It is settled that the public nature of the prospective exercise of expropriation cannot depend on the “numerical count of those to be served or the smallness or largeness of the community to be benefited.” The number of people is not determinative of whether or not it constitutes public use; provided the use is exercisable in common and is not limited to particular individuals. Thus, the first essential requirement for a valid exercise of eminent domain is for the expropriator to prove that the expropriation is for a public use. In Municipality of Biñan v. Garcia, the Court explicated that expropriation ends with an order of condemnation declaring “that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation.