## Facts

- Caltex (Philippines), Inc., Shell Company of Philippine Islands, Ltd., and Standard-Vacuum Oil Co. owned and operated petroleum terminal facilities in Manila used to receive, store, and distribute petroleum products.
- After Pearl Harbor, Japanese forces attacked the Philippines and advanced toward Manila.
- The U.S. Army stationed a control officer at the terminals, restricted civilian distribution, and requisitioned much of the petroleum supply.
- As U.S. forces withdrew and Manila was declared an open city, the Army notified the companies that the depots were requisitioned and that any necessary destruction would be handled by the Army.
- Army engineers prepared a demolition plan directing destruction of remaining petroleum products and vital plant parts; the Army removed items useful to U.S. forces and then destroyed the remaining facilities and stocks as Japanese troops entered Manila.
- After the war, the government compensated the companies for petroleum stocks and some equipment but not for the terminal facilities; the companies sought Fifth Amendment just compensation for the destroyed terminals.

## Issues

1. Whether the Army’s deliberate wartime destruction of private terminal facilities to prevent imminent enemy capture and use constituted a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Claims and denied compensation for the destroyed terminal facilities.
- Destruction to prevent imminent enemy capture and use was treated as damage incident to actual warfare, not a taking for public use.
- The result was not altered by the Army’s deliberation, requisition, control of the facilities before destruction, or the timing of demolition during withdrawal rather than active engagement.

## Legal Principles

- The Just Compensation Clause does not require payment for property destroyed by the military in the course of actual warfare when destruction is necessary to meet the enemy, including to deny the enemy imminent use of the property.
- Planned and selective demolition, even after requisition and control, does not convert wartime necessity destruction into a compensable taking.
- Takings doctrine distinguishes between property appropriated for public use and losses that fall within the general burdens borne by property owners in a theater of war.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Army’s demolition of privately owned oil terminal facilities in Manila, undertaken to prevent their imminent capture and use by advancing Japanese forces, was noncompensable war damage rather than a Fifth Amendment taking.


United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc., 344 U.S. 149 (1952)