Practice question
A private homeowners’ association wants its own playground despite an adequate public recreation facility nearby. The city seeks the closest private lot but supplies no evidence of genuine public necessity beyond that preference. Applying Masikip, which is best?
- The identified private convenience and alternative facility undermine the asserted public necessity
- The nearest empty lot is automatically condemnable
- Every private association request proves public use
- Availability of an alternative can never matter
- Calling the project recreation conclusively ends review
Legal references
- RA7160 Local Government Code: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1991/ra_7160_1991.html Section19 provisional-possession deposit.
- Masikip v. City of Pasig, GR136349, January23 2006, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_136349_2006.html Genuine necessity and public-use holdings.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.