REPUBLIC VS. CASTELLVI, G.R. No.

20620, Aug 15, 1974

ANTECEDENT FACTS
1 Jul 1947:

AFP enters into a Contract of Lease, renewable yearly, with the

party of Castellvi.

30 Jun 1956: Castellvi refuses to renew contract. AFP does not vacate the
property.
11 Jul 1956: Castellvi writes a letter to the Chief of Staff saying that the heirs
have decided to sell the land, demanding to vacate the property.
12 Jan 1957: Follow up letter demanding the return of the property.
30 Jan 1957: Chief of Staff says in letter AFP not leaving because theyve built
permanent installations and other facilities
26 Jun 1959:

Complaint for eminent domain filed by Republic over

three adjacent parcels of land, one administrated by Carmen
Castellvi. Two owned by Maria Gozun.
Republic alleges that the fair market value of the lands are at P

259 669.10
29 Jun 1959:
above.

14 Jul 1959:

Trial court orders that provisional value be fixed at price

Castellvi in a motion to dismiss asserts that her lands are

worth P15.oo per sq. meter, so had a total fair market value of
P11 389 485; seeks to get that amount plus 6% interest per
annum from 1 July 1956 and P 5 000 000 in unrealized profits.

10 Aug 1959:
Gozun.

Republic is placed in actual possession of the land of

22 Oct 1959:
Gozun seeks to be compensated for the lands by P 15.00
per square meter,
total market value of P 8,085,675 plus 6%
interest from 13 Oct 1959
plus attorneys fees of
P50 000.

4 Nov 1959: Trial court orders Pampanga Provincial Treasurer to pay

P107,609.00 to Gozun as provisional value of lands.

16 May 1960:
Trial court orders the payment of P151,859.80 to Castellvi
as provisional value of land.
The trial Court appointed three commissioners.

15 Mar 1961:
Commissioners recommended that the lowest price that should
be paid was P10.00 per square meter for both Castellvis and Gozuns.
All parties objected to the report.

26 May 1961:
Court fixes prices at P10 per square meter plus interest from 10
Aug 1959 for Gozuns.
Same price rate for Castellvis plus interest from 11 July 1959 when the
provisional value was deposited in court.

ISSUES
1. Did the taking of Castellvis property take place in 1947, at the perfection
of the contract of lease?
2. Whether or not the courts are correct at fixing the price at P10.00 per square
meter.
HELD

Not in 1947. Commenced with the filing of expropriation case.

The Republic urges that the "taking " of Castellvi's property should be
deemed as of the year 1947 by virtue of lease agreement. In American
Jurisprudence, Vol. 26, 2nd edition, Section 157, on the subject of "Eminent Domain,
we read the definition of "taking" (in eminent domain) as follows:

Taking' under the power of eminent domain may be defined generally as

entering upon private property for more than a momentary period, and, under the
warrant or color of legal authority, devoting it to a public use, or otherwise
informally appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as substantially to
oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.

Requisites for taking:

1. First, the expropriator must enter a private property.

2. Second, the entrance into private property must be for more than a
momentary period. The word "momentary" when applied to possession or
occupancy of (real) property should be construed to mean "a limited
period" not indefinite or permanent.
It might really have been the intention of the Republic to expropriate the
lands in question at some future time, but certainly mere notice - much
less an implied notice of such intention on the part of the Republic to
expropriate the lands in the future did not, and could not, bind the
landowner, nor bind the land itself. The expropriation must be actually
commenced in court (Republic vs. Baylosis, et al., 96 Phil. 461, 484).
3. Third, the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal
authority. This circumstance in the "taking" may be considered as present
in the instant case, because the Republic entered the Castellvi property as
lessee.
4. Fourth, the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise
informally appropriated or injuriously affected. It may be conceded that
the circumstance of the property being devoted to public use is present
because the property was used by the air force of the AFP.
5. Fifth, the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as
to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the
property. In the instant case, the entry of the Republic into the property
and its utilization of the same for public use did not oust Castellvi and
deprive her of all beneficial enjoyment of the property. Castellvi remained
as owner, and was continuously recognized as owner by the Republic, as
shown by the renewal of the lease contract from year to year.
Under Section 4 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, 16 the "just compensation" is to be
determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.
The important factor in expropriation proceeding is that the owner is awarded the
just compensation for his property. We have carefully studied the record, and the
evidence, in this case, and after considering the circumstances attending the lands
in question We have arrived at the conclusion that the price of P10.00 per square
meter, as recommended by the commissioners and adopted by the lower court, is
quite high. It is Our considered view that the price of P5.00 per square
meter would be a fair valuation of the lands in question and would constitute a
just compensation to the owners thereof. In arriving at this conclusion We have
particularly taken into consideration the resolution of the Provincial Committee on
Appraisal of the province of Pampanga informing, among others, that in the year
1959 the land of Castellvi could be sold for from P3.00 to P4.00 per square meter,
while the land of Toledo-Gozun could be sold for from P2.50 to P3.00 per square
meter. The Court has weighed all the circumstances relating to this expropriations
proceedings, and in fixing the price of the lands that are being expropriated the

Court arrived at a happy medium between the price as recommended by the

commissioners and approved by the court, and the price advocated by the Republic.
This Court has also taken judicial notice of the fact that the value of the Philippine
peso has considerably gone down since the year 1959. 30 Considering that the
lands of Castellvi and Toledo-Gozun are adjoining each other, and are of the same
nature, the Court has deemed it proper to fix the same price for all these lands.