporal as maximum. He then appealed his conviction and filed an urgent application for admission to bail citing his advanced age and health condition. However, the Court of Appeals denied his bail application. Contention arose here where Leviste claims that his right to bail was violated and that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying his application for bail   Issue: Whether or not Leviste’s application for bail should be automatically granted   Ruling: No. The Court cited: Sec.5, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides: Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. & Sec. 13. Art. II of the Constitu...
Read more

Aznar v Commission on Elections [G.R. 83820 May 25, 1990]

Constitutional Law II - Citizenship Facts: Aznar, the Provincial Chairman of Cebu PDP-Laban, filed a petition to disqualify Emilio “Lito” Osmeña, respondent, when he filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province on the ground that the latter is not a Filipino citizen but rather an American Citizen. Aznar presented the following to show that Lito is an American citizen: 1.       Application for Alien Registration Form 2. Alien Certificate of Registration 3. Pernit to Re-enter the Philippines 4. Immigration Certificate of Clearance On the other hand, Lito alleged that he is a Filipino citizen: 1.       He is the legitimate child of a Filipino 2. He is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport 3. His continuous residency in the Philippines since his birth 4. His being a registered voter in the Philippines Contention arose in this case as to the citizenship of Lito and if...
Read more

Pascual, Jr. v Board of Medical Examiners [L-25018 May 26, 1969]

Constitutional Law II - Self-Incrimination Clause Facts: Petitioner, Arsenio Pascual, Jr., was charged by Salvador Gatbonton and Enriqueta Gatbonton for alleged immorality or malpractice through an administrative case. In such administrative case, at the initial hearing the complainant’s (Gatbontons’) counsel announced to present Pascual, Jr, the one who was charged in the case, to be his first witness. Thereupon, Pascual, Jr objected invoking his constitutional right to be exempt from being a witness against himself, or his right against self-incrimination. And so, the Board of Examiners, herein respondents, said that Pascual, Jr be once again called upon to testify at the next hearing unless he secure a restraining order from a competent authority Contention arose in this case as Petitioner Pascual, Jr alleges that he cannot be compelled to take the witness stand in an administrative case proceeding wherein he is the one charged in the case and that the Board of Examiners failed ...
Read more