Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The right of expropriation is not an inherent FACTS: After acquiring ownership title of Lot
power in a municipal corporation, and before it 1029 of Capitol Hills, Cebu City, Cebu, petitioners
can exercise the right some law must exist tried to take possession of the same only to
conferring the power upon it. When the courts discover that it was occupied by squatters.
come to determine the question, they must not Petitioners then instituted an ejectment
proceeding against the squatters, which was
only find (a) that a law or authority exists for
affirmed by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
the exercise of the right of eminent domain, but (MTCC) Branch 1, Cebu City ordering the
(b) also that the right or authority is being squatters to vacate the lot.
exercised in accordance with the law. In the
present case there are two conditions imposed However, when the demolition order was about
upon the authority conceded to the City of to be implemented, Cebu City Mayor Alvin Garcia
Manila: First, the land must be private; and, wrote two letters4 to the MTCC, requesting the
second, the purpose must be public. deferment of the demolition on the ground that
the City was still looking for a relocation site for
If the court, upon trial, finds that neither of the squatters. Acting on the mayors request, the
these conditions exists or that either one of MTCC issued two orders suspending the
demolition for a period of 120 days from February
them fails, certainly it cannot be contended that
22, 1999. Unfortunately for petitioners, during
the right is being exercised in accordance with the suspension period, the Sangguniang
law. It is a well known fact that cemeteries may Panlungsod (SP) of Cebu City passed a resolution
be public or private. The former is a cemetery which identified Lot 1029 as a socialized housing
used by the general community, or site pursuant to RA 7279. On July, 19, 2000,
neighborhood, or church, while only a family, or Ordinance No. 18437 was enacted by the SP of
Cebu City authorizing the mayor of Cebu City to budgetary priority to on-site development of
initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition government lands.
of Lot 1029 which was registered in the name of
petitioners. This ordinance was approved by Mayor SEC. 10. Modes of Land Acquisition. The modes
Garcia. of acquiring lands for purposes of this Act shall
include, among others, community mortgage,
Petitioners filed with the RTC an action for land swapping, land assembly or consolidation,
declaration of nullity of Ordinance No. 1843 for being land banking, donation to the Government, joint
unconstitutional. The trial court rendered its decision venture agreement, negotiated purchase, and
dismissing the complaint filed by petitioners whose expropriation: Provided, however, That
subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise expropriation shall be resorted to only when
denied. other modes of acquisition have been exhausted:
Provided further, That where expropriation is
In an appeal to the Supreme Court, petitioners argue resorted to, parcels of land owned by small
that Ordinance No. 1843 is unconstitutional as it property owners shall be exempted for purposes
sanctions the expropriation of their property for the of this Act:
purpose of selling it to the squatters, an endeavour
contrary to the concept of "public use" contemplated In the recent case of Estate or Heirs of the Late
in the Constitution.8 They allege that it will benefit Ex-Justice Jose B.L. Reyes et al. vs. City of Manila,
only a handful of people. we ruled that the above-quoted provisions are
strict limitations on the exercise of the power of
ISSUE: Whether or not the intended expropriation eminent domain by local government units,
by the City of Cebu of a 4,048-square-meter parcel especially with respect to (1) the order of priority
of land owned by petitioners contravenes the in acquiring land for socialized housing and (2)
Constitution and applicable laws? the resort to expropriation proceedings as a
means to acquiring it. Private lands rank last in
RULING: Ordinance No. 1843 which authorized the
the order of priority for purposes of socialized
expropriation of petitioners lot was enacted by the
housing. In the same vein, expropriation
SP of Cebu City to provide socialized housing for the
proceedings may be resorted to only after the
homeless and low-income residents of the City.
other modes of acquisition are exhausted.
However, while we recognize that housing is one of
Compliance with these conditions is mandatory
the most serious social problems of the country,
because these are the only safeguards of
local government units do not possess unbridled
oftentimes helpless owners of private property
authority to exercise their power of eminent domain
against what may be a tyrannical violation of due
in seeking solutions to this problem. The exercise by
process when their property is forcibly taken from
local government units of the power of eminent
them allegedly for public use.
domain is not absolute. In fact, Section 19 of RA
7160 itself explicitly states that such exercise must We have found nothing in the records indicating
comply with the provisions of the Constitution and that the City of Cebu complied strictly with
pertinent laws. Sections 9 and 10 of RA 7279. Ordinance No.
1843 sought to expropriate petitioners property
RA 7279 is the law that governs the local
without any attempt to first acquire the lands
expropriation of property for purposes of urban land
listed in (a) to (e) of Section 9 of RA 7279.
reform and housing. Sections 9 and 10 thereof
Likewise, Cebu City failed to establish that the
provide:
other modes of acquisition in Section 10 of RA
7279 were first exhausted. Moreover, prior to the
passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no
SEC 9. Priorities in the Acquisition of Land. Lands evidence of a valid and definite ofer to buy
for socialized housing shall be acquired in the petitioners property as required by Section 19 of
following order: RA 7160.20 We therefore find Ordinance No. 1843
to be constitutionally infirm for being violative of
(a) Those owned by the Government or any of its the petitioners right to due process.
subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies,
including government-owned or controlled MODAY VS COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL
corporations and their subsidiaries; (FEBRUARY 20, 1997)
(b) Alienable lands of the public domain; FACTS: Petition for review of a decision of the
CA. The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of
(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands; Bunawan passed a resolution authorizing the
municipal mayor to initiate the petition for
(d) Those within the declared Areas or Priority expropriation of a parcel of land, belonging to the
Development, Zonal Improvement Program sites, petitioners. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan
and Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program disapproved said resolution and returned it with
sites which have not yet been acquired; the comment that expropriation is unnecessary
considering that there are still other lots
(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement of Sites and
available.
Services or BLISS which have not yet been acquired;
and ISSUE: Whether a municipality may expropriate
private property by virtue of a municipal
(f) Privately-owned lands.
resolution which was disapproved by the
Where on-site development is found more Sangguniang Panlalawigan?
practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries,
RULING: The Court finds no merit in the petition
the priorities mentioned in this section shall not
and affirms the decision of the CA. Eminent
apply. The local government units shall give
domain is a fundamental State power that is HELD: Section 241 of Act no. 190 provides
inseparable from sovereignty. It is government's that the govt. of the Phil islands, or of any
right to appropriate in the nature of a compulsory province or department thereof, or of any
sale to the State, private property for public use or municipality, and any person, or public or
purpose. Inherently possessed by the national
private corporation having, by law, the right
legislature, the power of eminent domain may be
validly delegated to local governments, other public to condemn private property for public use,
entities and public utilities. For the taking of private shall exercise that right in the manner
property by the government to be valid, the taking prescribed under Sec. 242( a complaint in
must be for public use and there must be just expropriation proceeding shall be presented;
compensation. The that the complaint shall state with certainty
the right of condemnation, with a description
Sangguniang Panlalawigan's disapproval does not of the property sought to be condemned
render said resolution null and void. Their power to
together with the interest of each defendant
declare a municipal resolution invalid is on the sole
ground that it is beyond the power of the separately.). Section 243 provides that if the
Sangguniang Bayan or the mayor to issue. Said court shall find upon trial that the right to
resolution is valid and binding and could be used as expropriate the land in question exists, it
lawful authority to petition for the condemnation of shall then appoint commissioners. Thus, Sec.
petitioner's property. The limitations on the power of 243 means that when the legislature
eminent domain are that the use must be public, conferred upon the courts the right to
compensation must be made and due process of law ascertain upon trial whether the right exists
must be observed. The necessity of exercising for the exercise of eminent domain, it
eminent domain must be genuine and of a public intended that the courts should inquire into,
character.
and hear proof upon: 1. whether the purpose
Government may not capriciously choose what for the exercise of the right of eminent
private property should be taken. Instant petition is domain is public; and 2.whether the land is
DENIED. The questioned decision and resolution of public or private. Supreme Court also
the CA are affirmed. TRO is lifted. averred that the exercise of the right of
eminent domain is necessary in derogation
- Objects Of Expropriation of private rights, and the rule in that case is
CITY OF MANILA VS. CHINESE that the authority must be strictly construed.
COMMUNITY CEMETER Therefore, if there is no greatest necessity
GR No 14355 Oct. 31, 1919 existing for an expropriation, it should not be
made for such purposes until it is fully
FACTS: The City of Manila, in exercising the established that such necessity exist. In the
owner of Eminent Domain, presented a petition present case, even granting that a necessity
in the Court of First Instance of said City raying exist for the opening of Rizal St. through the
that certain lands described therein, be cemetery, record shows that adjoining and
expropriated for the purpose of constructing a adjacent lands have been ofered to the city
public improvement, namely, the extension of free of charge which will answer every
Rizal Avenue, Manila. Herein respondents purpose of the City of Manila. The cemetery,
contend that there are other parcels of land then, still being under care and maintenance
ofered for such improvement proposed by the of the living should be spared from such
City at a lesser cost and that the chosen parcel expropriation where there are other lands
of land by the City is a cemetery where the ofered for expropriation at a much lesser
dead loved ones of the Chinese community expense to serve the same purpose. The
were buried. Herien respondents also averred judgment of the lower court is hereby
that the City of Manila will have to spend a affirmed.
great deal amount of money in the relocation
and rebuilding of sepulchres, tombstones and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PLDT
monuments of those afected by the GR. NO. L-1881; JANUARY 27, 1969
expropriation should they pursue to use the FACTS: The defendant, PLDT, and the RCA
Chinese Cemetery. The trial judge, Hon. Del Communications, Inc., entered into an
Rosario decided that there was no necessity for agreement whereby telephone messages,
the expropriation of the particular strip of land coming from the United States and received
in question. The City of Manila appealed by RCA's domestic station, could
contending that under the law, it has the automatically be transferred to the lines of
authority to expropriate any land it may desire PLDT; and vice-versa, for calls collected by
and neither the court not the land owners can the PLDT for transmission from the
inquire into the advisable purpose of the Philippines to the United States. The
expropriation or ask concerning the necessities arrangement was later extended to radio-
therefore; and that the courts are mere telephone messages to and from European
appraisers of the land involved. and Asiatic countries. Their contract
ISSUE: May the courts inquire into, and hear contained a stipulation that either party
proof upon, the necessity of the expropriation? could terminate it on a 24-month notice to
the other. PLDT gave notice to RCA to terminate PLDT in its answer, denied any obligation it
their contract on 2 February 1958. has to the Bureau, as well as assailing the
jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
After its creation in 1947, the Bureau of PLDT also claimed that the Bureau was
Telecommunications set up its own Government engaging in commercial telephone
Telephone System by utilizing its own operations, which was in excess of its
appropriation and equipment and by renting authority.
trunk lines of the PLDT to enable government
offices to call private parties. In doing so, the The lower court rendered judgment that it
Bureau has agreed to abide by the rules and could not compel the PLDT to enter into an
regulations of PLDT, which includes the agreement with the Bureau because the
prohibition for public use that which was parties were not in agreement; that under
furnished for private use. The Bureau has Executive Order 94, establishing the Bureau
extended its services to the general public since of Telecommunications, said Bureau was not
1948, using the same trunk lines owned by, and limited to servicing government offices
rented from, the PLDT, and prescribing its own alone, nor was there any in the contract of
schedule of rates. lease of the trunk lines, since the PLDT
knew, or ought to have known, at the time
The bureau entered into an agreement to RCA that their use by the Bureau was to be public
communications for a joint overseas telephone throughout the Islands, hence the Bureau
service. PLDT complained to the bureau that the was neither guilty of fraud, abuse, or misuse
latter was violating the conditions for it had of the poles of the PLDT; and, in view of
used the trunk lines not only for the use of serious public prejudice that would result
government offices but even to serve private from the disconnection of the trunk lines,
persons or the general public, in competition declared the preliminary injunction
with the business of the PLDT; and gave notice permanent, although it dismissed both the
that if said violations were not stopped by complaint and the counterclaims.
midnight of 12 April 1958, the PLDT would sever
the telephone connections. Subsequently, PLDT ISSUE: Whether or not the Bureau can
disconnected the trunk lines of the bureau for compel PLDT to permit interconnection of
not having received a reply from the latter the government telephone system?
causing the isolation of the Philippines from the
rest of the world, except the United States. RULINGS: Yes. The Republic may, in the
exercise of the sovereign power of eminent
The bureau proposed an interconnecting domain, require the telephone company to
agreement however; the proposal was not permit interconnection of the government
accepted of either party because neither of telephone system and that of the PLDT, as
them could come to a compromise agreement. the needs of the government service may
require, subject to the payment of just
Republic filed a suit against PLDT, in the Court compensation to be determined by the court.
of First Instance of Manila, praying in its
complaint for judgment commanding the PLDT If under section 6, Article XIII, of the
to execute a contract with plaintif, through the Constitution, the State may, in the interest of
Bureau, for the use of the facilities of national welfare, transfer utilities to public
defendant's telephone system throughout the ownership upon payment of just
Philippines under such terms and conditions as compensation, there is no reason why the
the court might consider reasonable, and for a State may not require a public utility to
writ of preliminary injunction against the render services in the general interest,
defendant company to restrain the severance of provided just compensation is paid therefor.
the existing telephone connections and/or Ultimately, the beneficiary of the
restore those severed. interconnecting service would be the users
of both telephone systems, so that the
The court issued an order to the defendant to condemnation would be for public use.
reconnect and restore the 78 trunk lines that it
has disconnected between the facilities of the - Where Expropriation Suit is Filed
Government Telephone System; to refrain from
carrying into efect its threat to sever the BRGY. SAN ROQUE vs. HEIRS OF PASTOR
existing telephone communication between the
Bureau of Telecommunications and defendant, G.R. No. 138896, June 20, 2000
and not to make connection over its telephone
system of telephone calls coming to the FACTS: Petitioner filed before the MTC of
Philippines from foreign countries through the Talisay, Cebu a Complaint to expropriate a
said Bureau's telephone facilities and the radio property of the respondents. In an Order
facilities of RCA Communications, Inc.; and to dated April 8, 1997, the MTC dismissed the
accept and connect through its telephone Complaint on the ground of lack of
system all such telephone calls coming to the jurisdiction. It reasoned that "[e]minent
Philippines from foreign countries. domain is an exercise of the power to take
private property for public use after payment
of just compensation. In an action for eminent - Requisites Of Taking
domain, therefore, the principal cause of action
is the exercise of such power or right. The fact REPUBLIC VS CASTELIVI ET. AL [G.R No.
L-20620, August 15, 1974]
that the action also involves real property is
merely incidental. An action for eminent domain FACTS: The Republic filed a complaint for
is therefore within the exclusive original eminent domain on June 26, 1959 over a parcel
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not of land situated in San Jose, Floridablanca,
with this Court." Pampanga. The said parcel of land is owned and
managed by the respondents. In its complaint,
The RTC also dismissed the Complaint when the Republic alleged that the fair market value of
filed before it, holding that an action for the land in question, according to the Committed
eminent domain afected title to real property; on Appraisal of Pampanga, was not more than
hence, the value of the property to be P2000/hectare or a total market value fair of
expropriated would determine whether the case P259,669.10. It further prayed that the court will
grant the immediate possession over the land in
should be filed before the MTC or the RTC.
favor to the Republic and the court will appoint
Concluding that the action should have been three Commissioners to ascertain the report to
filed before the MTC since the value of the the court the just compensation of the property
subject property was less than P20,000. sought to be expropriated.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed directly to this The court granted the petition on June 29, 1959
Court, raising a pure question of law. and issued an order fixing the provisional market
value of the lands at P 259,669.10.
ISSUE: Which court, MTC or RTC, has
jurisdiction over cases for eminent domain or The respondents, on the other hand, filed a
expropriation where the assessed value of the motion to dismiss on July 14, 1959. They
subject property is below Twenty Thousand alleged that the land in question, being a
residential land, had a fair market value of
(P20,000.00) Pesos?
P15/square meter, hence it had a total market
HELD: An expropriation suit is incapable of value of P11,389,485. It added that the Armed
Forces had been illegally occupying their property
pecuniary estimation thus RTCs shall exercise
since July 1, 1956. They prayed that the Republic
exclusive original jurisdiction over expropriation be ordered to pay P11,389,485 plus an interest of
case as provided for by Section 19 (1) of BP 6% per annum and P5,000,000 as unrealized
129, which states that RTCs shall exercise profit and the cost of the suit.
exclusive original jurisdiction over "all civil
actions in which the subject of the litigation is Meanwhile, after the Republic deposited with the
incapable of pecuniary estimation;. Provincial Treasurer of Pampanga the amout of P
259,669.10, the trial court ordered that the
If the issue is primarily for the recovery of a Republic be placed in possession of the lands.
sum of money, the claim is considered capable The Republic actually placed in possession of the
of pecuniary estimation, and whether lands on August 10, 1959.
jurisdiction is in the municipal courts or in the The trial court rendered decision and ordered the
courts of first instance would depend on the Republic to pay P10/square meter upon the
amount of the claim. However, where the basic recommendation of the Commissioners and to
issue is something other than the right to pay an interest of 6% per annum from July 1,
recover a sum of money, or where the money 1956 when the Republic commenced its illegal
claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence possession of the property in favor to the
of, the principal relief sought, like in suits to Castellvis.
have the defendant perform his part of the The Republic filed a motion to re-open the case
contract (specific performance) and in actions on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
for support, or for annulment of a judgment or Their contention was that the decision was not
to foreclose a mortgage, this Court has supported by evidence and was against the law.
considered such actions as cases where the Hence, this appeal.
subject of the litigation may not be estimated in
terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively ISSUE: Whether or not the taking of the property
under expropriation will commenced with the
by courts of first instance.
filling of this action?
In the present case, an expropriation suit does RULING: The Supreme Court held that in the
not involve the recovery of a sum of money. exercise of eminent domain, the expropriator can
Rather, it deals with the exercise by the enter only after the expropriation proceedings are
government of its authority and right to take actually commence and deposit required by law
private property for public useHence, the courts is duly made.
determine the authority of the government
entity, the necessity of the expropriation, and In this case, the taking of the Castellvis property
for purpose of eminent domain cannot be
the observance of due process. The subject
considered to have taken place in 1947 when the
matter of an expropriation suit is the Republic commenced to occupy the property as a
governments exercise of eminent domain, a lessee. The Supreme Court finds merit on the
matter that is incapable of pecuniary contention of the Castellvi that the two essential
estimation. elements in the taking of property under the
power of eminent domain are not present in this deceased paupers and the promotion of health,
case, to wit, (1) the entrance and occupation must morals, good order, safety, or the general welfare
be permanent of indefinite period, (2) in devoting in of the people. The ordinance is actually a taking
puclic use the owner is ousted and deprived of the without compensation of a certain area from a
benefits of the property. This is because when the private cemetery to benefit paupers who are
Republic entered into the property it was merely charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of
under a contract of lease and mere leasing is not a building or maintaining a public cemetery for this
valid exercise of power of eminent domain. purpose, the city passes the burden to private
cemeteries.
With regards to the fair market of the value of the
property, the Supreme Court considered that it The expropriation without compensation of a
should be base on the year that the expropriation portion of private cemeteries is not covered by
proceeding had commence and the payment of just Section 12(t) of Republic Act 537, the Revised
compensation was ascertained, in which case was on Charter of Quezon City which empowers the city
1959. The Court has arrived at the conclusion that council to prohibit the burial of the dead within
the price of P10/ square meter, as recommended by the center of population of the city and to provide
the Commissioners, is quite high. Hence, it ordered for their burial in a proper place subject to the
the Republic to just pay P5/square meter. provisions of general law regulating burial
grounds and cemeteries. When the Local
CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY VS. Government Code, Batas Pambansa 337 provides
ERICTA [GR L-34915, 24 JUNE 1983] in Section 177 (q) that a Sangguniang
panlungsod may provide for the burial of the
FACTS: Section 9 of Ordinance 6118, S-64, entitled
dead in such place and in such manner as
Ordinance Regulating the Establishment,
prescribed by law or ordinance it simply
Maintenance and Operation of Private Memorial Type
authorizes the city to provide its own city owned
Cemetery Or Burial Ground Within the Jurisdiction of
land or to buy or expropriate private properties to
Quezon City and Providing Penalties for the Violation
construct public cemeteries. This has been the
thereof provides that at least 6% of the total area of
law and practice in the past and it continues to
the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for
the present.
charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers
and have been residents of Quezon City for at least 5 Expropriation, however, requires payment of just
years prior to their death, to be determined by compensation. The questioned ordinance is
competent City Authorities, and where the area so diferent from laws and regulations requiring
designated shall immediately be developed and owners of subdivisions to set aside certain areas
should be open for operation not later than 6 months for streets, parks, playgrounds, and other public
from the date of approval of the application. facilities from the land they sell to buyers of
subdivision lots. The necessities of public safety,
For several years, section 9 of the Ordinance was not
health, and convenience are very clear from said
enforced by city authorities but 7 years after the
requirements which are intended to insure the
enactment of the ordinance, the Quezon City Council
development of communities with salubrious and
passed a resolution requesting the City Engineer,
wholesome environments. The beneficiaries of
Quezon City, to stop any further selling and/or
the regulation, in turn, are made to pay by the
transaction of memorial park lots in Quezon City
subdivision developer when individual lots are
where the owners thereof have failed to donate the
sold to homeowners.
required 6% space intended for paupers burial.
Pursuant to this petition, the Quezon City Engineer - Deprivation of Use
notified Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. in writing that
Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 would be NAPOCOR vs. GUTIERREZ [193 SCRA 1
enforced. Himlayang Pilipino reacted by filing with (1991)]
the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, a petition for
declaratory relief, prohibition and mandamus with FACTS: Plaintif National Power Corporation,
preliminary injunction (Special Proceeding Q-16002) a government owned and controlled entity,
seeking to annul Section 9 of the Ordinance in planned to construct 230 KV Mexico-Limay
question for being contrary to the Constitution, the
transmission lines but the lines have to pass
Quezon City Charter, the Local Autonomy Act, and
the Revised Administrative Code. There being no
the lands belonging to defendants Matias
issue of fact and the questions raised being purely Cruz, Heirs of Natalia Paule and spouses
legal, both the City Government and Himlayang Misericordia Gutierrez and Ricardo Malit and
Pilipino agreed to the rendition of a judgment on the filed an eminent domain proceedings against
pleadings. The CFI rendered the decision declaring the defendants.
Section 9 of Ordinance 6118, S-64 null and void. A
motion for reconsideration having been denied, the The defendant spouses were authorized to
City Government and City Council filed the petition withdraw the fixed provisional value of their
or review with the Supreme Court. land in the sum of P973.00 by the court after
NPC deposited the amount upon filing the
ISSUE: Whether the setting aside of 6% of the total
complaint. The only controversy existing
area of all private cemeteries for charity burial
grounds of deceased paupers is tantamount to
between the parties litigants is the
taking of private property without just reasonableness and adequacy of the
compensation? disturbance or compensation fee of the
expropriated properties. the court appointed
HELD: There is no reasonable relation between the three commissioners in determining the fair
setting aside of at least 6% of the total area of all and just compensation due the defendants.
private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of
With the reports submitted by the three fine of not less than P25 nor more than P50
commissioners and on the evidence adduced by or imprisonment of not less than 12 days nor
the defendants as well as the plaintif for the more than 24 days or both, at the discretion
purpose of proving the fair market value of the of the court; and that if said building
property sought to be expropriated, the lower destroys the view of the Public Plaza or
court rendered a decision that National Power occupies any public property, it shall be
Corporation has to pay defendant spouses removed at the expense of the owner of the
Ricardo Malit and Misericordia Gutierrez the building or house.
sum P5.00 per square meter as the fair and
reasonable market value of the 760 square 4 years later, after the term of Fajardo as
meters belonging to the said spouses and that mayor had expired, he and his son-in-law,
decision was affirmed by the court of appeals. Pedro Babilonia, filed a written request with
the incumbent municipal mayor for a permit
ISSUE: Whether petitioner should be made to to construct a building adjacent to their
pay simple easement fee or full compensation gasoline station on a parcel of land
for the land traversed by its transmission lines? registered in Fajardos name, located along
the national highway and separated from the
HELD: While it is true that plaintif are only public plaza by a creek. On 16 January 1954,
after a right-of-way easement, it nevertheless the request was denied, for the reason
perpetually deprives defendants of their among others that the proposed building
proprietary rights as manifested by the would destroy the view or beauty of the
imposition by the plaintif upon defendants that public plaza. On 18 January 1954, Fajardo
below said transmission lines no plant higher and Babilonia reiterated their request for a
than three (3) meters is allowed. Furthermore, building permit, but again the request was
because of the high-tension current conveyed turned down by the mayor. Whereupon,
through said transmission lines, danger to life Fajardo and Babilonia proceeded with the
and limbs that may be caused beneath said construction of the building without a permit,
wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to because they needed a place of residence
cap it all plaintif only pays the fee to very badly, their former house having been
defendants once, while the latter shall destroyed by a typhoon and hitherto they
continually pay the taxes due on said afected had been living on leased property.
portion of their property.
Fajardo and Babilonia were charged before
In the case at bar, the easement of right-of-way and convicted by the justice of the peace
is definitely a taking under the power of court of Baao, Camarines Sur, for violation of
eminent domain. Considering the nature and Ordinance 7. Fajardo and Babilonia appealed
efect of the installation of the 230 KV Mexico- to the Court of First Instance (CDI), which
Limay transmission lines, the limitation imposed affirmed the conviction, and sentenced both
by NPC against the use of the land for an to pay a fine of P35 each and the costs, as
indefinite period deprives private respondents well as to demolish the building in question
of its ordinary use. because it destroys the view of the public
For these reasons, the owner of the property plaza of Baao. From this decision, Fajardo
expropriated is entitled to a just compensation, and Babilonia appealed to the Court of
which should be neither more nor less, Appeals, but the latter forwarded the records
whenever it is possible to make the to the Supreme Court because the appeal
assessment, than the money equivalent of said attacks the constitutionality of the ordinance
property. Just compensation has always been in question.
understood to be the just and complete ISSUE: Whether the refusal of the Mayor of
equivalent of the loss which the owner of the Baao to issue a building permit on the
thing expropriated has to sufer by reason of ground that the proposed building would
the expropriation. destroy the view of the public plaza is an
PEOPLE VS. FAJARDO [GR L-12172, 29 undue deprivation of the use of the property
AUGUST 1958] in question, and thus a taking without due
compensation?
FACTS: During the incumbency of Juan F.
Fajardo as mayor of the municipality of Baao, HELD: The refusal of the Mayor of Baao to
Camarines Sur, the municipal council passed issue a building permit to Fajardo and
Ordinance 7, series of 1950, providing that any Babilonia was predicated on the ground that
person or persons who will construct or repair a the proposed building would destroy the
building should, before constructing or view of the public plaza by preventing its
repairing, obtain a written permit from the being seen from the public highway. Even
Municipal Mayor, that a fee of not less than thus interpreted, the ordinance is
P2.00 should be charged for each building unreasonable and oppressive, in that it
permit and P1.00 for each repair permit issued, operates to permanently deprive the
and that any violation of the provisions of the latter of the right to use their own property;
ordinance shall make the violator liable to pay a hence, it oversteps the bounds of police
power, and amounts to a taking of the property Respondents alleged that the expropriation
without just compensation. But while property of their land is arbitrary and capricious, and
may be regulated in the interest of the general is not for a public purpose; the subject lots
welfare such as to regard the beautification of are their only real property and are too small
neighborhoods as conducive to the comfort and for expropriation, while petitioner has
happiness of residents), and in its pursuit, the several properties inventoried for socialized
State may prohibit structures ofensive to the housing; the fair market value of P3,000.00
sight, the State may not, under the guise of per square meter is arbitrary because the
police power, permanently divest owners of the zonal valuation set by the Bureau of Internal
beneficial use of their property and practically Revenue is P7,000.00 per square meter
confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the
aesthetic appearance of the community. ISSUE: WoN the said Lots can be subjected
to expropriation proceedings?
As the case now stands, every structure that
may be erected on Fajardos land, regardless of RULING: The SC adheres to the expanded
its own beauty, stands condemned under the notion of public use. However, the passage
ordinance in question, because it would of R.A. No. 7279, the "Urban Development
interfere with the view of the public plaza from and Housing Act of 1992" introduced a
the highway. Fajardo would, in efect, be limitation on the size of the land sought to
constrained to let their land remain idle and be expropriated for socialized housing. The
unused for the obvious purpose for which it is law expressly exempted "small property
best suited, being urban in character. To legally owners" from expropriation of their land for
achieve that result, the municipality must give urban land reform
Fajardo just compensation and an opportunity "Small-property owners" are defined by two
to be heard. elements: (1) those owners of real property
CITY OF MANDALUYONG VS. FRANCISCO whose property consists of residential lands
[G.R. No. 137152 January 29, 2001] with an area of not more than 300 square
meters in highly urbanized cities and 800
FACTS: On a portion of the 3 lots (with an square meters in other urban areas; and (2)
aggregate area of 1,847 square meters located that they do not own real property other
at 9 de Febrero Street, Barangay Mauwag, City than the same
of Mandaluyong), respondents constructed
residential houses several decades ago which And the property involved was co-owned by
they had since leased out to tenants until the the siblings which they inherited from their
present; on the vacant portion of the lots, other parents. Knowing that the respondents have
families constructed residential structures no other property, the 1,847 square meters
which they likewise occupied. lot if divided among them can then be
considered as a small-property of each of
In 1983, the lots were classified by Resolution the siblings and thus exempted from
No. 125 of the Board of the Housing and Urban appropriation.
Development Coordinating Council as an Area
for Priority Development for urban land reform Therefore, The property involved cannot be
under Proclamation Nos. 1967 and 2284 of then subjected to expropriation.
President Marcos; as a result of this NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs.
classification, the tenants and occupants of the MARIA MENDOZA SAN PEDRO [G.R. No.
lots ofered to purchase the land from 170945, September 26, 2006]
respondents, but the latter refused to sell; on
November 7, 1996, the Sangguniang FACTS: The National Power Corporation
Panlungsod of petitioner, upon petition of the (NPC) is a government-owned-and-controlled
Kapitbisig, an association of tenants and corporation created to undertake the
occupants of the subject land, adopted development of hydro-electric generation of
Resolution No. 516, Series of 1996 authorizing power and the production of electricity from
Mayor Benjamin Abalos of the City of any and all sources; and particularly the
Mandaluyong to initiate action for the construction, operation, and maintenance of
expropriation of the subject lots and power plants, auxiliary plants, dams,
construction of a medium-rise condominium for reservoirs, pipes, mains, transmission lines,
qualified occupants of the land; on January 10, power stations and substations, and other
1996, Mayor Abalos sent a letter to respondents works for the purpose of developing
ofering to purchase the said property at hydraulic power from any river, lake, creek,
P3,000.00 per square meter; respondents did spring and waterfalls in the Philippines and
not answer the letter. Petitioner thus prayed for supplying such power to the inhabitants
the expropriation of the said lots and the fixing thereof. Under Republic Act No.6395, as
of just compensation at the fair market value of amended, the NPC is authorized to enter
P3,000.00 per square meter.2 private property provided that the owners
thereof shall be indemnified for any actual
damage caused thereby.
For the construction of its San Manuel-San Jose damage of the landowners, both as to future
500 KV Transmission Line and Tower No. SMJ- actual use of the land and financial gains to
389, NPC negotiated with Maria Mendoza San be derived therefrom, makes the instant
Pedro, then represented by her son, Vicente, for case fall within the ambit of expropriation.
an easement of right of way over her property,
Lot No. 2076. The property, which was partly PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE VS.
agricultural and partly residential land, was COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS [GR
located in Barangay Partida, Norzagaray, 119694, 22 MAY 1995]
Bulacan and covered by Tax Declaration No. FACTS: Comelec promulgated Resolution
00386. 2772, which provided that (1) the
Maria executed a Right of Way Grant in favor of Commission shall procure free print space of
NPC over the lot for P1,277,886.90. The NPC not less than 1/2 page in at least one
paid her P524,635.50 for the damaged newspaper of general circulation in every
improvements thereon. province or city for use as Comelec Space
from 6 March until 12 May 1995; and that in
The payment voucher for the residential portion the absence of said newspaper, Comelec
of the lot valued at P6,000,000.00 (at P600.00 Space shall be obtained from any magazine
per square meter) was then processed. or periodical of said province or city; (2) that
However, the NPC Board of Directors approved Comelec Space shall be allocated by the
Board Resolution No. 97-246 stating that it Commission, free of charge, among all
would pay only P230.00 per sq m for the candidates within the area in which the
residential portion and P89.00 per sq m for the newspaper, magazine or periodical is
agricultural portion. circulated to enable the candidates to make
known their qualifications, their stand on
Atty. Baltazar and Engr. Cruz submitted their public issues and their platforms and
report, recommending as payment for just programs of government; and that the
compensation P800.00 per sq m for the Comelec Space shall also be used by the
residential lot and P700.00 per sq m for the Commission for dissemination of vital
agricultural lot. On October 28, 1999, the RTC election information among others.
rendered judgment, # declaring as well- Apparently in implementation of the
grounded, fair and reasonable the Resolution, Comelec through Commissioner
compensation for the property as Regalado E. Maambong sent identical letters
recommended by Atty. Baltazar and Engr. Cruz. to various publishers of newspapers like the
ISSUE: Whether or not the just compensation Business World, the Philippine Star, the
was achieved with regards to the fair market Malaya and the Philippine Times Journal, all
value of the residential and agricultural members of Philippine Press Institute (PPI),
property? advising the latter that they are directed to
provide free print space of not less than 1/2
HELD: The trial court fixed the just page for use as Comelec Space or similar
compensation for the property as follows: (1) to the print support which the latter have
P499.00 per sq m on the 17,195 sq m extended during the 11 May 1992
agricultural portion of the subject land; and (2) synchronized elections which was 2 full
P800.00 per sq m on the 6,565 sq m residential pages for each political party fielding
portion of the lot. Noticeably, the trial court did senatorial candidates, from 6 March to 6 May
not blindly accept the recommendation of 1995, to make known to their qualifications,
majority of the commissioners of P800.00 per their stand on public issues and their
sq m for the residential lot and P700.00 per sq platforms and programs of government.
m for the agricultural lot. Indeed, the trial court
took into account the evidence of the parties, in PPI filed a Petition for Certiorari and
tandem with the findings and recommendation Prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a
of the majority of the commissioners. Temporary restraining order before the
Considering that such valuation of the trial Supreme Court to assail the validity of
court as affirmed by the CA is reasonable as it is Resolution 2772 and the corresponding
and supported by the evidence on record, we directive dated 22 March 1995.
find no compelling reason to disturb the same. ISSUE: Whether there was necessity for the
The constant loud buzzing and exploding taking, i.e. compelling print media
sounds emanating from the towers and companies to donate Comelec space.?
transmission lines, especially on rainy days; the HELD: To compel print media companies to
constant fear on the part of the landowners that donate Comelec space of the dimensions
the large transmission lines looming not far specified in Section 2 of Resolution 2772 (not
above their land and the huge tower in front of less than 1/2 Page), amounts to taking of
their lot will afect their safety and health; and private personal property for public use or
the slim chance that no one would be interested purposes. Section 2 failed to specify the
to buy the remaining portions on each side of intended frequency of such compulsory
the residential lot afected by the project, to the
donation. The extent of the taking or FACTS: Thomas Lee Causby owned a
deprivation is not insubstantial; this is not a chicken farm outside of Greensboro, North
case of a de minimis temporary limitation or Carolina. The farm was located near an
restraint upon the use of private property. The airport used regularly by the United States
monetary value of the compulsory donation, military. Heavy bombers and fighter planes
measured by the advertising rates ordinarily began to fly over Causby's property with
charged by newspaper publishers whether in increasing frequency at all hours. Often the
cities or in non-urban areas, may be very fighters would fly so low as to blow the
substantial indeed. leaves of the tops of Causby's trees. This
created a roar so deafening that Causby's
The taking of print space here sought to be chickens would panic, running into walls and
efected may first be appraised under the public killing themselves. According to Causby,
of expropriation of private personal property for noise from the airport regularly frightened
public use. The threshold requisites for a lawful the animals on his farm, resulting in the
taking of private property for public use need to deaths of several chickens. The problem
be examined here: one is the necessity for the became so severe that Causby was forced to
taking; another is the legal authority to efect abandon his business.
the taking. The element of necessity for the
taking has not been shown by the Comelec. It Under an ancient doctrine of the common
has not been suggested that the members of law, land ownership extended to the space
PPI are unwilling to sell print space at their above and below the earth. Using this
normal rates to Comelec for election purposes. doctrine as a basis, Causby sued the United
States, arguing that he owned the airspace
Similarly, it has not been suggested, let alone above his farm. By flying planes in this
demonstrated, that Comelec has been granted airspace, he argued, the government had
the power of imminent domain either by the confiscated his property without
Constitution or by the legislative authority. A compensation, thus violating the Takings
reasonable relationship between that power and Clause of the Fifth Amendment (Eminent
the enforcement and administration of election Domain, Just Compensation).
laws by Comelec must be shown; it is not
casually to be assumed. That the taking is The United States Court of Claims accepted
designed to subserve public use is not Causby's argument, and ordered the
contested by PPI. Only that, under Section 3 of government to pay compensation.
Resolution 2772, the free Comelec space
sought by the Comelec would be used not only ISSUE: Did the flying of planes by the United
for informing the public about the identities, States military over Causby's farm constitute
qualifications and programs of government of a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth
candidates for elective office but also for Amendment?
dissemination of vital election information HELD: Yes, to an extent. In a 6-2 opinion
(including, presumably, circulars, regulations, authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the
notices, directives, etc. issued by Comelec). It Court concluded that the ancient common
seems to the Court a matter of judicial notice law doctrine "has no place in the modern
that government offices and agencies (including world." Justice Douglas noted that, were the
the Supreme Court) simply purchase print Court to accept the doctrine as valid, "every
space, in the ordinary course of events, when transcontinental flight would subject the
their rules and regulations, circulars, notices operator to countless trespass suits.
and so forth need officially to be brought to the Common sense revolts at the idea."
attention of the general public. The taking of
private property for public use it, of course, However, while the Court rejected the
authorized by the Constitution, but not without unlimited reach above and below the earth
payment of just compensation. described in the common law doctrine, it
also ruled that, "if the landowner is to have
Thus, although there is nothing at all to prevent full enjoyment of the land, he must have
newspaper and magazine publishers from exclusive control of the immediate reaches
voluntarily giving free print space to Comelec of the enveloping atmosphere." Without
for the purposes contemplated in Resolution defining a specific limit, the Court stated that
2772; Section 2 of resolution 2772 does not flights over the land could be considered a
provide a constitutional basis for compelling violation of the Takings Clause if they led to
publishers, against their will to provide free "a direct and immediate interference with
print space for Comelec purposes. Section 2 the enjoyment and use of the land." Given
does not constitute a valid exercise of the the damage caused by the particularly low,
power of eminent domain. frequent flights over his farm, the Court
UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY [328 U.S. 256 determined that the government had
(1946)] violated Causby's rights, and he was entitled
to compensation.
Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad RULING: That only a few could actually
inferos has no legal authority in the United benefit from the expropriation of the
States when pertaining to the sky. A man does property does not diminish its public use
not have control and ownership over the character. It is simply not possible to provide
airspace of their property except within all at once land and shelter for all who need
reasonable limits to utilize their property. them. Corollary to the expanded notion of
Airspace above a set minimum height is public use, expropriation is not anymore
property of the Masses and no one man can confined to vast tracts of land and landed
accuse airplanes or other such craft within of estates. It is therefore of no moment that the
trespassing on what they own. land sought to be expropriated in this case is
less than half a hectare only. Through the
- Priority In Expropriation years, the public use requirement in eminent
FILMSTREAM INTERNATIONAL INC. VS. CA domain has evolved into a flexible concept,
influenced by changing conditions. Public
FACTS: Filstream International, Inc., is the use now includes the broader notion of
registered owner of the properties consisting of indirect public benefit or advantage,
adjacent parcels of land situated in Antonio including in particular, urban land reform and
Rivera Street, Tondo II, Manila, with a total area housing.
of 3,571.10 square meters.
The Court takes judicial notice of the fact
Filstream filed an ejectment suit before the MTC that urban land reform has become a
of Manila against the occupants of the parcels paramount task in view of the acute
of land on the grounds of termination of the shortage of decent housing in urban areas
lease contract and non-payment of rentals. particularly in Metro Manila. Nevertheless,
Judgment was rendered by the MTC ordering despite the existence of a serious dilemma,
private respondents to vacate the premises and local government units are not given an
pay back rentals to Filstream. Not satisfied, unbridled authority when exercising their
malit, et. al. (the occupants) appealed the power of eminent domain in pursuit of
decision to the RTC of Manila which in turn solutions to these problems. The basic rules
affirmed the decision of the MTC. Still not still have to be followed, which are as
content, Malit, et. al. proceeded to the CA via a follows: no person shall be deprived of life,
petition for review. The result however liberty, or property without due process of
remained the same as the appellate court law, nor shall any person be denied the
affirmed the decision of the RTC in its decision. equal protection of the laws; private property
shall not be taken for public use without just
Thereafter, no further action was taken by Malit, compensation. Thus, the exercise by local
et. al., as a result of which the decision in the government units of the power of eminent
ejectment suit became final and executory. domain is not without limitations. Even
Section 19 of the 1991 Local Government
However, during the pendency of the ejectment
Code is very explicit that it must comply with
proceedings Malit, et. al. filed a complaint for
the provisions of the Constitution and
Annulment of Deed of Exchange against
pertinent laws. Very clear from Sections 9
Filstream before the RTC of Manila. It was at this
and 10 of Republic Act 7279 (Urban
stage that City of Manila came into the picture
Development and Housing Act of 1992) are
when the city government approved Ordinance
the limitations with respect to the order of
7813 authorizing Mayor Alfredo S. Lim to initiate
priority in acquiring private lands and in
the acquisition by negotiation, expropriation,
resorting to expropriation proceedings as a
purchase, or other legal means certain parcels
means to acquire the same. Private lands
of land which formed part of Filstreams
rank last in the order of priority for purposes
properties then occupied by Malit, et. al.
of socialized housing. In the same vein,
Subsequently, the City of Manila approved
expropriation proceedings are to be resorted
Ordinance 7855 declaring the expropriation of
to only when the other modes of acquisition
certain parcels of land situated along Antonio
have been exhausted.
Rivera and Fernando Ma. Guerrero streets in
Tondo, Manila which were owned by Mr. Enrique Compliance with these conditions must be
Quijano Gutierrez, Filstreams predecessor-in- deemed mandatory because these are the
interest. The said properties were to be sold and only safeguards in securing the right of
distributed to qualified tenants of the area owners of private property to due process
pursuant to the Land Use Development Program when their property is expropriated for public
of the City of Manila. use. There is nothing in the records that
would indicate that City of Manila complied
ISSUE: Whether there is violation of due
with Section 9 and Section 10 of RA 7279.
process against Filstream in the manner its
Filstreams properties were expropriated and
properties were expropriated and condemned in
ordered condemned in favor of the City of
favor of the City of Manila?
Manila sans any showing that resort to the
acquisition of other lands listed under
Section 9 of RA 7279 have proved futile. 2. That the parties agree that defendant
Evidently, there was a violation of Filstreams Estate of Salud Jimenez shall transfer lot
right to due process which must accordingly be 1406-B with an area of 13,118 square meters
rectified. which forms part of the lot registered under
TCT No. 113498 of the Registry of Deeds of
- Public Use Cavite to the name of the plaintif and the
ESTATE OF JIMENEZ VS. PEZA [GR No. same shall be swapped and exchanged with
137285, January 15, 2001] lot 434 with an area of 14,167 square meters
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
FACTS: Private respondent Philippines Export No. 14772 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite
Processing Zone (PEZA), then called as the which lot will be transferred to the name of
Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), Estate of Salud Jimenez.
initiated before the Regional Trial Court of
Cavite expropriation proceedings on 3 parcels 3. That the swap arrangement recognized
of irrigated riceland in Rosario, Cavite. One of the fact that the lot 1406-B covered by TCT
the lots, Lot 1406 (A and B) of the San Francisco No. T-113498 of the state of defendant Salud
de Malabon Estate, with an approximate area of Jimenez is considered expropriated in favor
29,008 square meters, is registered in the name of the government based on Order of the
of Salud Jimenez in the Registry of Deeds of Honorable Court. However, instead of being
Cavite. paid the just compensation for said lot, the
estate of said defendant shall be paid with
More than 10 years later, the said trial court in lot 434 covered by TCT No. T-14772.
an Order upheld the right of private respondent
PEZA to expropriate, among others, Lot 1406 (A 4. That the parties agree that they will abide
and B). Reconsideration of the said order was by the terms of the foregoing agreement in
sought by petitioner contending that said lot good faith and the Decision to be rendered
would only be transferred to a private based on this Compromise Agreement is
corporation, Philippines Vinyl Corp., and hence immediately final and executory.
would not be utilized for a public purpose. The CA remanded the case to the trial court
In an Order the trial court reconsidered the for the approval of the said compromise
Order and released Lot 1406-A from agreement entered into between the parties,
expropriation while the expropriation of Lot consequent with the withdrawal of the
1406-B was maintained. Finding the said order appeal with the Court of Appeals. In the
unacceptable, private respondent PEZA Order, the trial court approved the
interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. compromise agreement.
2. The swap of Lot 1406-B with Lot 434 covered In the Order dated aug 24, the trial court
by TCT No. T-14772 since private respondent annulled the said compromise agreement
has no money yet to pay for the lot. entered into between the parties and
directed private respondent to peacefully
Private respondent's Board approved the turn over Lot 1406-A to the petitioner.
"proposal" and the compromise agreement was Disagreeing with the said Order of the trial
signed by private respondent through its then court, respondent PEZA moved13 for its
administrator Tagumpay Jadiniano assisted by reconsideration. The same proved futile
Government Corporate Counsel Oscar I. Garcia. since the trial court denied reconsideration
Said compromise agreement is quoted in its Order dated November 3, 1997.
hereunder:
The trial court, at the instance of petitioner,
1. That plaintif agrees to withdraw its appeal corrected the Orders dated August 4, 1997
from the Order of the Honorable Court which and November 3, 1997 by declaring that it is
released lot 1406-A from the expropriation Lot 1406-B and Lot 1406-A that should be
proceedings. On the other hand, defendant surrendered and returned to petitioner.
Estate of Salud Jimenez agrees to waive, quit
claim and forfeit its claim for damages and loss Respondent interposed before the Court of
of income which it sustained by person of the Appeals a petition for certiorari and
possession of said lot by plaintif from 1981 up prohibition seeking to nullify the Orders
to the present. dated August 4, 1997 and November 3, 1997
of the court. Petitioner filed its Comment.
ISSUE: The petition anchored on the following be considered "just" inasmuch as the
assignment of errors: property owner is made to sufer the
consequences of being immediately
1. Whether or not, the Court of Appeals deprived of his land while being made to
committed grave and reversible error in giving wait for a decade or more before actually
due course to the special Civil Action filed by receiving the amount necessary to cope with
respondent PEZA in CA-G.R. SP. No. 46112 when his loss. We find that respondent capriciously
it was made substitute for lost appeal in clear evaded its duty of giving what is due to
contravention of the Honorable Courts ruling in petitioner. In the case at bar, the
Sempio v. Court of Appeals (263 SCRA 617) and expropriation order was issued by the trial
Ongsitco v. Court of Appeals (255 SCRA 703) . court in 1991. The compromise agreement
2. Granting in Gratia Argumenti that the Special between the parties was approved by the
Civil Action of Certiorari is proper, the Court of trial court in 1993. However, from 1993 up to
Appeals nevertheless wrongly interpreted the the present, respondent has failed in its
phrase Original Demand contained in Article obligation to pay petitioner to the prejudice
2041 of petitioner estate is the return of the of the latter. Respondent caused damage to
subject lot (Lot 1406-B) which sought to be petitioner in making the latter to expect that
expropriated and not the determination of just it had a good title to the property to be
compensation for the lot. Furthermore, even if swapped with Lot 1406-B; and meanwhile,
the interpretation of the court of appeals or the respondent has been reaping benefits from
import of the phrase in question is correct, it is the lease or rental income of the said
Article 2039 of the Civil Code and not Article expropriated lot. However, it is high time
2041 which is applicable to compromise that the petitioner be paid what was due him
agreements approved by the courts. eleven years ago. It is high time that the
petitioner be paid what was due him eleven
HELD:This court therefore finds that the years ago. It is arbitrary and capricious for a
Court of Appeals did not err in interpreting government agency to initiate expropriation
"original demand" to mean the fixing of just proceedings, seize a person's property, allow
compensation. The authority of respondent and the judgment of the court to become final
the nature of the purpose thereof have been and executory and then refuse to pay on the
put to rest when the Expropriation Order dated ground that there are no appropriations for
July 11, 1991 became final and was duly the property earlier taken and profitably
admitted by petitioner in the compromise used. Though the respondent has committed
agreement. The only issue for consideration is a misdeed to petitioner, we cannot, however,
the manner and amount of payment due to grant the petitioner's prayer for the return of
petitioner. In fact, aside from the withdrawal of the expropriated Lot No. 1406-B. The Order
private respondent's appeal to the Court of of expropriation dated July 11, 1991, has
Appeals concerning Lot 1406-A, the matter of long become final and executory.
payment of just compensation was the only
subject of the compromise agreement dated In view of all the foregoing, justice and
January 4, 1993. Under the compromise equity dictate that this case be remanded to
agreement, petitioner was supposed to receive the trial court for hearing of the
respondent's Lot No. 434 in exchange for Lot expropriation proceedings on the
1406-B. When respondent failed to fulfill its determination of just compensation for Lot
obligation to deliver Lot 434, petitioner can 1406-B and for its prompt payment to the
again demand for the payment but not the petitioner.
return of the expropriated Lot 1406-B. This WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
interpretation by the Court of Appeals is in denied. The Regional Trial Court of Cavite
according with Section 4 to 8, Rule 67 of the City is hereby ordered to proceed with the
Rules of Court. hearing of the expropriation proceedings,
This court holds that respondent has the legal docketed as Civil Case No. N-4029, regarding
authority to expropriate the subject Lot 1406-B the determination of just compensation for
and that the same was for a valid public Lot 1406-B, covered and described in TCT
purpose. In Sumulong v. Guerrero41 , this Court No. T-113498-Cavite, and to resolve the
has ruled that, the "public use" requirement for same with dispatch.
a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain MANOSCA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by [252 SCRA 412, 1996]
changing conditions.
FACTS: A petition for review on certiorari,
We have rules that the concept of just from the decision of the Court of Appeals,
compensation embraces not only the correct dated 15 January 1992, in CA-G.R. SP No.
determination of the amount to be paid to the 24969 (entitled Alejandro Manosca, et al. v.
owners of the land, but also the payment of the Hon. Benjamin V. Pelayo, et al.) Wherein,
land within a reasonable time from its taking. Petitioners inherited a piece of land located
Without prompt payment, compensation cannot at P. Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig, Metro
Manila, with an area of about four hundred would fault respondent appellate court in
ninety-two (492) square meters. When the sustaining the trial courts order which
parcel was ascertained by the NHI to have been considered inapplicable the case of Noble v.
the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of City of Manila. Both courts held correctly. The
Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No. 1, Republic was not a party to the alleged
Series of 1986, pursuant to Section 4 of contract of exchange between the Iglesia ni
Presidential Decree No. 260, declaring the land Cristo and petitioners which (the contracting
to be a national historical landmark. The parties) alone, not the Republic, could
resolution was, on 06 January 1986, approved properly be bound.
by the Minister of Education, Culture and
Sports. Later, the opinion of the Secretary of All considered, the Court finds the assailed
Justice was asked on the legality of the decision to be in accord with law and
measure. Thus the assailment of this petition. jurisprudence. WHEREFORE, the petition is
DENIED.
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR VS.
ISSUE: Whether or not the public use COURT OF APPEALS
requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the [G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993]
attempted expropriation by the Republic of a
492-square-meter parcel of land so declared by FACTS: This is an appeal by certiorari from
the National Historical Institute (NHI) as a the decision of the Court of Appeals.
national historical landmark. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
HELD: The term public use, not having been Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution
otherwise defined by the constitution, must be No. 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the
considered in its general concept of meeting a Provincial Governor to purchase or
public need or a public exigency. The validity of expropriate property contiguous to the
the exercise of the power of eminent domain for provincial capitol site, in order to establish a
traditional purposes is beyond question; it is not pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional
at all to be said, however, that public use agricultural crops and a housing project for
should thereby be restricted to such traditional provincial government employees.
uses. The idea that public use is strictly Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province of
limited to clear cases of use by the public has Camarines Sur, through its Governor, Hon.
long been discarded. Luis R.Villafuerte, filed two separate cases
Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando states: The for expropriation against Ernesto N. San
taking to be valid must be for public use. There Joaquin and Efren N. San Joaquin.
was a time when it was felt that a literal The Province of Camarines Sur then filed a
meaning should be attached to such a motion for the issuance of writ of possession,
requirement. Whatever project is undertaken but the San Joaquins failed to appear at the
must be for the public to enjoy, as in the case of hearing of the motion.
streets or parks. Otherwise, expropriation is not
allowable. It is not so any more. As long as the The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the
purpose of the taking is public, then the power complaints on the ground of inadequacy of
of eminent domain comes into play. As just the price ofered for their property. The trial
noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to court denied the motion to dismiss and
remove any doubt, determines what is public authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to
use. One is the expropriation of lands to be take possession of the property upon the
subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to deposit with the Clerk of Court of the amount
individuals. The other is the transfer, through of P5,714.00, the amount provisionally fixed
the exercise of this power, of utilities and other by the trial court to answer for damages that
private enterprise to the government. It is private respondents may sufer in the event
accurate to state then that at present whatever that the expropriation cases do not prosper.
may be beneficially employed for the general The trial court issued a writ of possession.
welfare satisfies the requirement of public use.
The San Joaquins filed a motion for relief
Chief Justice Fernando, writing the ponencia in from the order, authorizing the Province of
J.M. Tuason & Co. vs. Land Tenure Camarines Sur to take possession of their
Administration, has viewed the Constitution a property and a motion to admit an amended
dynamic instrument and one that is not to be motion to dismiss. Both motions were
construed narrowly or pedantically so as to denied.
enable it to meet adequately whatever
problems the future has in store. Fr. Joaquin In their petition before the Court of Appeals,
Bernas, a noted constitutionalist himself, has the San Joaquins asked: (a) that Resolution
aptly observed that what, in fact, has ultimately No. 129 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan be
emerged is a concept of public use which is just declared null and void; (b) that the
as broad as public welfare. Petitioners, finally, complaints for expropriation be dismissed;
and (c) that the order denying the motion to
dismiss and allowing the Province of Camarines REYES VS. NHA [GR No. 147511,
Sur to take possession of the property subject January 20, 2003]
of the expropriation and the order denying the
motion to admit the amended motion to FACTS: In 1977, respondent National
dismiss, be set aside. They also asked that an Housing Authority (NHA) filed separate
order be issued to restrain the trial court from complaints for the expropriation of
enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter sugarcane lands, particularly Lot Nos. 6450,
to issue a writ of injunction. 6448-E, 6198-A and 6199 of the cadastral
survey of Dasmarinas, Cavite belonging to
In its answer to the petition, the Province of the petitioners, before the then Court of First
Camarines Sur claimed that it has the authority Instance of Cavite The stated public purpose
to initiate the expropriation and that the of the expropriation was the expansion of
expropriations are for a public purpose. the Dasmarinas Resettlement Project to
accommodate the squatters who were
Asked by the Court of Appeals to give his relocated from the Metropolitan Manila area.
Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General The trial court rendered judgment ordering
stated that under Section 9 of the Local the expropriation of these lots and the
Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337), there was no payment of just compensation. This was
need for the approval by the Office of the affirmed by the Supreme Court in a decision
President of the exercise by the Sangguniang rendered in the case of NHA vs. Zaballero
Panlalawigan of the right of eminent domain. and which became final.
However, the Solicitor General expressed the
view that the Province of Camarines Sur must The expropriation court issued an Order the
first secure the approval of the Department of dispositive portion of which reads:
Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the
lands of petitioners for use as a housing project. "WHEREFORE, and resolving thus, let an
Alias Writ of Execution be immediately
The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the issued and that:
trial court, allowing the Province of Camarines
Sur to take possession of private respondents' (1) The Register of Deeds of the Province of
lands and the order denying the admission of Cavite is hereby ordered to transfer, in the
the amended motion to dismiss. It also ordered name of the plaintif National Housing
the trial court to suspend the expropriation Authority, the following:
proceedings until after the Province of (a) Transfer Certificate No. RT-638 containing
Camarines Sur shall have submitted the an area of 79,167 square meters situated in
requisite approval of the Department of Barrio Bangkal, Dasmarias, Cavite;
Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of
the property of the private respondents from (b) Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-55702
agricultural to non-agricultural land. Hence this containing an area of 20,872 square meters
petition. situated in Barrio Bangkal, Dasmarias,
Cavite;
ISSUE: Whether the expropriation of property
intended for the establishment of a pilot (c) Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-639
development center and housing project of the and RT-4641 covering Lot Nos. 6198-A and
Province of Camarines Sur is in consonance with 6199 with an aggregate area of 159,985
the public purpose requirement of the square meters also situated in Barrio
Constitution. Bangkal, Dasmarias, Cavite.
HELD: YES. The expropriation of the property (2) Plaintif National Housing Authority is
authorized by the questioned resolution is for a likewise hereby ordered, under pain of
public purpose. The establishment of a pilot contempt, to immediately pay the
development center would insure to the direct defendants, the amounts stated in the Writ
benefit and advantage of the people of the of Execution as the adjudicated
Province of Camarines Sur. Once operational, compensation of their expropriated
the center would make available to the properties, which process was received by it
community invaluable information and according to the records, on September 26,
technology on agriculture, fishery and the 1988, segregating therefrom, and in
cottage industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of separate check, the lawyer's fees in favor of
the farmers, fishermen and craftsmen would be Atty. Bobby P. Yuseco, in the amount of
enhanced. The housing project also satisfies the P322,123.05, as sustained by their contract
public purpose requirement of the Constitution. as gleaned from the records, with no other
As held in Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461, deduction, paying on its own (NHA) account,
"Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in the necessary legal expenses incident to the
housing is a matter of state concern since it registration or issuance of new certificates of
directly and significantly afects public health, title, pursuant to the provisions of the
safety, the environment and in sum the general Property Registration Law (PD 1529);
welfare."
(3) Defendants, however, are directed to pay The act of respondent NHA in entering into a
the corresponding capital gains tax on the contract with a real estate developer for the
subject properties, directing them additionally, construction of low cost housing on the
to coordinate with the plaintif NHA in this expropriated lots to be sold to qualified low
regard, in order to facilitate the termination of income beneficiaries cannot be taken to
this case, put an end to this controversy and mean as a deviation from the stated public
consign the same to its final rest." purpose of their taking. Jurisprudence has it
that the expropriation of private land for
ISSUE: The petitioners raise the following slum clearance and urban development is for
assignment of errors: a public purpose even if the developed area
1.The Honorable Court of Appeals had decided is later sold to private homeowners,
a question of substance not in accord with commercials firms, entertainment and
justice and equity when it ruled that, as the service companies, and other private
judgment of the expropriation court did not concerns.
contain a condition that should the expropriated Moreover, the Constitution itself allows the
property be not used for the intended purpose it State to undertake, for the common good
would revert to the condemnee, the action to and in cooperation with the private sector, a
declare the forfeiture of rights under the continuing program of urban land reform and
expropriation judgment can not prosper; housing which will make at afordable cost
2.The Honorable Court of Appeals decided a decent housing and basic services to
question of substance not in accord with underprivileged and homeless citizens in
jurisprudence, justice and equity when it ruled urban centers and resettlement areas.11 The
that the non-payment is not a ground for expropriation of private property for the
forfeiture; purpose of socialized housing for the
marginalized sector is in furtherance of the
3.The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not social justice provision under Section 1,
declaring the judgment of expropriation Article XIII of the Constitution which provides
forfeited in light of the failure of respondent to that:
use the expropriated property for the intended
purpose but for a totally diferent purpose." "SECTION 1. The Congress shall give
highest priority to the enactment of
HELD: The 1987 Constitution explicitly provides measures that protect and enhance the right
for the exercise of the power of eminent domain of all the people to human dignity, reduce
over private properties upon payment of just social, economic, and political inequalities,
compensation. More specifically, section 9, and remove cultural inequities by equitably
Article III states that private property shall not difusing wealth and political power for the
be taken for public use without just common good.
compensation. The constitutional restraints are
public use and just compensation. To this end, the State shall require the
acquisition, ownership, use and disposition
Petitioners cannot insist on a restrictive view of of property and its increments."
the eminent domain provision of the
Constitution by contending that the contract for THEREFORE, The appealed judgment is
low cost housing is a deviation from the stated modified as follows:
public use. It is now settled doctrine that the 1. Ordering respondent National Housing
concept of public use is no longer limited to Authority to pay petitioners the amount of
traditional purposes. Here, as elsewhere, the P1,218,574.35 with legal interest thereon at
idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear 12% per annum computed from the taking of
cases of "use by the public" has been the expropriated properties in 1997 until the
abandoned. The term "public use" has now amount due shall have been fully paid;
been held to be synonymous with "public
interest," "public benefit," "public welfare," and 2. Ordering petitioners to pay the capital
"public convenience." gains tax; and
The restrictive view of public use may be 3. Ordering petitioners to surrender to
appropriate for a nation which circumscribes respondent National Housing Authority the
the scope of government activities and public owners' duplicate certificates of title of the
concerns and which possesses big and correctly expropriated properties upon full payment of
located public lands that obviate the need to just compensation.
take private property for public purposes.
Neither circumstance applies to the Philippines. SUMULONG VS. GUERRERO [G.R. No. L-
We have never been a laissez faire State. And 48685, September 30, 1987]
the necessities which impel the exertion of FACTS: The National Housing Authority
sovereign power are all too often found in areas (NIIA) filed a complaint for expropriation of
of scarce public land or limited government parcels of land covering approximately
resources. twenty five (25) hectares, (in Antipolo, Rizal)
including the lots of petitioners Lorenzo Alfonso Yuchengco met with then president FVR
Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes-Balaoing with an for a possibility of investing the construction of a
area of 6,667 square meters and 3,333 square new airport terminal. They formed the company
meters respectively. The land sought to be Asias Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) to pursue
this goal.
expropriated were valued by the NHA at one
peso (P1.00) per square meter adopting the AEDC then gave an unsolicited proposal to the
market value fixed by the provincial assessor in Govt through the DOTC/MIAA for the
accordance with presidential decrees development of NAIA3 under the Build-Operate-
prescribing the valuation of property in Transfer Law (BOT). Afterwards, DOTC created its
expropriation proceedings. Pre-qualification Bids and Awards Committee
(PBAC) to implement the NAIA3 project as the
Together with the complaint was a motion for overseer for biddings.
immediate possession of the properties. The
Afterwards, then DOTC Secretary Garcia endorsed
NHA deposited the amount of P158,980.00 with
the proposal of AEDC to National Economic and
the Philippine National Bank, representing the Development Authority (NEDA), whose technical
"total market value" of the subject twenty five committee eventually approved it. Afterwards,
hectares of land, pursuant to Presidential AEDC and DOTC signed a Memorandum of
Decree No. 1224 which defines "the policy on Understanding (MOU), which essentially awards
the expropriation of private property for to AEDC the NAIA3 project, with provisions that
socialized housing upon payment of just AEDC must have a soft opening in two years.
compensation."
Then, DOTC published in newspapers invitation
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on for competitive comparative proposals on
the ground that they had been deprived of the AEDCs unsolicited proposal, in accordance with a
law that governs unsolicited proposals.
possession of their property without due
Essentially, it required interested bidders to
process of law. This was however, denied. submit 3 separate sealed envelopes: first on pre-
qualification documents, second on technical
Hence, this petition challenging the orders of
proposals, and lastly on the financial proposal.
respondent Judge and assailing the
constitutionality of Pres. Decree No. 1224, as Paircargo Consortium (which eventually changed
amended. name to PIATCO, a consortium composed of
Peoples Air Cargo and Warehousing, Inc., Phil. Air
ISSUE: Whether socialized housing constitutes and Ground Services, and Security Bank Corp.)
public use for purposes of expropriation. submitted their competitive proposal to PBAC.
The envelopes will be opened over a period of
HELD: YES. This Court is satisfied that time, each one opened only if the previous
"socialized housing" fans within the confines of envelope would qualify. AEDC would then oppose
"public use". As long as the purpose of the each instance the sealed envelopes would be
taking is public, then the power of eminent opened, citing primarily PIATCOs dubious
domain comes into play. As just noted, the financial capabilities to undergo with the project.
constitution in at least two cases, to remove Eventually, PBAC found PIATCOs proposal to be
any doubt, determines what is public use. One more favorable to the government and required
is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided AEDC to match its proposal. Instead, AEDC
into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. protested the undue preference given to PIATCO.
The other is in the transfer, through the Subsequently, after a series of passes before the
exercise of this power, of utilities and other NEDA Investment Committee, DOTC issued a
private enterprise to the government. is notice of award to PIATCO, and had signed a
accurate to state then that at present whatever concession agreement.
may be beneficially employed for the general AEDC then filed with the RTC a petition for
welfare satisfies the requirement of public use Declaration of nullity of the proceedings (the
DOTC/NEDA/PBAC approval proceedings) (This is
In the case at bar, the use to which it is
the Agan v. PIATCO case) against DOTC,
proposed to put the subject parcels of land
meets the requisites of "public use". The lands and PBAC. It was in this case that Cong. Baterina
in question are being expropriated by the NHA in GR 174166 filed a motion for Intervention and
for the expansion of Bagong Nayon Housing petition-in-intervention, along with other group
Project to provide housing facilities to low- and MIAA employees who allege that they stand
salaried government employees. the risk of unemployment upon the
implementation of the agreements.
ASIAS EMERGING DRAGON VS DOTC AND
MIAA, [GR 169914] a. RTC in this case granted the intervention
of Baterina and MIAA. For Baterina, they were
FACTS: The facts of the two cases are intertwined, granted standing in view of serious legal
both involves the controversies surrounding the NAIA questions involved and their impact to public
Airport III (NAIA3) project. interest
The facts from a case named Agan v. PIATCO serves b. RTC in this case ruled that the concession
as a background. In 1993, six business leaders John agreements were null and void. MRs of PIATCO
Gokongwei, Henry Sy, Sr., Lucio Tan, George Ty, and denied with finality.
c. Other issues are not relevant to our topic. The right of eminent domain extends to personal
and real property, and the NAIA 3 structures,
Then, there is another case, Republic v. Gingoyon, adhered as they are to the soil, are considered as
which dealt with the expropriation of NAIA3 because real property. The public purpose for the
it remained in the possession of PIATCO after the expropriation is also beyond dispute. It should
decision in Agan. In this case, the Govt sought to also be noted that Section 1 of Rule 67 (on
take control of the facilities and deposited 3B+ Expropriation) recognizes the possibility that the
(through MIAA) in Land Bank representing NAIA3s property sought to be expropriated may be titled
assessed value. Govt prayed for a writ of possession in the name of the Republic of the Philippines,
over NAIA3 although occupied by private individuals, and in
such case an averment to that efect should be
Afterwards in Gingoyon, RTC gave two orders, first
made in the complaint. The instant expropriation
being the Order that it will implement the writ of
complaint did aver that the NAIA 3 complex
possession only after the payment of 3B+ as just
"stands on a parcel of land owned by the Bases
compensation (expropriation), second as the next
Conversion Development Authority, another
order partially granting Govt MR on the first Order.
agency of [the Republic of the Philippines]."
But still unsatisfied, the Govt filed another MR for
partial reconsideration of the second order. It was Admittedly, eminent domain is not the sole
during this reconsideration of the second order that judicial recourse by which the Government may
Baterina and others also sought to intervene. (in have acquired the NAIA 3 facilities while
sum, Baterina intervened in two instances) satisfying the requisites in the 2004 Resolution.
Eminent domain though may be the most
Baterina wanted to intervene in this expropriation
efective, as well as the speediest means by
proceeding by asserting his legal interest by virtue
which such goals may be accomplished. Not only
of being a legislator, taxpayer, and concerned
does it enable immediate possession after
citizen. They were saying that the government need
satisfaction of the requisites under the law, it also
not pay PIATCO because the agreements were
has a built- in procedure through which just
deemed null and void.
compensation may be ascertained. Thus, there
RTC in Gingoyon denied Baterina (and others) should be no question as to the propriety of
Intervention with finality. Afterwards, it directed MIAA eminent domain proceedings in this case.
to immediately release to PIATCO the proferred value
HEIRS OF JUANCHO ARDONA ET AL. VS.
of 3B+. It was here that AEDC filed a motion for
HON. JUAN Y. REYES [G.R Nos. L- 60549,
leave to admit attached answer-in-intervention,
60553 October 26, 1983]
asserting that they should be given preference over
NAIA3 because of the MOU, and also its right as the FACTS: The Philippine Tourism Authority filed 4
projects original proponent. Complaints with the CIF of Cebu City for the
expropriation of some 282 hectares of rolling land
ISSUE : Is PIATCO entitled to just compensation ?
situated in barangays Malubog and Babag, Cebu
HELD: Yes. Contrary to Baterina's stance, PIATCO's City, under PTA's express authority "to acquire by
entitlement to just and equitable consideration for purchase, by negotiation or by condemnation
its construction of NAIA IPT III and the propriety of proceedings any private land within and without
the Republic's resort to expropriation proceedings the tourist zones" for the development into
were already recognized and upheld by this Court in integrated resort complexes of selected and well-
Agan and Gingoyon. defined geographic areas with potential tourism
value. As alleged in the complaints, the purposes
The pronouncement in the 2004 Resolution is of the expropriation are: to promote tourism and
especially significant to this case in two aspects, development of tourism projects will construct in
namely: (i) that PIATCO must receive payment of just Barangays Malubog, Busay and Babag, all of
compensation determined in accordance with law Cebu City. The development plan, covering
and equity; and (ii) that the government is barred approximately 1,000 hectares, includes the
from taking over NAIA 3 until such just compensation establishment of an electric power grid, deep
is paid. The parties cannot be allowed to evade the wells, and a complex sewerage and drainage
directives laid down by this Court through any mode system. Complimentary and support facilities for
of judicial action, such as the complaint for eminent the project will be constructed, including public
domain. rest houses, lockers, dressing rooms, cofee
shops, shopping malls, etc. Said facilities will
The Government has chosen to resort to create and ofer employment opportunities to
expropriation, a remedy available under the law, residents of the community and further generate
which has the added benefit of an integrated income for the whole of Cebu City. Plaintif needs
process for the determination of just compensation the property above described which is directly
and the payment thereof to PIATCO. We appreciate covered by the proposed golf court. The
that the case at bar is a highly unusual case, petitioners allegation in that the taking is
whereby the Government seeks to expropriate a allegedly not impressed with public use under the
building complex constructed on land which the Constitution, that there is no specific
State already owns. There is an inherent illogic in the constitutional provision authorizing the taking of
resort to eminent domain on property already owned private property for tourism purposes; that
by the State. At first blush, since the State already assuming that PTA has such power, the intended
owns the property on which NAIA 3 stands, the use cannot be paramount to the determination of
proper remedy should be akin to an action for the land as a land reform area; that limiting the
ejectment. amount of compensation by Legislative fiat is
constitutionally repugnant; and that since the
land is under the land reform program, it is the
Court of Agrarian Relations and not the Court of First According to them, assuming that PTA has the
Instance that has jurisdiction over the expropriation right to expropriate, the properties subject of
cases. expropriation may not be taken for the purposes
intended since they are within the coverage of
ISSUE: Whether or not the actions to expropriate "operation land transfer" under the land reform
their properties for the promotion of tourism are program. Petitioners claim that certificates of
constitutional? land transfer (CLT'S) and emancipation patents
have already been issued to them thereby
RULING: There are three provisions of the
making the lands expropriated within the
Constitution which directly provide for the exercise
coverage of the land reform area under
of the power of eminent domain. Section 2, Article IV
Presidential Decree No. 2; that the agrarian
provides: private property shall not be taken for
reform program occupies a higher level in the
public use without just compensation. Section 6,
order of priorities than other State policies like
Article XIV allows the State, in the interest of
those relating to the health and physical well-
national welfare or defense and upon payment of
being of the people; and that property already
just compensation to transfer to public ownership,
taken for public use may not be taken for another
utilities and other private enterprises to be operated
public use.
by the government. Section 13, Article XIV states
that the Batasang Pambansa may authorize upon The Petitioners, however, have failed to show
payment of just compensation the expropriation of that the area being developed is indeed a land
private lands to be subdivided into small lots and reform area and that the afected persons have
conveyed at cost to deserving citizens. emancipation patents and certificates of land
transfer. The records show that the area being
The petitioners look for the word "tourism" in the
developed into a tourism complex consists of
Constitution. Understandably the search would be in
more than 808 hectares, almost all of which is
vain. The policy objectives of the framers can be
not afected by the land reform program.
expressed only in general terms such as social
justice, local autonomy, conservation and The issue of prematurity is also raised by the
development of the national patrimony, public petitioners. They claim that since the necessity
interest, and general welfare, among others. for the taking has not been previously
established, the issuance of the orders
The petitioners face two major obstacles. First, their
authorizing the PTA to take immediate possession
contention which is rather sweeping in its call for a
of the premises, as well as the corresponding
retreat from the public welfare orientation is unduly
writs of possession was premature.
restrictive and outmoded. Second, no less than the
lawmaker has made a policy determination that the Whether the order of respondent Judge in an
power of eminent domain may be exercised in the expropriation case allowing the other respondent
promotion and development of Philippine tourism. to take immediate possession of the parcel of
land sought to be condemned for the
There can be no doubt that expropriation for such
beautification of its public plaza, without a prior
traditions' purposes as the construction of roads,
hearing to determine the necessity for the
bridges, ports, waterworks, schools, electric and
exercise of the power of eminent domain, is
telecommunications systems, hydroelectric power
vitiated by jurisdictional defect, the Supreme
plants, markets and slaughterhouses, parks,
Court held that: It is not disputed that in issuing
hospitals, government office buildings, and flood
such order, respondent Judge relied on
control or irrigation systems is valid. However, the
Presidential Decree No. 42 issued on the 9th of
concept of public use is not limited to traditional
November, 1972. This petition for certiorari must
purposes. Here as elsewhere the Idea that "public
fail, there being no showing that compliance with
use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the
the Presidential Decree, which under the
public" has been discarded.
Transitory Provisions is deemed a part of the law
The petitioners' contention that the promotion of of the land, would be characterized as either an
tourism is not "public use" because private act in excess of jurisdiction or a grave abuse of
concessioners would be allowed to maintain various discretion. The Court held that condemnation or
facilities such as restaurants, hotels, stores, etc. expropriation proceedings is in the nature of one
inside the tourist complex is impressed with even that is quasi-in-rem wherein the fact that the
less merit. Private bus firms, taxicab fleets, roadside owner of the property is made a party is not
restaurants, and other private businesses using essentially indispensable insofar was least as it
public streets end highways do not diminish in the concerns is the immediate taking of possession of
least bit the public character of expropriations for the property and the preliminary determination of
roads and streets. The lease of store spaces in its value, including the amount to be deposited.
underpasses of streets built on expropriated land
In their last argument, the petitioners claim that
does not make the taking for a private purpose.
a consequence of the expropriation proceedings
Airports and piers catering exclusively to private
would be their forcible ejectment. They contend
airlines and shipping companies are still for public
that such forcible ejectment is a criminal act
use. The expropriation of private land for slum
under Presidential Decree No. 583. This
clearance and urban development is for a public
contention is not valid. Presidential Decree No.
purpose even if the developed area is later sold to
583 prohibits the taking cognizance or
private homeowners, commercial firms,
implementation of orders designed to obstruct
entertainment and service companies, and other
the land reform program. It refers to the
private concerns.
harassment of tenant- farmers who try to enforce
The petitioners rely on the Land Reform Program of emancipation rights. It has nothing to do with the
the government in raising their second argument. expropriation by the State of lands needed for
public purposes. As a matter of fact, the ISSUE: Whether there was sufficient authority
expropriated area does not appear in the master from the petitioners board of directors to
lists of the Ministry of Agrarian Reforms as a institute the expropriation complaint?
tenanted area. The petitioners' bare allegations have
not been supported with particulars pointing to HELD: Petitioners charter provides that it has
specific parcels which are subject of tenancy the powers, rights and privileges given to private
contracts. The petitioners may be owner-tillers or corporations under existing laws, in addition to
may have some form of possessory or ownership the powers granted in it. All the powers,
rights but there has been no showing of their being privileges, and duties of the district shall be
tenants on the disputed lands. exercised and performed by and through the
board and that any executive, administrative or
The public respondents have stressed that the ministerial power may be delegated and
development of the 808 hectares includes plans that redelegated by the board to any of its officers or
would give the petitioners and other displaced agents for such purpose. Being a corporation,
persons productive employment, higher incomes, petitioner can exercise its powers only through its
decent housing, water and electric facilities, and board of directors.
better living standards. Our dismissing this petition
is, in part, predicated on those assurances. The right For MCWD to exercise its power of eminent
of the PTA to proceed with the expropriation of the domain, two requirements should be met,
282 hectares already Identified as fit for the namely: first, its board of directors passed a
establishment of a resort complex to promote resolution authorizing the expropriation, and;
tourism is, therefore, sustained. second, the exercise of the power of eminent
domain was subjected to review by the LWUA. In
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is this case, petitioners board of directors approved
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Board Resolution No. 015-2004 authorizing its
general manager to file expropriation and other
METROPOLITAN CEBU WATER DISTRICT cases. Moreover, the LWUA did review and gave
(MCWD) VS. J. KING AND SONS COMPANY, INC. its stamp of approval to the filing of a complaint
[G.R No. 175983, April 16, 2009] for the expropriation of respondents lot.
Specifically, the LWUA through its Administrator,
FACTS: Petitioner, MCWD wanted to acquire a 5-
Lorenzo H. Jamora, wrote petitioners manager,
square meter lot occupied by its production well. The
Armando H. Paredes, a letter dated 28 February
lot is part of respondents property covered by TCT
2005 authorizing petitioner to file the
No. 168605 and located in Banilad, Cebu City.
expropriation case against the owner of the five-
Petitioner initiated negotiations with respondent J.
square meter portion of Lot No. 921-A covered by
King and Sons Company, Inc. for the voluntary sale
TCT No. 168805, pursuant to Section 25 of P.D.
of the latters property. Respondent did not agree to
No. 198, as amended.
petitioners proposal. After the negotiations had
failed, petitioner pursuant to its charter initiated Section 4 of R.A. No. 8974 is emphatic to the
expropriation proceedings through Board Resolution efect that upon compliance with the
No. 015- 2004 which was duly approved by the Local guidelines...the court shall immediately issue to
Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). the implementing agency an order to take
possession of the property and start the
Petitioner filed a complaint to expropriate the 5-
implementation of the project. Under this
square meter portion of respondents property.
statutory provision, when the government, its
Petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of agencies or government-owned and controlled
possession. Petitioner wanted to tender the amount corporations, make the required provisional
to respondent during a rescheduled hearing which payment, the trial court has a ministerial duty to
petitioners counsel had failed to attend. Petitioner issue a writ of possession.
deposited with the Clerk of Court the amount of
- Governmental Withdrawal
P17,500.00 equivalent to 100% of the current zonal
value of the property which the Bureau of Internal NHA vs. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO
Revenue had pegged at P3,500.00 per square meter.
[GR No. 154411, June 19, 2003]
Subsequently, the trial court granted the motion and
issued the writ of possession. Respondent moved for FACTS: Petitioner filed with the RTC of Cebu
reconsideration but the motion was denied.
City, an Amended Complaint for eminent
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule domain against respondents. It alleged that
65 with the Court of Appeals. It sought the issuance defendant Associacion Benevola de Cebu
of a TRO which the Court of Appeals granted. Thus, was the claimant of a Lot located in Banilad,
petitioner was not able to gain entry to the lot. Cebu City; that defendant Engracia Urot was
the claimant of parcels of Lots, in the same
The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed decision
area; that defendant Heirs of Isidro
granting respondents petition. It ruled that the
board resolution which authorized the filing of the Guivelondo were claimants of lots in Carreta,
expropriation complaint lacked exactitude and Mabolo, Cebu City; and that the lands are in
particularity which made it invalid; that there was no the urban center which petitioner intends to
genuine necessity for the expropriation of the 5- develop as a socialized housing project.
square meter lot and; that the reliance on RA No.
8974 in fixing the value of the property contravenes The Heirs of Guivelondo filed a Manifestation
the judicial determination of just compensation. waiving their objections to petitioners power
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the motion to expropriate their properties. Thus the RTC
was rejected. issued an order to that efect. Thereafter, the
RTC appointed three Commissioners to However, if the funds belong to a public
ascertain the just compensation of the corporation or a GOCC with a personality of
properties of respondents. The Commissioners its own, then its funds are not exempt from
submitted their report recommending the just garnishment.
compensation be fixed at P11,200.00 per
square meter, which was favored by the RTC. Hence, it is clear that NHA is not exempt
from garnishment.
Petitioner, however, filed a Motion to Dismiss
alleging that the implementation of its WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
socialized housing project was rendered instant petition for review is DENIED.
impossible because the value of the land sought NPC & POBRE vs. CA [GR No. 106804,
to be expropriated was too high, and the August 12, 2004]
intended beneficiaries cannot aford. The
Motion was denied since the prior case was FACTS: Petitioner NPC is a public
decided on already. corporation created to generate geothermal,
hydroelectric, nuclear and other power and
After petitioners appeal was denied by the CA, to transmit electric power nationwide. NPC
the Landbank executed garnishment is authorized by law to exercise the right of
proceedings against the funds of NHA. eminent domain. Private respondent Pobre is
ISSUES: 1. WON the state can be compelled by the owner of property located in Tiwi, Albay.
the courts to continue with the exercise of its In 1963, Pobre began developing the
inherent Power of Eminent Domain? Property as a resort-subdivision, which he
2. WON judgment has become final and named as Tiwi Hot Springs Resort
executory and if estoppel applies to Subdivision.
government? The Commission on Volcanology certified
3. WON writs of execution and garnishment that thermal mineral water and steam were
may be issued against the state? present beneath the Property. The
commission found it suitable for domestic
HELD:There are two (2) stages in every use and potentially for commercial or
action for expropriation. The first is concerned industrial use. NPC then became involved
with the determination of the authority of the with Pobres Property in three instances.
plaintif to exercise the power of eminent
domain. The second is concerned with the First was on February 1972 when Pobre
determination by the Court of the just leased to NPC for one year eleven lots frof
compensation. the subdivision. Second was sometime in
1977, the first time that NPC filed its
The outcome of the first phase is final since it expropriation case against Pobre to acquire
disposes of the case. On the other hand, the an 8,311.60 sqm portion of the Property. On
second phase fixes the amount of just 1979, the trial court ordered the
compensation. Both orders, being final, are expropriation of the lots upon NPCs
however, appealable. Once the first order payment of P25/sqm. NPC began drilling
becomes final and no appeal thereto is taken, operations and construction of steam wells.
the authority to expropriate and its public use While the first case was pending, NPC
can no longer be questioned. dumped waste materials beyond the site
agreed upon by NPC with Pobre. It altered
In the case at bar, petitioner did not appeal the the topography o the Property. No action
Order of the RTC, which declared the lawful was done on Pobres complaints, dumping
right to expropriate the properties hence the continued. Third was on September 1979,
Order became final. when NPC filed its second expropriation
Socialized housing has been recognized as case. NPC needed more lots for the
public use for purposes of exercising the power construction and maintenance of a Well Site.
of eminent domain. The need to provide NPC immediately deposited P5,546.36 with
housing to the urban poor was not lost by fact the Philippine National Bank. The deposit
that the land cost more than petitioner had represented 10% of the total market value of
expected. The public purpose of is not the lots covered by the second expropriation.
diminished by the amount of just compensation NPC entered the 5,554 sqm lot upon the
the court has fixed. trial courts issuance of a writ of possession
to NPC.
On the issue of the garnishment against
petitioners funds, there is a need to determine Pobre filed a motion to dismiss the second
if it is a government entity. Generally, funds and complaint and claimed that NPC damaged
properties of the government cannot be the his Property. He prayed for just
object of garnishment proceedings. compensation of all the lots afected.
The trial court decided in favor of Pobre, value. NPC has demonstrated its utter
ordered the whole property to be paid of by disregard for Pobres property rights.
NPC.
Thus, it would now be futile to compel NPC to
NPC filed its motion for reconsideration of the institute expropriation proceedings to
decision, which was denied by the trial courts. determine the just compensation for Pobres
NPC appealed to CA. CA upheld the trial courts 68,969 square-meter Property. Pobre must
decision and denied NPCs motion for be spared any further delay in his pursuit to
reconsideration. receive just compensation from NPC. Just
compensation is the fair and full equivalent
ISSUES: WON, CA erred: of the loss.
1.In holding that NPC had taken the entire The lesson in this case must not be lost on
Property of Pobre? entities with eminent domain authority.
2.In not excluding from the Property portions of Such entities cannot trifle with a citizens
which NPC had previously expropriated and property rights. The power of eminent
paid for? domain is an extraordinary power they must
wield with circumspection and utmost regard
3.In holding that the amount of just for procedural requirements.
compensation fixed by the trial court at
P3,448,450.00 with interest from September WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack
1979 until fully paid, is just and fair? of merit.
4.In not holding that the just compensation - Recovery of Expropriated Land
should be fixed at P25/sqm only as what had REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
been previously agreed upon? VICENTE G. LIM
HELD: Even before the first case, Pobre had G.R. No. 161656. June 29, 2005
established his property as a resort-subdivision. FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines
NPC had wrought so much damage to the instituted a special civil action for
property that it made it uninhabitable as a expropriation with the CFI of Cebu involving
resort-subdivision. Questions of facts are Lots 932 and 939 of the Banilad Friar Land
beyond the pale of the SC as a petition for Estate, Lahug, Cebu City, for the purpose of
review may only raise questions of law. NPC establishing a military reservation for the
points out that it did not take Pobres 68,969 Philippine Army. Lot 932 was registered in
sqm property. NPC argues that assuming that it the name of Gervasia Denzon under TCT No.
is liable for damages, the 8,311.60 sqm portion 14921 with an area of 25,137 square meters,
that it had successfully expropriated and fully while Lot 939 was in the name of Eulalia
paid for should have been excluded from the Denzon and covered by TCT No. 12560
68,969 sqm property that Pobre claims NPC had consisting of 13,164 square meters.
damaged.
After depositing P9,500.00 with the
It was clearly established that the property Philippine National Bank, pursuant to the
originally had a total area of 141,300 sqm. Order of the CFI dated October 19, 1938, the
Pobre identified the lots forming the 68,969 Republic took possession of the lots.
sqm property that comprised the undeveloped Thereafter, or on May 14, 1940, the CFI
area. NPC had the opportunity to object to the rendered its Decision ordering the Republic
identification of the lots, but failed to do so. to pay the Denzons the sum of P4,062.10 as
Thus, the trial and appellate courts finding on just compensation.
the total land area NPC had damaged cannot be
disturbed. The Denzons interposed an appeal to the
Court of Appeals but it was dismissed. For
When possession of the land cannot be turned failure of the Republic to pay for the lots, the
over to the landowner because it is not Denzons successors-in-interest, Francisca
anymore convenient or feasible to do so, the Galeos-Valdehueza and Josefina Galeos-
only remedy available to the aggrieved Panerio, filed with the same CFI an action for
landowner is to demand payment of just recovery of possession with damages against
compensation. the Republic and officers of the Armed
In this case, the property is no longer habitable Forces of the Philippines in possession of the
as a resort-subdivision. The Property is property. The case was docketed as Civil
worthless is now only useful to NPC. NPC moved Case No. R-7208.
for the dismissal of the complaint for the second In the interim, TCT Nos. 23934 and 23935
expropriation on the ground that it had found covering Lots 932 and 939 were issued in
an alternative site and there was stif opposition the names of Francisca Valdehueza and
from Pobre. NPC abandoned the second Josefina Panerio, respectively. Annotated
expropriation case five years after it had thereon was the phrase subject to the
already deprived the Property virtually of all its priority of the National Airports Corporation
to acquire said parcels of land, Lots 932 and An action to quiet title is a common law
939 upon previous payment of a reasonable remedy for the removal of any cloud or
market value. doubt or uncertainty on the title to real
property. It is essential for the plaintif or
The CFI promulgated its Decision in favor of complainant to have a legal or equitable title
Valdehueza and Panerio, holding that they are or interest in the real property, which is the
the owners and have retained their right as subject matter of the action. Also the deed,
such over Lots 932 and 939 because of the claim, encumbrance or proceeding that is
Republics failure to pay the amount of being alleged as cloud on plaintifs title
P4,062.10, adjudged in the expropriation must be shown to be in fact invalid or
proceedings. However, in view of the inoperative despite its prima facie
annotation on their land titles, they were appearance of validity or legal efficacy
ordered to execute a deed of sale in favor of the (Robles vs. Court of Appeals, 328 SCRA 97).
Republic. In view of the diferences in money In view of the foregoing discussion, clearly,
value from 1940 up to the present, the court the claim of defendant-appellant Republic
adjusted the market value at P16,248.40, to be constitutes a cloud, doubt or uncertainty on
paid with 6% interest per annum from April 5, the title of plaintif-appellee Vicente Lim that
1948, date of entry in the expropriation can be removed by an action to quiet title.
proceedings, until full payment.
ISSUE: Whether the Republic has retained
After their motion for reconsideration was ownership of Lot 932 despite its failure to
denied, Valdehueza and Panerio appealed from pay respondents predecessors-in-interest
the CFI Decision, in view of the amount in the just compensation?
controversy, directly to this Court. The case was
docketed as No. L-21032. The Court rendered HELD: From the taking of private property
its Decision affirming the CFI Decision. It held by the government under the power of
that Valdehueza and Panerio are still the eminent domain, there arises an implied
registered owners of Lots 932 and 939, there promise to compensate the owner for his
having been no payment of just compensation loss
by the Republic. Apparently, this Court found
nothing in the records to show that the Republic Significantly, the above-mentioned provision
paid the owners or their successors-in-interest of Section 9, Article III of the Constitution is
according to the CFI decision. While it deposited not a grant but a limitation of power. This
the amount of P9,500,00, and said deposit was limiting function is in keeping with the
allegedly disbursed, however, the payees could philosophy of the Bill of Rights against the
not be ascertained. arbitrary exercise of governmental powers to
the detriment of the individuals rights.
Meanwhile, Valdehueza and Panerio mortgaged Given this function, the provision should
Lot 932 to Vicente Lim, herein respondent, as therefore be strictly interpreted against the
security for their loans. For their failure to pay expropriator, the government, and liberally
Lim despite demand, he had the mortgage in favor of the property owner.
foreclosed in 1976. Thus, TCT No. 23934 was
cancelled, and in lieu thereof, TCT No. 63894 Title to property which is the subject of
was issued in his name. condemnation proceedings does not vest the
condemnor until the judgment fixing just
Respondent Lim filed a complaint for quieting of compensation is entered and paid, but the
title with the RTC of Cebu City, against General condemnors title relates back to the date on
Romeo Zulueta, as Commander of the Armed which the petition under the Eminent
Forces of the Philippines, Commodore Edgardo Domain Act, or the commissioners report
Galeos, as Commander of Naval District V of the under the Local Improvement Act, is filed.
Philippine Navy, Antonio Cabaluna, Doroteo
Mantos and Florencio Belotindos, herein Clearly, without full payment of just
petitioners. Subsequently, he amended the compensation, there can be no transfer of
complaint to implead the Republic. title from the landowner to the expropriator.
Otherwise stated, the Republics acquisition
RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondent, of ownership is conditioned upon the full
thus declaring plaintif Vicente Lim the absolute payment of just compensation within a
and exclusive owner of Lot No. 932 with all the reasonable time
rights of an absolute owner including the right
to possession. The monetary claims in the WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the
complaint and in the counter claims contained Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
in the answer of defendants are ordered ANUNCIACION VDA. DE OUANO vs.
Dismissed. REPUBLIC
Petitioners elevated the case to the CA. In its [G.R. No. 168770 February 9, 2011]
Decision, the Appellate Court sustained the RTC FACTS: At the center of these 2 Petitions for
Decision, thus: Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the
issue of the right of the former owners of lots extended to them. A handful failed to prove
acquired for the expansion of the Lahug Airport that they acted on such assurance when
in Cebu City to repurchase or secure they parted with ownership of their land.
reconveyance of their respective properties.
ISSUES: Whether abandonment of the
At the outset, 3 fairly established factual public use for which the subject properties
premises ought to be emphasized: were expropriated entitles petitioners
Ouanos, et al. and respondents Inocian, et al.
First, the MCIAA and/or its predecessor agency to reacquire them?
had not actually used the lots subject of the
final decree of expropriation for the purpose HELD: YES. Providing added support to the
they were originally taken by the government, Ouanos and the Inocians right to repurchase
i.e., for the expansion and development of is what in Heirs of Moreno was referred to as
Lahug Airport. constructive trust, one that is akin to the
implied trust expressed in Art. 1454 of the
Second, the Lahug Airport had been closed and Civil Code, the purpose of which is to prevent
abandoned. A significant portion of it had, in unjust enrichment. In the case at bench, the
fact, been purchased by a private corporation Ouanos and the Inocians parted with their
for development as a commercial complex. respective lots in favor of the MCIAA, the
Third, it has been preponderantly established latter obliging itself to use the realties for the
by evidence that the NAC, through its team of expansion of Lahug Airport; failing to keep its
negotiators, had given assurance to the end of the bargain, MCIAA can be compelled
afected landowners that they would be entitled by the former landowners to reconvey the
to repurchase their respective lots in the event parcels of land to them, otherwise, they
they are no longer used for airport purposes. would be denied the use of their properties
"No less than Asterio Uy," the Court noted in upon a state of afairs that was not
Heirs of Moreno, "one of the members of the conceived nor contemplated when the
CAA Mactan Legal Team, which interceded for expropriation was authorized. In efect, the
the acquisition of the lots for the Lahug government merely held the properties
Airports expansion, affirmed that persistent condemned in trust until the proposed public
assurances were given to the landowners to the use or purpose for which the lots were
efect that as soon as the Lahug Airport is condemned was actually consummated by
abandoned or transferred to Mactan, the lot the government. Since the government
owners would be able to reacquire their failed to perform the obligation that is the
properties." In Civil Case No. CEB-20743, Exhibit basis of the transfer of the property, then the
"G," the transcript of the deposition of lot owners Ouanos and Inocians can demand
Anunciacion vda. de Ouano covering the the reconveyance of their old properties
assurance made had been formally ofered in after the payment of the condemnation
evidence and duly considered in the initial price.
decision of the RTC Cebu City. In Civil Case No. In esse, expropriation is forced private
CEB-18370, the trial court, on the basis of property taking, the landowner being really
testimonial evidence, and later the CA, without a ghost of a chance to defeat the
recognized the reversionary rights of the suing case of the expropriating agency. In other
former lot owners or their successors in interest words, in expropriation, the private owner is
and resolved the case accordingly. In point with deprived of property against his will. Withal,
respect to the representation and promise of the mandatory requirement of due process
the government to return the lots taken should ought to be strictly followed, such that the
the planned airport expansion do not state must show, at the minimum, a genuine
materialize is what the Court said in Heirs of need, an exacting public purpose to take
Moreno, thus: private property, the purpose to be
This is a difficult case calling for a difficult but specifically alleged or least reasonably
just solution. To begin with there exists an deducible from the complaint.
undeniable historical narrative that the Public use, as an eminent domain concept,
predecessors of respondent MCIAA had has now acquired an expansive meaning to
suggested to the landowners of the properties include any use that is of "usefulness, utility,
covered by the Lahug Airport expansion scheme or advantage, or what is productive of
that they could repurchase their properties at general benefit [of the public]." If the
the termination of the airports venue. Some genuine public necessitythe very reason or
acted on this assurance and sold their condition as it wereallowing, at the first
properties; other landowners held out and instance, the expropriation of a private land
waited for the exercise of eminent domain to ceases or disappears, then there is no more
take its course until finally coming to terms with cogent point for the governments retention
respondents predecessors that they would not of the expropriated land. The same legal
appeal nor block further judgment of situation should hold if the government
condemnation if the right of repurchase was devotes the property to another public use
very much diferent from the original or [G.R. No. L-51078, October 30, 1980]
deviates from the declared purpose to benefit
another private person. It has been said that FACTS: A petition for certiorari and
the direct use by the state of its power to oblige prohibition was filed by Cristina de Knecht
landowners to renounce their productive against the Honorable Pedro JL. Bautista, as
possession to another citizen, who will use it Judge presiding over CFI of Rizal, and the
predominantly for that citizens own private Republic of the Philippines pines seeking that
gain, is ofensive to our laws. judgment be rendered annulling the order for
immediate possession issued by respondent
A condemnor should commit to use the court in the expropriation proceedings and
property pursuant to the purpose stated in the commanding respondents to desist from
petition for expropriation, failing which it should further proceedings in the expropriation
file another petition for the new purpose. If not, action or the order for immediate possession
then it behooves the condemnor to return the issued in said action, with costs.
said property to its private owner, if the latter
so desires. The government cannot plausibly And that a restraint order or writ of
keep the property it expropriated in any manner preliminary injunction be issued ex-parte
it pleases and, in the process, dishonor the enjoining respondents, their representative
judgment of expropriation. This is not in keeping representative and agents from enforcing
with the idea of fair play, the here questioned order for mediate
posession petitioner ofering to post a bond
The notion, therefore, that the government, executed to the parties enjoined in an
viaexpropriation proceedings, acquires amount to be fixed by the Court to the efect
unrestricted ownership over or a fee simple title that she will pay to such parties all damages
to the covered land, is no longer tenable. which they may sustain by reason of the
injunction if the Court should finally decide
Expropriated lands should be diferentiated she is not entitled there.
from a piece of land, ownership of which was
absolutely transferred by way of an 10 years ago, the government through the
unconditional purchase and sale contract freely Department of Public Workmen's and
entered by two parties, one without obligation Communication prepared a to EDSA to Roxas
to buy and the other without the duty to sell. In Boulevard; that the proposed extension, an
that case, the fee simple concept really comes adjunct of building program, the project
into play. There is really no occasion to apply would pass through Cuneta Avenue up to
the "fee simple concept" if the transfer is Roxas Boulevard that this route would be a
conditional. The taking of a private land in straight one taking into account the direction
expropriation proceedings is always conditioned of EDSA. Then Secretary Baltazar Aquino of
on its continued devotion to its public purpose. the Department of Public Highways directed
As a necessary corollary, once the purpose is the City Engineer of Pasay City not to issue
terminated or peremptorily abandoned, then temporary or permanent permits for the
the former owner, if he so desires, may seek its construction and/or improvement of
reversion, subject of course to the return, at the buildings and other structures located within
very least, of the just compensation received. the proposed extension through Cuneta
Avenue.
To be compelled to renounce dominion over a
piece of land is, in itself, an already bitter pill to DPWH decided to make the proposed
swallow for the owner. But to be asked to extension go through Fernando Rein and Del
sacrifice for the common good and yield Pan Streets which are lined with old
ownership to the government which reneges on substantial houses; that upon learning of the
its assurance that the private property shall be changed the owners of the residential
for a public purpose may be too much. But it houses that would be afected, the herein
would be worse if the power of eminent domain petitioner being one of them.
were deliberately used as a subterfuge to
benefit another with influence and power in the Petitioner filed a formal petition to President
political process, including development firms. Ferdinand E. Marcos asking him to order the
The mischief thus depicted is not at all far- Ministry of Public Highways to adoption, the
fetched with the continued application of Fery. original plan of making the extension of
Even as the Court deliberates on these EDSA through Araneta Avenue instead of the
consolidated cases, there is an uncontroverted new plan going through Fernando Rein and
allegation that the MCIAA is poised to sell, if it Del Pan Streets; that President Marcos
has not yet sold, the areas in question to Cebu directed then Minister Baltazar Aquino to
Property Ventures, Inc. This provides an added explain within 24 hours why the proposed
dimension to abandon Fery. project should not be suspended.
The motion to dismiss contemplated in the In this case, petitioner contends that
above Rule clearly constitutes the responsive respondent City of Pasig failed to establish a
pleading which takes the place of an answer to genuine necessity which justifies the
the complaint for expropriation. Such motion is condemnation of her property. While she
the pleading that puts in issue the right of the does not dispute the intended public
plaintif to expropriate the defendants property purpose, nonetheless, she insists that there
for the use specified in the complaint. All that must be a genuine necessity for the
the law requires is that a copy of the said proposed use and purposes. Evidently, there
motion be served on plaintifs attorney of is no "genuine necessity" to justify the
record. It is the court that at its convenience will expropriation.
set the case for trial after the filing of the said
pleading. The right to take private property for public
purposes necessarily originates from "the
The CA therefore erred in holding that the necessity" and the taking must be limited to
motion to dismiss filed by petitioner such necessity. In City of Manila v. Chinese
hypothetically admitted the truth of the facts Community of Manila, we held that the very
alleged in the complaint, "specifically that there foundation of the right to exercise eminent
is a genuine necessity to expropriate domain is a genuine necessity and that
necessity must be of a public character. The Municipal Council of Meycauayan,
Moreover, the ascertainment of the necessity headed by then Mayor Celso R. Legaspi,
must precede or accompany and not follow, the passed Resolution No. 258, manifesting the
taking of the land. intention to expropriate the respondent's
parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate
Applying this standard, we hold that respondent of Title No. 37879.
City of Pasig has failed to establish that there is
a genuine necessity to expropriate petitioners An opposition to the resolution was filed by
property. Our scrutiny of the records shows that the respondent with the Office of the
the Certification issued by the Caniogan Provincial Governor, which, in turn, created a
Barangay Council dated November 20, 1994, special committee of four members to
the basis for the passage of Ordinance No. 42 s. investigate the matter.
1993 authorizing the expropriation, indicates
that the intended beneficiary is the Melendres The Special Committee recommended that
Compound Homeowners Association, a private, the Provincial Board of Bulacan disapprove or
non-profit organization, not the residents of annul the resolution in question because
Caniogan. It can be gleaned that the members there was no genuine necessity for the
of the said Association are desirous of having Municipality of Meycauayan to expropriate
their own private playground and recreational the respondent's property for use as a public
facility. Petitioners lot is the nearest vacant road.
space available. The purpose is, therefore, not On the basis of this report, the Provincial
clearly and categorically public. Board of Bulacan passed Resolution No. 238,
Unless the requisite of genuine necessity for the disapproving and annulling Resolution No.
expropriation of ones property is clearly 258, of the Municipal Council of Meycauayan.
established, it shall be the duty of the courts to The respondent, then, reiterated to the
protect the rights of individuals to their private Office of the Mayor its petition for the
property. Important as the power of eminent approval of the permit to fence the aforesaid
domain may be, the inviolable sanctity which parcels of land.
the Constitution attaches to the property of the However, the Municipal Council of
individual requires not only that the purpose for Meycauayan, now headed by Mayor Adriano
the taking of private property be specified. The D. Daez, passed Resolution No. 21, for the
genuine necessity for the taking, which must be purpose of expropriating anew the
of a public character, must also be shown to respondent's land. The Provincial Board of
exist. Bulacan approved the aforesaid resolution.
The petition for review is GRANTED. The Thereafter, the petitioner, filed with the RTC
challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch VI, a special civil
of Appeals are REVERSED. The complaint for action for expropriation.
expropriation filed before the trial court by
respondent City of Pasig is ordered DISMISSED. Upon deposit of the amount of P24,025.00,
which is the market value of the land, with
MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN vs. the Philippine National Bank, the trial court
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT [G.R. issued a writ of possession in favor of the
No. 72126, January 29, 1988] petitioner.
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari The trial court issued an order declaring the
of the resolution by the former Intermediate taking of the property as lawful and
Appellate Court, now CA, setting aside its appointing the Provincial Assessor of Bulacan
earlier decision and dismissing the special civil as court commissioner who shall hold the
action for expropriation filed by the petitioner. hearing to ascertain the just compensation
Respondent Philippine Pipes and Merchandising for the property.
Corporation filed with the Office of the The respondent went to the Intermediate
Municipal Mayor of Meycauayan, Bulacan, an Appellate Court on petition for review. The
application for a permit to fence a parcel of land appellate court affirmed the trial court's
with a width of 26.8 meters and a length of decision. However, upon motion for
184.37 meters covered by TCT Nos. 215165 and reconsideration by the respondent, the
37879. The fencing of said property was decision was re-examined and reversed. The
allegedly to enable the storage of the appellate court held that there is no genuine
respondent's heavy equipment and various necessity to expropriate the land for use as a
finished products such as large diameter steel public road as there were several other roads
pipes, pontoon pipes for ports, wharves, and for the same purpose and another more
harbors, bridge components, pre-stressed appropriate lot for the proposed public road.
girders and piles, large diameter concrete The court, taking into consideration the
pipes, and parts for low cost housing. location and size of the land, also opined
that the land is more Ideal for use as storage
area for respondent's heavy equipment and ISSUE: Whether the 20% sales discount
finished products. granted by respondent to qualified senior
citizens pursuant to Sec. 4(a) of R.A. No.
ISSUE: Whether the Municipality of 7432 may be claimed as a tax credit or as a
Meycauayan was right to exercise its power of deduction from gross sales in accordance
eminent domain to expropriate the with Sec. 2(1) of Revenue Regulations No. 2-
respondent's property for use as a public road? 94?
HELD: This Court held that the foundation of HELD: The 20% sales discount given to
the right to exercise the power of eminent senior citizens may be claimed as a tax
domain is genuine necessity and that necessity credit and not as a deduction from the gross
must be of a public character. Condemnation of sales.
private property is justified only if it is for the
public good and there is a genuine necessity of Wherefore the petition is DENIED and the
a public character. Consequently, the courts decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.
have the power to inquire into the legality of
the exercise of the right of eminent domain and Legal Basis:
to determine whether there is a genuine Sec. 4(a) of R.A. No. 7432 provides:
necessity thereof. There is absolutely no
showing in the petition why the more Sec. 4. Privileges for the Senior citizens.
appropriate lot for the proposed road which was The senior citizens shall be entitled to the
ofered for sale has not been the subject of the following:
petitioner's attempt to expropriate assuming
there is a real need for another connecting (a) The grant of twenty percent (20%)
road. discount from all establishments relative to
utilization of transportations services, hotels
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and similar lodging establishments,
for lack of merit. The questioned resolution of restaurants and recreation centers and
the respondent court is AFFIRMED. purchase of medicines anywhere in the
country: Provided, that private
- Just Compensation (Defined) establishments may claim the cost as tax
CMSR. OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS CENTRAL credit.
LUZON DRUG CORPORATION [GR No. The above provision explicitly employed the
148512, June 26, 2006] word tax credit. Nothing in the provision
FACTS: From January 1995 to December 1995, suggests for it to mean a deduction from
Central Luzon Drug Corporation has been gross sales. To construe it otherwise would
granting 20% discount on the sale of medicines be a departure from the clear mandate of
to qualified senior citizens amounting to the law.
P219,778.00. Pursuant to Revenue Regulations It is a fundamental rule in statutory
No. 2-94 implementing R.A. No. 7432, which construction that the legislative intent must
states that the discount given to senior citizens be determined from the language of the
shall be deducted by the establishment from its statute itself especially when the words and
gross sales for value-added tax and other phrases therein are clear and unequivocal.
percentage tax purposes, respondent deducted The statute in such a case must be taken to
the total amount of P219, 778.00 from its gross mean exactly what it says. Its literal
income for the taxable year 1995. Subsequently meaning should be followed to depart from
on December 27, 1996, the Central Luzon Drug the meaning expressed by the words is to
Corporation claimed for a tax credit amounting alter the statute.
to P150, 193.00 (P219, 778.00 20% sales
discount given to senior citizen P69, 585.00 The tax credit benefit granted to the
income tax). establishments can be deemed as their just
compensation for private property taken by
Since the Commissioner of Internal Revenue the State for public use. The privilege
was not able to decide the claim for refund on enjoyed by the senior citizens does not come
time, respondent filed a Petition for Review with directly from the State, but rather from the
the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) on March 18, private establishments concerned.
1998. However, this was dismissed by CTA
declaring that even if the 20% sales discount is SANTIAGO ESLABAN, JR. vs. CLARITA
granted to senior citizens as a credit, this VDA. DE ONORIO
cannot be applied when there is no tax liability [G.R. No. 146062, June 28, 2001]
or the tax credit is greater than the tax due.
The respondent then filed with the CA a petition FACTS: This is a petition for review of the
for Review. The petition for the P 150, 193.00 decision of the Court of Appeals which
tax credit was granted and the decision of the affirmed the decision of the RTC, Surallah,
CTA set aside, thus this instant petition. South Cotabato, ordering the National
Irrigation Administration (NIA for brevity) to
pay respondent the amount of P107,517.60 as At the pre-trial conference, the following
just compensation for the taking of the latters facts were stipulated upon: (1) that the area
property. taken was 24,660 square meters; (2) that it
was a portion of the land covered by TCT No.
Respondent Clarita Vda. de Enorio is the owner T-22121 in the name of respondent and her
of a lot in Barangay M. Roxas, Sto. Nio, South late husband (Exh. A); and (3) that this area
Cotabato with an area of 39,512 square meters. had been taken by the NIA for the
Santiago Eslaban, Jr., Project Manager of the construction of an irrigation canal.
NIA, approved the construction of the main
irrigation canal of the NIA on the said lot, The trial court rendered a decision, the
afecting a 24,660 square meter portion thereof. dispositive portion of which reads:
Respondents husband agreed to the
construction of the NIA canal provided that they TRIAL COURT RULING: In view of the
be paid by the government for the area taken foregoing, decision is hereby rendered in
after the processing of documents by the favor of plaintif and against the defendant
Commission on Audit. ordering the defendant, National Irrigation
Administration, to pay to plaintif the sum of
Sometime in 1983, a Right-of-Way agreement P107,517.60 as just compensation for the
was executed between respondent and the NIA questioned area of 24,660 square meters of
(Exh. 1). The NIA then paid respondent the land owned by plaintif and taken by said
amount of P4,180.00 as Right-of-Way damages. defendant NIA which used it for its main
Respondent subsequently executed an Affidavit canal plus costs.
of Waiver of Rights and Fees whereby she
waived any compensation for damages to crops Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals
and improvements which she sufered as a which affirmed the decision of the RTC.
result of the construction of a right-of-way on Hence this petition.
her property (Exh. 2). The same year, petitioner ISSUES: 1. WON the petition is dismissible
ofered respondent the sum of P35,000.00 by for failure to comply with the provisions of
way of amicable settlement pursuant to section 5, rule 7 of the revised rules of civil
Executive Order No. 1035, 18, which provides procedure?
in part that
2. WON land granted by virtue of a
Financial assistance may also be given to homestead patent and subsequently
owners of lands acquired under C.A. 141, as registered under presidential decree 1529
amended, for the area or portion subject to the ceases to be part of the public domain?
reservation under Section 12 thereof in such
amounts as may be determined by the 3. WON the value of just compensation shall
implementing agency/instrumentality be determined from the time of the taking or
concerned in consultation with the Commission from the time of the finality of the decision?
on Audit and the assessors office concerned.
4. WON the affidavit of waiver of rights and
Respondent demanded payment for the taking fees executed by respondent exempts
of her property, but petitioner refused to pay. petitioner from making payment to the
Accordingly, respondent filed a complaint former?
against petitioner before the Regional Trial
Court, praying that petitioner be ordered to pay HELD: First. Rule 7, 5 of the 1997 Revised
the sum of P111,299.55 as compensation for Rules on Civil Procedure provides
the portion of her property used in the Certification against forum shopping. The
construction of the canal constructed by the plaintif or principal party shall certify under
NIA, litigation expenses, and the costs. oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a
Petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor- sworn certification annexed thereto and
General, filed an Answer, in which he admitted simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he
that NIA constructed an irrigation canal over the has not theretofore commenced any action
property of the plaintif and that NIA paid a or filed any claim involving the same issues
certain landowner whose property had been in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency
taken for irrigation purposes, but petitioner and, to the best of his knowledge, no such
interposed the defense that: (1) the other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if
government had not consented to be sued; (2) there is such other pending action or claim, a
the total area used by the NIA for its irrigation complete statement of the present status
canal was only 2.27 hectares, not 24,600 thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn
square meters; and (3) respondent was not that the same or similar action or claim has
entitled to compensation for the taking of her been filed or is pending, he shall report the
property considering that she secured title over fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
the property by virtue of a homestead patent court wherein his aforesaid complaint or
under C.A. No. 141. initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing ordinary or cadastral registration
requirements shall not be curable by mere proceedings.
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of The Solicitor-General contends, however,
the case without prejudice, unless otherwise that an encumbrance is imposed on the land
provided, upon motion and after hearing . . . . in question in view of 39 of the Land
Registration Act (now P.D. No. 1529, 44)
By reason of Rule 45, 4 of the 1997 Revised which provides:
Rules on Civil Procedure, in relation to Rule 42,
2 thereof, the requirement of a certificate of Every person receiving a certificate of title in
non-forum shopping applies to the filing of pursuance of a decree of registration, and
petitions for review on certiorari of the decisions every subsequent purchaser of registered
of the Court of Appeals, such as the one filed by land who takes a certificate of title for value
petitioner. in good faith shall hold the same free from
all encumbrances except those noted on said
As provided in Rule 45, 5, "The failure of the certificate, and any of the following
petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing encumbrances which may be subsisting,
requirements regarding . . . the contents of the namely:
document which should accompany the petition
shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal Third. Any public highway, way, private way
thereof." established by law, or any government
irrigation canal or lateral thereof, where the
The requirement in Rule 7, 5 that the certificate of title does not state that the
certification should be executed by the plaintif boundaries of such highway, way, irrigation
or the principal means that counsel cannot sign canal or lateral thereof, have been
the certificate against forum-shopping. The determined.
reason for this is that the plaintif or principal
knows better than anyone else whether a As this provision says, however, the only
petition has previously been filed involving the servitude which a private property owner is
same case or substantially the same issues. required to recognize in favor of the
Hence, a certification signed by counsel alone is government is the easement of a "public
defective and constitutes a valid cause for highway, way, private way established by
dismissal of the petition. law, or any government canal or lateral
thereof where the certificate of title does not
In this case, the petition for review was filed by state that the boundaries thereof have been
Santiago Eslaban, Jr., in his capacity as Project pre-determined." This implies that the same
Manager of the NIA. However, the verification should have been pre-existing at the time of
and certification against forum-shopping were the registration of the land in order that the
signed by Cesar E. Gonzales, the administrator registered owner may be compelled to
of the agency. The real party-in-interest is the respect it. Conversely, where the easement
NIA, which is a body corporate. Without being is not pre-existing and is sought to be
duly authorized by resolution of the board of the imposed only after the land has been
corporation, neither Santiago Eslaban, Jr. nor registered under the Land Registration Act,
Cesar E. Gonzales could sign the certificate proper expropriation proceedings should be
against forum-shopping accompanying the had, and just compensation paid to the
petition for review. Hence, on this ground alone, registered owner thereof.6
the petition should be dismissed.
In this case, the irrigation canal constructed
Second. Coming to the merits of the case, the by the NIA on the contested property was
land under litigation, as already stated, is built only on October 6, 1981, several years
covered by a transfer certificate of title after the property had been registered on
registered in the Registry Office of Koronadal, May 13, 1976. Accordingly, prior
South Cotabato on May 13, 1976. This land was expropriation proceedings should have been
originally covered by Original Certificate of Title filed and just compensation paid to the
No. (P-25592) P-9800 which was issued owner thereof before it could be taken for
pursuant to a homestead patent granted on public use.
February 18, 1960. We have held:
Indeed, the rule is that where private
Whenever public lands are alienated, granted or property is needed for conversion to some
conveyed to applicants thereof, and the deed public use, the first thing obviously that the
grant or instrument of conveyance [sales government should do is to ofer to buy it. If
patent] registered with the Register of Deeds the owner is willing to sell and the parties
and the corresponding certificate and owners can agree on the price and the other
duplicate of title issued, such lands are deemed conditions of the sale, a voluntary
registered lands under the Torrens System and transaction can then be concluded and the
the certificate of title thus issued is as transfer efected without the necessity of a
conclusive and indefeasible as any other judicial action. Otherwise, the government
certificate of title issued to private lands in will use its power of eminent domain, subject
to the payment of just compensation, to acquire court deems just and equitable. (Emphasis
private property in order to devote it to public added)
use.
Thus, the value of the property must be
Third. With respect to the compensation which determined either as of the date of the
the owner of the condemned property is taking of the property or the filing of the
entitled to receive, it is likewise settled that it is complaint, "whichever came first." Even
the market value which should be paid or "that before the new rule, however, it was already
sum of money which a person, desirous but not held in Commissioner of Public Highways v.
compelled to buy, and an owner, willing but not Burgos that the price of the land at the time
compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to of taking, not its value after the passage of
be given and received therefore." Further, just time, represents the true value to be paid as
compensation means not only the correct just compensation. It was, therefore, error for
amount to be paid to the owner of the land but the Court of Appeals to rule that the just
also the payment of the land within a compensation to be paid to respondent
reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt should be determined as of the filing of the
payment, compensation cannot be considered complaint in 1990, and not the time of its
"just" for then the property owner is made to taking by the NIA in 1981, because petitioner
sufer the consequence of being immediately was allegedly remiss in its obligation to pay
deprived of his land while being made to wait respondent, and it was respondent who filed
for a decade or more before actually receiving the complaint. In the case of Burgos , it was
the amount necessary to cope with his loss. also the property owner who brought the
Nevertheless, as noted in Ansaldo v. Tantuico, action for compensation against the
Jr., there are instances where the expropriating government after 25 years since the taking
agency takes over the property prior to the of his property for the construction of a road.
expropriation suit, in which case just
compensation shall be determined as of the Indeed, the value of the land may be
time of taking, not as of the time of filing of the afected by many factors. It may be
action of eminent domain. enhanced on account of its taking for public
use, just as it may depreciate. As observed
Before its amendment in 1997, Rule 67, 4 in Republic v. Lara:
provided:
[W]here property is taken ahead of the
Order of condemnation. When such a motion filing of the condemnation proceedings, the
is overruled or when any party fails to defend as value thereof may be enhanced by the public
required by this rule, the court may enter an purpose for which it is taken; the entry by
order of condemnation declaring that the the plaintif upon the property may have
plaintif has a lawful right to take the property depreciated its value thereby; or there may
sought to be condemned, for the public use or have been a natural increase in the value of
purpose described in the complaint upon the the property from the time it is taken to the
payment of just compensation to be determined time the complaint is filed, due to general
as of the date of the filing of the complaint. . . . economic conditions. The owner of private
property should be compensated only for
It is now provided that what he actually loses; it is not intended that
SEC. 4. Order of expropriation. If the his compensation shall extend beyond his
objections to and the defense against the right loss or injury. And what he loses is only the
of the plaintif to expropriate the property are actual value of his property at the time it is
overruled, or when no party appears to defend taken. This is the only way that
as required by this Rule, the court may issue an compensation to be paid can be truly just,
order of expropriation declaring that the plaintif i.e., "just" not only to the individual whose
has a lawful right to take the property sought to property is taken, "but to the public, which is
be expropriated, for the public use or purpose to pay for it" . . . .
described in the complaint, upon the payment In this case, the proper valuation for the
of just compensation to be determined as of the property in question is P16,047.61 per
date of the taking of the property or the filing of hectare, the price level for 1982, based on
the complaint, whichever came first. the appraisal report submitted by the
A final order sustaining the right to expropriate commission (composed of the provincial
the property may be appealed by any party treasurer, assessor, and auditor of South
aggrieved thereby. Such appeal, however, shall Cotabato) constituted by the trial court to
not prevent the court from determining the just make an assessment of the expropriated
compensation to be paid. land and fix the price thereof on a per
hectare basis.14
After the rendition of such an order, the plaintif
shall not be permitted to dismiss or discontinue Fourth. Petitioner finally contends that it is
the proceeding except on such terms as the exempt from paying any amount to
respondent because the latter executed an
Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and Fees of any compensation for the subject properties.
compensation due in favor of the Municipal Since the Board of Commissioners could not
Treasurer of Barangay Sto. Nio, South Cotabato reach a common valuation for the properties,
. However, as the Court of Appeals correctly the RTC made its own valuation. First, the
held: RTC took judicial notice of the fact that a
portion of the land, measuring approximately
If NIA intended to bind the appellee to said 10 hectares, is commercial land, since it is
affidavit, it would not even have bothered to located a few kilometers away from Sitio
give her any amount for damages caused on Curvada, Pitago, Cataingan, Masbate, which
the improvements/crops within the appellees is a commercial district. The lower court thus
property. This, apparently was not the case, as priced the 10 hectares at P100,000.00 per
can be gleaned from the disbursement voucher hectare and the remaining 476 hectares at
in the amount of P4,180.00 (page 10 of the P32,000.00 per hectare. Both parties
Folder of Exhibits in Civil Case 396) issued on appealed to the CA.
September 17, 1983 in favor of the appellee,
and the letter from the Office of the Solicitor The LBP argued that the RTC committed a
General recommending the giving of "financial serious error when it disregarded the formula
assistance in the amount of P35,000.00" to the for fixing just compensation embodied in
appellee. DAR AO No. 6, as amended by DAR AO No.
11. The LBP also argued that the RTC erred in
Thus, We are inclined to give more credence to taking judicial notice that 10 hectares of the
the appellees explanation that the waiver of land in question is commercial land.
rights and fees "pertains only to improvements
and crops and not to the value of the land In contrast, Honeycomb Farms maintains
utilized by NIA for its main canal."15 that the DAR AOs were issued merely to
serve as guidelines for the DAR and the LBP
The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is in administratively fixing the valuation to be
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to the ofered by the DAR to the landowner for
extent that the just compensation for the acceptance or rejection. However, it is not
contested property be paid to respondent in the mandatory for courts to use the DAR AOs to
amount of P16,047.61 per hectare, with interest fix just compensation as this would amount
at the legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum to an administrative imposition on an
from the time of taking until full payment is otherwise purely judicial function and
made. Costs against petitioner. prerogative of determination of just
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. compensation for expropriated lands
HONEYCOMB FARMS CORPORATION [G.R. specifically reserved by the Constitution to
No. 169903 : February 29, 2012] the courts.
Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due The plaintif filed a motion for leave of court
notice to the defendant, the implementing to amend its complaint stating that after it
agency shall immediately pay the owner of the had filed the same, P.D. No. 464was
property the amount equivalent to the sum of amended by P.D. No. 794 and that the
one hundred percent of the value of the amended complaint would state that the fair
property based on the current relevant zonal market value of the property could not be in
valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; excess of P1,800,000, the amount for which
and the value of the improvements and/or defendant's predecessor-in-interest had
structures as determined under Section 7. ofered to sell said properties to the Division
of Public Schools of Manila and which
If Sec2 Rule 67 applies then PIATCO would be amount was also the purchase price paid by
enjoined from receiving a single centavo as just Amerex to Avegon Inc. This was denied by
compensation before the Government takes the lower court, but after the plaintif filed a
over the NAIA 3 facility by virtue of a writ of motion for reconsideration, the lower court
possession. admitted the amended complaint. Audited
financial statements were submitted by
Hence the Court ruled that just compensation
Amerex and the statements yielded the
should be made before the Government may
amount of P2, 258,018.48 as the total value
take over the NAIA 3.
of the property.
RP VS IAC [GR No. 146062, June 28,
The plaintif filed a motion to disqualify
2001]
Engineer Aurelio B. Aquino as commissioner
FACTS: A property consisting of 4 parcels of on the ground that he could not be expected
land with a total area of 9,650 square meters to be unbiased inasmuch as in the three
was the subject of expropriation. Its previous appraisal reports submitted by Amerex.
owner, Avegon Inc., ofered it for sale to the City Amerex opposed the motion to disqualify
Aquino as commissioner, and the court, in its FACTS: A small portion of land measuring a
order denied it. The commissioner then filed his 100 square meters, more or less, belonging
appraisal for the fair market value of the to the Manotoc Services, Inc. was leased to
property which is P2, 258,018.57 for purposes Pedro M. Belen. That piece of land is known
of determining just compensation payable to as Lot No. 10, Block 18 and is situated at
defendant AMEREX. The plaintif objected the Sunog Apog, Tondo, Manila. On it stood a
report and reiterated that the value should be house built by Belen.
only P1, 800, 00.00. Basing it on the evidence,
the court ruled to fix the market value at of Part of the land came to be occupied by
P2,258.018.57 for just compensation, hence the Alfredo Juliano and his family in the early
plaintif elevated the case to the then part of 1978; Juliano bought a house
Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) for review. standing thereon, not belonging to Belen,
and move in without the latters knowledge.
ISSUES: 1.Whether or not respondent Court On learning of this, Belen had a talk with
erred in not disqualifying Commissioner Aurelio Juliano, and they came to an agreement that
B. Aquino from membership in the Committee Juliano could continue staying on the land
of Appraisal? temporarily and would pay one half of the
rental to Manotoc Reality, inc. Later a fire
2. Whether or not respondent Court erred in razed both Belens and Julianos houses to
totally disregarding petitioner's evidence the ground. Belen told Juliano not to build
showing that the award of just compensation anything on the land anymore. However, on
should be only P1, 800,000.00? julianos pleas, Belen acceded to Julianos
HELD: 1.No, the court did not err in not continued stay on the land on the explicit
disqualifying Commissioner Aquino. The report condition that his occupancy should not be
of the commissioners is merely advisory and longer than two and a half years. When
recommendatory in character as far as the Juliano failed to leave the premises after the
court is concerned. The court may choose to stipulated term despite demand, Belen
take action or to set aside the report or appoint brought suit in the Metropolitan Trial Court
new commissioners, hence it really does not sometime in September, 1982, and
matter if the commissioner had a pre conceived succeeded in obtaining judgment a order of
and biased valuation of the property. The the MTC to the defendant to vacate the
determination of just compensation for a subject lot and pay plaintif the amount of
condemned property is basically a judicial P3,000.00 as a attorneys fees, plus cost of
function and not bound by its Commissioners. suit.
2. No, the Court did not err in disregarding 's Juliano appealed to the RTC of manila. That
evidence showing that the award of just court reversed the judgment of the
compensation should be only P1, 800,000.00. Metropolitan Trial Court, but the decision was
Petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that made to rest on the expropriation of the
the property is worth lower than P1, 800,000 Manotoc Estate efected by Presidential
basing it on the value when it was first ofered Decree No. 1670, where the Manotoc Reality
for sale to the City School Board of Manila. The Incorporated ceased to be the owner of the
appraisal made by Ampil Realty and Appraisal land.
Co., Inc. on June 5, 1975, which date is nearest Belen has perfected an appeal by certiorari
to that of the actual taking of the property, to SC and prays for judgment on the
should be the basis for the determination of just following essential propostions that Manotoc
compensation the record being bereft of any Reality Services has been denied of its right
indications of anomaly appertaining thereto. of just compensation, not having receive any
Wenceslao Ampil, the president of said money as payment for the subject property,
appraisal firm, also had testified at the trial and and the NHA not having taken possession
therefore petitioner had the opportunity to thereof in an appropriate action of eminent
confront him and to question his report. domain.
WHEREFORE, the just compensation of the ISSUE: Is the passage of Presidential Decree
property expropriated for the use of the Manuel No. 1670 constitutional, whereas it
de la Fuente High School Don Mariano Marcos disregarded the right of compensation and
Memorial High School) is hereby fixed at due process of law?
P2,400,000.00. After deducting the amount of
P1, 303,470.00 therefrom, the petitioner shall HELD: Presidential Decree No 1670,
pay the balance with legal interest from together with the companion decree,
October 13, 1975. numbered 1669 was struck down by this
court as unconstitutional and therefore, null
- Just Compensation (Determination) and void. The Court found that both decrees,
BELEN vs. CA [195 SCRA 59] being violative of the petitioners (owners)
right to due process of law.
The court said on the determination of just compensation for the properties sought to be
compensation: The decrees do not by expropriated.
themselves, provide for any form of hearing or
procedure by which the petitioners can question Subsequently the three commissioners
the propriety of the expropriation of their submitted their consolidated report
properties or the reasonableness of the just recommending a certain amount of P15.00
compensation. per square meter as the fair and reasonable
value of just compensation of the properties.
Having failed to provide for a hearing, the
government should have filed an expropriation The petitioner filed a motion for
case under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of reconsideration of the order and objection to
Court. commissioners report on the grounds that
P.D. No 1533 has superseded Sections 5 to 8
WHEREFORE, PD 1670 being void ab initio, all Rule 67 of the rules of court on the
acts done in reliance thereon and in accordance ascertainment of just compensation must
therewith must also be viod ab initio, including not exceed the maximum amount set by P.D.
particularly the taking of possession of property No. 1533. In addition the petitioner filed a
by the National Housing Authority and its petition for certiorari and mandamus with
attempts to convert the same into a housing temporary restraining order, enjoining the
project and the selection of the beneficiaries trial court from enjoining the order.
thereof.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sections 5 to 8, Rule
EPZA vs. DULAY [149 SCRA 305 (1987)] 67 of the revised rules of court had been
repealed or deemed amended by P.D. NO.
FACTS: The President of the Philippines, issued 1533 insofar as appointment of
Proclamation No. 1811, reserving a certain commissioners are concerned. Stated in
parcel of land of the public domain situated in another way, is the exclusive and mandatory
the city of Lapu-Lapu, Island of Mactan, Cebu mode of determining just compensation in
and covering a total area of 1,193,669 square P.D. NO. 1533 valid and constitutional?
meters, more or less, for the establishment of
an export processing zone by petitioner Export HELD: The method of ascertaining just
Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). compensation under the aforecited decrees
constitutes impermissible encroachment on
Not all the reserved area, however, was public judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this
land. it included four parcel of land registered in court inutile in a matter which under the
the name of private individual. The petitioner, constitution is reserved to it for final
therefore ofered to purchase the parcels of determination. The courts task would be
land from the respondent in accordance with relegated to simply stating the lower value
the valuation set forth in section 92, P.D. No. of the property as declared either by the
464, as amended. The parties failed to reach an owner or the assessor and its choice must be
agreement regarding the sale of the property. limited to the lower of the two. However, the
The petitioner filed with the then Court of First strict application of the decrees during the
Instance of Cebu, Branch Lapu-Lapu City, a proceedings would be nothing short of a
complaint for expropriation with a prayer for the mere formality or a charade.the court cannot
issuance of a writ of possession against the exercise its discretion or independence in
private respondent, to expropriate the parcel of determining what is just or fair. The court is
land in pursuant to P.D. 66, as amended, which empowered to appoint commissioners to
empowers the petitioner to acquire by assess the just compensation of these
condemnation proceedings any property for the properties under eminent domain
establishment of export processing zones in proceedings in order for the owner of the
relation to Proclamation No. 1811. property is entitled to recover the fair and
full value of the lot. In fine, the decree only
The respondent judge issued a writ of establishes a uniform basis for determining
possession authorizing the petitioner to take just compensation which the court may
immediate possession of the premises. The consider as one of the factors in arriving at
private respondent filed its answer. just compensation, as envisage in the
constitution. The executive department or
At the pre-trial conference, the respondent the legislature may make the initial
judge issued an order stating that the parties determinations but when a party claims a
have agreed that the only issue to be resolved violation of the guarantee in the Bill of
is the just compensation for the properties and Rights, no statute, decree or executive order
that the pre-trial is thereby terminated and the can mandate that its own determination
hearing on the merits is set on April 2, 1981. shall prevail over the courts findings. The
determination of just compensation in
The respondent judge issued the order
eminent domain cases is a judicial function.
appointing certain persons as commissioners to
ascertain and report to the court the just
We, therefore, hold that P.D. No. 1533, which properties at a proper hearing. Likewise,
eliminates the courts discretion to appoint petitioner has not been given the
commissioners pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules opportunity to rebut any evidence that would
of Court, is unconstitutional and void. have been presented by private
respondents.
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY Vs.
HONORABLE GREGORIO G. PINEDA [G.R. In an expropriation case such as this one
No. L-59791 February 13, 1992] where the principal issue is the
determination of just compensation, a trial
FACTS: Petitioner MERALCO is a domestic before the Commissioners is indispensable to
corporation duly organized and existing under allow the parties to present evidence on the
the laws of Philippines. Respondent Honorable issue of just compensation.
Judge Gregorio G. Pineda is impleaded in his
official capacity as the presiding judge of the Contrary to the submission of private
CFI (now RTC) of Rizal. While private respondents, the appointment of at least
respondents Teofilo Arayon, Sr., Gil de Guzman, three (3) competent persons as
Lucito Santiago and Teresa Bautista are owners commissioners to ascertain just
in fee simple of the expropriated property compensation for the property sought to be
situated at Malaya, Pililla, Rizal. taken is a mandatory requirement in
expropriation cases. While it is true that the
A complaint for eminent domain was filed by findings of commissioners may be
petitioner MERALCO against 42 defendants with disregarded and the court may substitute its
the CFI (now RTC) of Rizal. The complaint own estimate of the value, the latter may
alleges that for the purpose of constructing a only do so for valid reasons, i.e., where the
230 KV Transmission line from Barrio Malaya to Commissioners have applied illegal
Tower No. 220 at Pililla, Rizal, petitioner needs principles to the evidence submitted to them
portions of the land of the private respondents or where they have disregarded a clear
consisting of an aggregate area of 237,321 preponderance of evidence, or where the
square meters. Despite petitioner's ofers to amount allowed is either grossly inadequate
pay compensation and attempts to negotiate or excessive (Manila Railroad Company v.
with the respondents', the parties failed to Velasquez, 32 Phil. 286).
reach an agreement.
Thus, trial with the aid of the commissioners
The petitioner strongly maintains that the is a substantial right that may not be done
respondent court's act of determining and away with capriciously or for no reason at all.
ordering the payment of just compensation to Moreover, in such instances, where the
private respondents without formal presentation report of the commissioners may be
of evidence by the parties on the reasonable disregarded, the trial court may make its
value of the property constitutes a flagrant own estimate of value from competent
violation of petitioner's constitutional right to evidence that may be gathered from the
due process. It stressed that respondent court record. The aforesaid joint venture
ignored the procedure laid down by the law in agreement relied upon by the respondent
determining just compensation because it judge, in the absence of any other proof of
formulated an opinion of its own as to the value valuation of said properties, is incompetent
of the land in question without allowing the to determine just compensation.
Board of Commissioners to hold hearings for the
reception of evidence. Prior to the determination of just
compensation, the property owners may
ISSUE: WON the respondent court can dispense rightfully demand to withdraw from the
with the assistance of a Board of deposit made by the condemnor in eminent
Commissioners in an expropriation proceeding domain proceedings. Upon an award of a
and determine for itself the just compensation? smaller amount by the court, the property
RULING: Respondent judge, in the case at bar, owners are subject to a judgment for the
arrived at the valuation of P40.00 per square excess or upon the award of a larger sum,
meter on a property declared for real estate tax they are entitled to a judgment for the
purposes at P2.50 per hectare on the basis of a amount awarded by the court. Thus, when
"Joint Venture Agreement on Subdivision and the respondent court granted in the Orders,
Housing Projects" executed by A.B.A Homes and the motions of private respondents for
private respondents on June 1, 1972. This withdrawal of certain sums from the deposit
agreement was merely attached to the motion of petitioner, without prejudice to the just
to withdraw from petitioner's deposit. compensation that may be proved in the
Respondent judge arrived at the amount of just final adjudication of the case, it committed
compensation on its own, without the proper no error.
reception of evidence before the Board of Records, specifically Meralco's deed of sale
Commissioners. Private respondents as in favor of Napocor show that the latter
landowners have not proved by competent agreed to purchase the parcels of land
evidence the value of their respective
already acquired by Meralco, the rights, be P100 a square meter except the land of
interests and easements over those parcels of Maura Santos with an area of 25,909 square
land which are the subject of the expropriation meters. The trial court in its decision
proceedings, as well as those parcels of land modified that recommendation. It fixed P100
occupied by Meralco by virtue of grant of a square meter as the uniform price to be
easements of right-of-way. Thus, Meralco had paid to the claimants. The Court of Appeals
already ceded and in fact lost all its rights and in its decision in turn modified the trial
interests over the aforesaid parcels of land in court's decision and adopted the
favor of Napocor. In addition, the same contract commissioners' report and it added 6% legal
reveals that the Napocor was previously rate of interest.
advised and actually has knowledge of the
pending litigation and proceedings against ISSUES: 1.Whether or not the just
Meralco . Hence, We find the contention of the compensation to be paid by the Government
petitioner tenable. It is therefore proper for the is 40 or 100, as recommended by the
lower court to either implead the Napocor in commissioners.
substitution of the petitioner or at the very least 2.Whether or not the Appellate Court erred
implead the former as party plaintif. in not holding that the commissioners should
All premises considered, this Court is convinced not have relied on the price of P100 for the
that the respondent judge's act of determining land of Jose Alcaraz which was sold in
and ordering the payment of just compensation November, 1969 and on other irrelevant
without the assistance of a Board of evidence.
Commissioners is a flagrant violation of 3.Whether or not Appellate Court erred in
petitioner's constitutional right to due process disregarding the fact that 14 out of the 44
and is a gross violation of the mandated rule claimants already sold their lots to the
established by the Revised Rules of Court. Republic at P40 a square meter.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the HELD: We hold that the trial court and the
order issued by the respondent judge insofar as Appellate Court erred in relying on the
it finally determined the amount of just commissioners' report whose
compensation is nullified. This case is hereby recommendation was not substantiated by
ordered remanded to the lower court for trial trustworthy evidence. As pointed out by the
with the assistance of a Board of Assistant Solicitor General, the appraisal of
Commissioners. Further, the National Power P100 a square meter for the land of Alcaraz
Corporation is impleaded as party plaintif was made about eight months after the filing
therein. of the instant expropriation case. In
REPUBLIC VS. SANTOS [G. R. No. L-57524 Presidential Decree No. 1533 provides that
January 8, 1986] just compensation should be the value of the
land "prior to the recommendation or
FACTS: The case is an expropriation case which decision of the appropriate Government
involved the 66,096 square meters of land office to acquire the property." In the case, it
claimed by 44 persons, located in Paranaque should be noted that the expropriation
and Muntinlupa, Rizal. The expropriation was undeniably increased the value of the
necessary for the widening of, and construction remainder of her land with an area of
of interchanges in the Manila South Diversion 121,700 square meters. She was already
Road. The Appraisal Committee for the province paid P1, 036,360 for her expropriated land.
of Rizal fixed at P40 per square meter, or an
amount of P2, 641,190. The Government Furthermore, the commissioners should not
deposited that amount with the provincial have glossed over the undisputed fact that
treasurer who deposited it in the Philippine 14 claimants out of 44 had winningly sold
National Bank but some of the respondents their lands to the Government at P40 a
withdrew including Maura Santos. The Court of square meter as fixed by the provincial
First Instance at Pasig, Rizal in its order of June Appraisal Committee of which the provincial
19, 1969 granted the fiscal's motion fixing the assessor was a member. Evidently, they
provisional value at P2, 641,190. 14 claimants were satisfied that that was a reasonable
did not object to the valuation of P40 a square price. According to section 8 of Rule 67, the
meter. As to those who did not settle at the court is not bound by the commissioners'
price of P40 a square meter, the trial court, report. It may make such order or render
pursuant to section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of such judgment as shall secure to the plaintif
Court, appointed three commissioners to the property essential to the exercise of his
determine the just compensation: Benjamin right of condemnation, and to the defendant
Morales for the court as chairman; Pacifico just compensation for the property
Javier, the provincial assessor, for the Republic, expropriated.
and Pacifico I. Guzman for the claimants. The As noted in the Velasquez case, the moment
commissioners in their report recommended a parcel of land is sought to be condemned,
that the just compensation for the lands should the price, for some occult reason,
immediately soars far beyond what the owner since the valuation was not arrived at using
would think of asking or receiving in the open the factors required by the law and
market. Owners ask fabulous prices for it and prescribed by the AO No. 5.
neighbours look on with an indulgent smile or
even persuade themselves that the land is Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 which
worth the price for which the owner holds out in enumerates the factors to be considered in
view of the fact that it is wanted by an entity determining just compensation reads:
whose financial resources are supposed to be SECTION 17. Determination of Just
inexhaustible. Consequently, the petitioner Compensation.In determining just
should pay only P40 per square meter for the compensation, the cost of acquisition of the
expropriated lands. CMC (CMS) Investments, land, the current value of like properties, its
Inc. was paid P35 a square meter for its 530 nature, actual use and income, the sworn
square meters. It is entitled to a deficiency on valuation by the owner, tax declarations, and
which 6% legal rate of interest per annum the assessment made by government
should be paid from the time the petitioner took assessors shall be considered. The social and
possession of its land up to the date of economic benefits contributed by the
payment. The decisions of the trial court and farmers and the farmworkers and by the
the Court of Appeals are reversed and set aside. Government to the property as well as the
The just compensation for the lands described non-payment of taxes or loans secured from
in paragraph 2 of petitioner's complaint is P40 any government financing institutions on the
per square meter. said land shall be considered as additional
SPS. EDMOND LEE VS. LAND BANK OF THE factors to determine its valuation.
PHILIPPINES The court find that the factors required by
[G.R. No. 170422] the law and enforced by the DAR
FACTS: Petitioners received a notice of Administrative Order were not observed by
coverage informing them that their landholding the SAC when it adopted wholeheartedly the
is covered by the governments compulsory valuation arrived at in the appraisal report.
acquisition scheme pursuant to the According to the appraisal company, it
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. personally inspected the property,
6657). On 1 June 2001, they received from the investigated local market conditions, and
DAR a copy of the notice of land valuation and have given consideration to the extent,
acquisition which contains an ofer of character and utility of the property; sales
P315,307.87 as compensation for 3.195 and holding prices of similar land; and
hectares of the property. Petitioners rejected highest and best use of the property. The
the ofer. value of the land was arrived at using the
market data approach, which bases the
Subsequently, a summary administrative value of the land on sales and listings of
proceeding was conducted by the Department comparable property registered within the
of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) vicinity. In fact, as noted by the Court of
to determine the valuation and compensation of Appeals, a representative of the company
the subject property. The DARAB issued a admitted that it did not consider the CARP
decision declaring that the Land Bank of the valuation to be applicable.
Philippines (LBP) fully complied with the criteria
set forth in R.A. No. 6657 in determining the - Just Compensation (When
value of the land, and ordered the LBP to pay Determined)
petitioners the original amount ofered by DAR. ANSALDO VS. TANTUICO [G. R. No. L-
Petitioners sought reconsideration of the 50147 August 3, 1990]
decision, but their motion was denied by the
Provincial Adjudicator. FACTS: 2 lots of private ownership were
taken by the Government and used for the
The CA held that since the taking of private widening of a road for more than 43 years,
lands under the agrarian reform program without benefit of an action of eminent
partakes of the nature of an expropriation domain or agreement with its owners. The
proceeding, the SAC should have appointed owners of the land are Jose Ma. Ansaldo and
competent and disinterested commissioners to Maria Angela Ansaldo, are covered by title in
assist it in valuating the property in question, their names and have an aggregate area of
following Section 5, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of 1,041 square meters. These lots were taken
Civil Procedure. It remanded the case to the from the Ansaldos sometime in 1947 by the
trial court for proper and judicious Department of Public Work Transportation
determination of just compensation, appointing and Communication and made part of what
for that purpose a set of commissioners. used to be Sta. Mesa Street and is now
ISSUE: Was the SAC correct ? Ramon Magsaysay Avenue at San Juan,
Metro Manila. The said owners did not make
HELD: No, The SACs reliance on the valuation any action until 26 years later asking for the
made by the appraisal company is misplaced, compensation of their land.
The case was referred to the Secretary of proceedings. Indeed, otherwise, the
Justice who rendered an opinion that the just provision of Rule 69, Section 3, directing that
compensation be made in accordance with PD compensation be determined as of the date
76 which provide that the basis for the payment of the filing of the complaint' would never be
of just compensation of property taken for operative. As intimated in Republic v. Lara
public use should be the current and fair market (supra), said provision contemplates normal
value thereof as declared by the owner or circumstances, under which the complaint
administrator, or such market value as coincides or even precedes the taking of the
determined by the assessor, whichever was property by the plaintif.
lower. Commissioner of Public Highways
requested the Provincial Assessor of Rizal to The reason for the rule, as pointed out in
make a redetermination of the market value of Rpublic v. Larae, is that;
the Ansaldos' property in accordance with PD Where property is taken ahead of the filing of
76. The new valuation was made, after which the condemnation proceedings, the value
the Auditor of the Bureau of Public Highways thereof may be enchanced by the public
forwarded the Ansaldos' claim to the Auditor purpose for which it is taken; the entry by
General with the recommendation that payment the plaintif upon the property may have
be made on the basis of the current and fair depreciated its value thereby; or, there may
market value and not on the fair market value have been a natural increase in the value of
at the time of taking. The Commission on Audit the property from the time the complaint is
declined the recommendation and decided that filed, due to general economic conditions.
the compensation be from the actual time of The owner of private property should be
the taking of the land. compensated only for what he actually loses;
ISSUE: (As to the precise time the just it is not intended that his compensation shall
compensation be based) Whether or not the extend beyond his loss or injury. And what he
just compensation be based on the time of the loses is only the actual value of his property
actual taking of the possession or PD 76? at the time it is taken. This is the only way
that compensation to be paid can be truly
HELD: In the context of the State's inherent just i.e.,"just; not only to the individual
power of eminent domain, there is a taking whose property is taken but, to the public,
when the owner is actually deprived or which is to pay for it.
dispossessed of his property; when there is a
practical destruction or a material impairment Clearly, then, the value of the Ansaldos'
of the value of his property or when he is property must be ascertained as of the year
deprived of the ordinary use thereof. There is a 1947, when it was actually taken, and not at
taking in this sense when the expropriator the time of the filing of the expropriation
enters private property not only for a suit, which, by the way, still has to be done.
momentary period but for a more permanent It is as of that time that the real measure of
duration, for the purpose of devoting the their loss may fairly be adjudged. The value,
property to a public use in such a manner as to once fixed, shall earn interest at the legal
oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial rate until full payment is efected,
enjoyment thereof. For ownership, after all, "is conformably with other principles laid down
nothing without the inherent rights of by case law. The petition is denied and the
possession, control and enjoyment. Where the challenged decision of the Commission on
owner is deprived of the ordinary and beneficial Audit is affirmed, and the Department of
use of his property or of its value by its being Public Works and Highways is directed to
diverted to public use, there is taking within the forthwith institute the appropriate
Constitutional sense. Under these norms, there expropriation action over the land in
was undoubtedly a taking of the Ansaldos' question so that the just compensation due
property when the Government obtained its owners may be determined in accordance
possession thereof and converted it into a part with the Rules of Court, with interest at the
of a thoroughfare for public use. legal rate of 6% per annum from the time of
taking until full payment is made.
It is as of the time of such a taking, to repeat,
that the just compensation for the property is to CITY OF CEBU VS SPOUSES DEDAMO
be established. As stated in Republic v. [G.R. No. 142971 May 07, 2002]
Philippine National Bank; FACTS: Petitioner City of Cebu filed a
When plaintif takes possession before the complaint for eminent domain against
institution of the condemnation proceedings, respondents spouses Apolonio and Blasa
the value should be fixed as of the time of the Dedamo. For the construction of a public
taking of said possession, not of filing of the road which shall serve as an access/relief
complaint and the latter should be the basis for road of Gorordo Avenue to extend to the
the determination of the value, when the taking General Maxilum Avenue and the back of
of the property involved coincides with or is Magellan International Hotel Roads in Cebu
subsequent to, the commencement of the
City. The lots are the most suitable site for the 2.The petitioner has misread our ruling in
purpose. The National Power Corp. vs. Court of
Appeals.10 We did not categorically rule in
Deposited with the PNB the amount of P51,156 that case that just compensation should be
representing 15% of the fair market value of the determined as of the filing of the complaint.
property to enable the petitioner to take We explicitly stated therein that although the
immediate possession of the property pursuant general rule in determining just
to Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160 compensation in eminent domain is the
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the value of the property as of the date of the
ground that their purpose was not for public filing of the complaint, the rule "admits of an
purpose but for the benefit of a private single exception: where this Court fixed the value
entity, Cebu Holdings. Also the respondents of the property as of the date it was taken
alleged that they dont have any other land in and not at the date of the commencement of
Cebu City. the expropriation proceedings."
Petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of a More than anything else, the parties, by a
writ of possession pursuant to Section 19 of R.A. solemn document freely and voluntarily
No. 7160. The motion was granted by the trial agreed upon by them, agreed to be bound
court on 21 September 1994. by the report of the commission and
approved by the trial court. The agreement
The parties executed and submitted to the trial is a contract between the parties. It has the
court an Agreement4 wherein they declared force of law between them and should be
that they have partially settled the case and in complied with in good faith. Article 1159 and
consideration thereof they agreed on some 1315 of the Civil Code
certain stipulations. One of the stipulations was:
Furthermore, petitioner did not interpose a
1. xxx 2.xxx 3.xxx 4.xxx serious objection.11 It is therefore too late
5.xxx 6.xxx for petitioner to question the valuation now
without violating the principle of equitable
7. That the judgment sought to be rendered estoppel. Records show that petitioner
under this agreement shall be followed by a consented to conform with the valuation
supplemental judgment fixing the just recommended by the commissioners. It
compensation for the property of the SECOND cannot detract from its agreement now and
PARTY after the Commissioners appointed by assail correctness of the commissioners'
this Honorable Court to determine the same assessment.
shall have rendered their report and approved
by the court. NAPOCOR, vs. TIANGCO [G.R. No.
170846 February 6, 2007]
The RTC rendered its decision on the value of
the property according to the assessed value of FACTS: Respondents are owners of a parcel
the commissioners. The petitioner filed a of land with an area of 152,187 square
motion for reconsideration contending that the meters at Barangay Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal.
assessment of the property was no accurate.
The court adjusted its decision on the value NPC requires 19,423 square meters of the
based on the new assessed value. respondents aforementioned property,
across which its 500Kv Kalayaan-San Jose
Petitioner elevated the case to CA. But the Transmission Line Project will traverse.
petitioner failed to convince the CA and the
latter affirmed the decision of the RTC. Still NPCs Segregation Plan# for the purpose
unsatisfied, petitioner filed with us the petition shows that the desired right-of-way will cut
for review in the case at bar. through the respondents land. Within the
portion sought to be expropriated stand fruit-
ISSUES: 1.Whether or not just compensation bearing tress, such as mango, avocado,
should be determined as of the date the filing of jackfruit, casuy, santol, calamansi, sintones
the complaint. and coconut trees.
2.Whether or not the basis of the just After repeated unsuccessful negotiations,
compensation is the value on the actual date NPC filed an expropriation complaint against
the filing of the complaint considering the the land of the respondent in the RTC of
agreement entered into by the parties. Tanay, Rizal. The RTC issued a writ of
possession in favor of NPC after paying the
HELD: 1.It asserts that it should be which in deposit requirement.
this case should be 17 September 1993 and not
at the time the property was actually taken in The trial court rendered its decision on the
1994, pursuant to the decision in "National value of the property using the 1984 tax
Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals." declaration. (which is incorrect as stated in
the decision of the supreme court)
The respondents filed a motion for recon. but it with an area of 18.5615 hectares covered by
was denied by RTC. So They filed an appeal and TCT No. NT-60359 of the registry of Deeds of
the CA gave merit to the contention of the Nueva Ecija, registered in the name of the
respondents and made its revised valuation late Emiliano F. Santiago; that in November
using the 1993 tax declaration (increasing the and December 1990, without notice to the
value of the property). The case went up to the petitioners, the Landbank required and the
SC. beneficiaries executed Actual tillers Deed of
Undertaking to pay rentals to the LandBank
ISSUE: 1.Whether or not the property should be for the use of their farmlots equivalent to at
valued using the 1984 or the 1993 tax least 25% of the net harvest; that on 24
declarations. October 1991 the DAR Regional Director
2.Whether or not Sec. 3-A of R.A. No. 6395, as issued an order directing the Landbank to
amended by P.D. 938 will apply. pay the landowner directly or through the
establishment of a trust fund in the amount
HELD: 1.In eminent domain cases, the time of of P135,482.12, that on 24 February 1992,
taking is the filing of the complaint, if there was the Landbank reserved in trust P135,482.12
no actual taking prior thereto. Hence, in this in the name of Emiliano F. Santiago. That the
case, the value of the property at the time of beneficiaries stopped paying rentals to the
the filing of the complaint on November 20, landowners after they signed the Actual
1990 should be considered in determining the Tiller's Deed of Undertaking committing
just compensation due the respondents. themselves to pay rentals to the LandBank.
Normally, the time of taking coincides with the
filing of complaint for expropriation as ruled in The above allegations are not disputed by
the case of Power Corporation v. Court of the respondents except that respondent
Appeals, et al.The expropriation proceedings in Landbank claims 1) that it was respondent
this case having been initiated by NPC on DAR, not Landbank which required the
November 20, 1990, property values on such execution of Actual Tillers Deed of
month and year should lay the basis for the Undertaking (ATDU, for brevity); and 2) that
proper determination of just compensation. respondent Landbank, although armed with
the ATDU, did not collect any amount as
2. It should not apply in the case at bar, the rental from the substituting beneficiaries.
acquisition of such easement is not gratis. The
limitations on the use of the property taken for Petitioner Agricultural Management and
an indefinite period would deprive its owner of Development Corporation (AMADCOR, for
the normal use thereof. For this reason, the brevity) alleges with respect to its
latter is entitled to payment of a just properties located in San Francisco, Quezon
compensation, which must be neither more nor that the properties of AMADCOR in San
less than the monetary equivalent of the land Francisco, Quezon consist of a parcel of land
taken. covered by TCT No. 34314 with an area of
209.9215 hectares and another parcel
- Just Compensation (Manner of Payment) covered by TCT No. 10832 with an area of
163.6189 hectares; that a summary
DAR vs. CA 249 [SCRA 149, 1995] administrative proceeding to determine
compensation of the property covered by
FACTS: Petitioner Pedro Yap alleges that "o)n 4
TCT No. 34314 was conducted by the DARAB
September 1992 the TCTs of petitioner Yap
in Quezon City without notice to the
were totally cancelled by the Registrar of Deeds
landowner; that a decision was rendered
of Leyte and were transferred in the names of
fixing the compensation for the parcel of
farmer beneficiaries collectively, based on the
land covered by TCT No. 34314 with an area
request of the DAR together with a certification
of 209.9215 hectares at P2,768,326.34 and
of the Landbank that the sum of P735,337.77
ordering the Landbank to pay or establish a
and P719,869.54 have been earmarked for
trust account for said amount in the name of
Landowner Pedro L. Yap for the parcels of lands
AMADCOR; and that the trust account in the
covered by TCT Nos. 6282 and 6283,
amount of P2,768,326.34 fixed in the
respectively, and issued in lieu thereof TC-563
decision was established by adding
and TC-562, respectively, in the names of listed
P1,986,489.73 to the first trust account
beneficiaries without notice to petitioner Yap
established. With respect to petitioner
and without complying with the requirement of
AMADCOR's property in Tabaco, Albay, it is
Section 16 (e) of RA 6657 to deposit the
alleged that the property of AMADCOR in
compensation in cash and Landbank bonds in
Tabaco, Albay is covered by TCT No. T-2466
an accessible bank.
of the Register of Deeds of Albay with an
The above allegations are not disputed by any area of 1,629.4578 hectares'; that
of the respondents. emancipation patents were issued covering
an area of 701.8999 hectares which were
Petitioner Heirs of Emiliano Santiago allege that registered on 15 February 1988 but no action
the heirs of Emiliano F. Santiago are the owners was taken thereafter by the DAR to fix the
of a parcel of land located at Laur, NUEVA ECIJA
compensation for said land; that on 21 April warrant an expanded construction of the
1993, a trust account in the name of AMADCOR term "deposit".
was established in the amount of
P12,247,217.83', three notices of acquisition The conclusive efect of administrative
having been previously rejected by AMADCOR. construction is not absolute. Action of an
administrative agency may be disturbed or
The above allegations are not disputed by the set aside by the judicial department if there
respondents except that respondent Landbank is an error of law, a grave abuse of power or
claims that petitioner failed to participate in the lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
DARAB proceedings (land valuation case) discretion clearly conflicting with either the
despite due notice to it. letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment.
18 In this regard, it must be stressed that the
ISSUE: Petitioners submit that respondent court function of promulgating rules and
erred in regulations may be legitimately exercised
(1) declaring as null and void DAR only for the purpose of carrying the
Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, provisions of the law into efect. The power
insofar as it provides for the opening of trust of administrative agencies is thus confined
accounts in lieu of deposit in cash or in bonds, to implementing the law or putting it into
and efect. Corollary to this is that administrative
regulations cannot extend the law and
(2) in holding that private respondents are amend a legislative enactment, 19 for
entitled as a matter of right to the immediate settled is the rule that administrative
and provisional release of the amounts regulations must be in harmony with the
deposited in trust pending the final resolution of provisions of the law. And in case there is a
the cases it has filed for just compensation. discrepancy between the basic law and an
implementing rule or regulation, it is the
HELD: Anent the first assignment of error, former that prevails. 20
petitioners maintain that the word "deposit" as
used in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 referred In the present suit, the DAR clearly
merely to the act of depositing and in no way overstepped the limits of its power to enact
excluded the opening of a trust account as a rules and regulations when it issued
form of deposit. Thus, in opting for the opening Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no
of a trust account as the acceptable form of basis in allowing the opening of a trust
deposit through Administrative Circular No. 9, account in behalf of the landowner as
petitioner DAR did not commit any grave abuse compensation for his property because, as
of discretion since it merely exercised its power heretofore discussed, Section 16(e) of RA
to promulgate rules and regulations in 6657 is very specific that the deposit must
implementing the declared policies of RA 6657. be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". In
the same vein, petitioners cannot invoke LRA
The contention is untenable. Section 16(e) of RA Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 because these
6657 provides as follows: implementing regulations cannot outweigh
the clear provision of the law. Respondent
Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private
court therefore did not commit any error in
Lands
striking down Administrative Circular No. 9
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the for being null and void.
corresponding payment or, in case of rejection
Proceeding to the crucial issue of whether or
or no response from the landowner, upon the
not private respondents are entitled to
deposit with an accessible bank designated by
withdraw the amounts deposited in trust in
the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP
their behalf pending the final resolution of
bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall
the cases involving the final valuation of
take immediate possession of the land and shall
their properties, petitioners assert the
request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a
negative.
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of
the Republic of the Philippines. . . . (emphasis The contention is premised on the alleged
supplied) distinction between the deposit of
compensation under Section 16(e) of RA
It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit
6657 and payment of final compensation as
must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds".
provided under Section 18 21 of the same
Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred
law. According to petitioners, the right of the
that the deposit can be made in any other form.
landowner to withdraw the amount
If it were the intention to include a "trust
deposited in his behalf pertains only to the
account" among the valid modes of deposit,
final valuation as agreed upon by the
that should have been made express, or at
landowner, the DAR and the LBP or that
least, qualifying words ought to have appeared
adjudged by the court. It has no reference to
from which it can be fairly deduced that a "trust
amount deposited in the trust account
account" is allowed. In sum, there is no
pursuant to Section 16(e) in case of rejection
ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to
by the landowner because the latter amount is the DAR's valuation, and notwithstanding
only provisional and intended merely to secure that they have already been deprived of the
possession of the property pending final possession and use of such properties, is an
valuation. To further bolster the contention oppressive exercise of eminent domain. The
petitioners cite the following pronouncements in irresistible expropriation of private
the case of "Association of Small Landowners in respondents' properties was painful enough
the Phil. Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform". for them. But petitioner DAR rubbed it in all
the more by withholding that which rightfully
The last major challenge to CARP is that the belongs to private respondents in exchange
landowner is divested of his property even for the taking, under an authority (the
before actual payment to him in full of just "Association" case) that is, however,
compensation, in contravention of a well- misplaced. This is misery twice bestowed on
accepted principle of eminent domain. private respondents, which the Court must
The CARP Law, for its part conditions the rectify.
transfer of possession and ownership of the Hence, we find it unnecessary to distinguish
land to the government on receipt by the between provisional compensation under
landowner of the corresponding payment or the Section 16(e) and final compensation under
deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash Section 18 for purposes of exercising the
or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until landowners' right to appropriate the same.
then, title also remains with the landowner. No The immediate efect in both situations is
outright change of ownership is contemplated the same, the landowner is deprived of the
either. use and possession of his property for which
Hence the argument that the assailed measures he should be fairly and immediately
violate due process by arbitrarily transferring compensated. Fittingly, we reiterate the
title before the land is fully paid for must also cardinal rule that: within the context of the
be rejected. State's inherent power of eminent domain,
just compensation means not only the
Notably, however, the aforecited case was used correct determination of the amount to be
by respondent court in discarding petitioners' paid to the owner of the land but also the
assertion as it found that: despite the payment of the land within a reasonable
"revolutionary" character of the expropriation time from its taking. Without prompt
envisioned under RA 6657 which led the payment, compensation cannot be
Supreme Court, in the case of Association of considered "just" for the property owner is
Small Landowners in the Phil. Inc. vs. Secretary made to sufer the consequence of being
of Agrarian Reform (175 SCRA 343), to conclude immediately deprived of his land while being
that "payments of the just compensation is not made to wait for a decade or more before
always required to be made fully in money" actually receiving the amount necessary to
even as the Supreme Court admits in the same cope with his loss.
case "that the traditional medium for the
payment of just compensation is money and no The promulgation of the "Association"
other" the Supreme Court in said case did not decision endeavored to remove all legal
abandon the "recognized rule . . . that title to obstacles in the implementation of the
the property expropriated shall pass from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
owner to the expropriator only upon full and clear the way for the true freedom of the
payment of the just compensation." farmer. 25 But despite this, cases involving
its implementation continue to multiply and
We agree with the observations of respondent clog the courts' dockets. Nevertheless, we
court. The ruling in the "Association" case are still optimistic that the goal of totally
merely recognized the extraordinary nature of emancipating the farmers from their
the expropriation to be undertaken under RA bondage will be attained in due time. It must
6657 thereby allowing a deviation from the be stressed, however, that in the pursuit of
traditional mode of payment of compensation this objective, vigilance over the rights of the
and recognized payment other than in cash. It landowners is equally important because
did not, however, dispense with the settled rule social justice cannot be invoked to trample
that there must be full payment of just on the rights of property owners, who under
compensation before the title to the our Constitution and laws are also entitled to
expropriated property is transferred. protection.
For compensation, to be just, must be fair not The trial court issued an order appointing 3
only to the owner but also to the taker. it is commissioners to aid the court in the
clear that in this case, the sole basis for the reception of evidence to determine just
determination of just compensation was the compensation for the taking of the subject
commissioners ocular inspection of the property. After receiving the evidence and
properties in question, as gleaned from the conducting an ocular inspection, the
commissioners report. Clearly, the legal basis commissioners submitted to the court their
for the determination of just compensation in individual reports. However, the trial court
this case is insufficient as earlier enunciated. did not conduct a hearing on any of the
This being so, the trial courts ruling in this reports.
The trial court rendered judgment fixing the We also agree with petitioner that the area
amount of just compensation to be paid by of the communal irrigation canal consisting
petitioner for the taking of the entire area of of 4,809 square meters must be excluded
63,220 square meters at P400.00 per square from the land to be expropriated. To begin
meter, with legal interest thereon computed with, it is excluded in the amended
from September 11, 1990, when petitioner was complaint. Hence, the trial court and the
placed in possession of the land, plus attorneys Court of Appeals erred in including the same
fees of P20,000.00, and costs of the in the area to be taken.
proceedings.
The trial court erroneously ordered double
In due time, petitioner appealed to the CA who payment for 3,611 square meters of lot 5
rendered decision affirming that of the RTC, (portion) in the dispositive part of its
except that the award of P20,000.00, as decision, and, hence, this must be deleted.
attorneys fees was deleted.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals
ISSUE: The issue presented boils down to what correctly required petitioner to pay legal
is the just compensation for the taking of interest on the compensation awarded from
respondents property for the expansion of the September 11, 1990, the date petitioner was
NPCs Mexico Sub-station, situated in San Jose placed in possession of the subject land, less
Matulid, Mexico, Pampanga. the amount respondents had withdrawn from
the deposit that petitioner made with the
HELD: The parcels of land sought to be Provincial Treasurers Office.
expropriated are undeniably idle, undeveloped,
raw agricultural land, bereft of any We, however, rule that petitioner is under its
improvement. Except for the Henson family, all charter exempt from payment of costs of the
the other respondents were admittedly farmer proceedings.
beneficiaries under operation land transfer of
the Department of Agrarian Reform. However, - Just Compensation (Legal Interest for
the land has been re-classified as residential. Expropriation Cases)
The nature and character of the land at the NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION VS.
time of its taking is the principal criterion to ANGAS
determine just compensation to the landowner. [G.R. No. 60225-26. May 8, 1992]
In this case, the trial court and the CA fixed the FACTS: National Power Corporation, a
value of the land at P400.00 per square meter, government-owned and controlled
which was the selling price of lots in the corporation and the agency through which
adjacent fully developed subdivision, the Santo the government undertakes the on-going
Domingo Village Subdivision. The land in infrastructure and development projects
question, however, was an undeveloped, idle throughout the country, filed two complaints
land, principally agricultural in character, for eminent domain against private
though re-classified as residential. respondents with the RTC of Lanao del Sur.
Unfortunately, the trial court, after creating a The complaint which sought to expropriate
board of commissioners to help it determine the certain specified lots situated at Limogao,
market value of the land did not conduct a Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur was for the
hearing on the report of the commissioners. The purpose of the development of hydro-electric
trial court fixed the fair market value of subject power and production of electricity as well as
land in an amount equal to the value of lots in the erection of such subsidiary works and
the adjacent fully developed subdivision. This constructions as may be necessarily
finds no support in the evidence. The valuation connected therewith.
was even higher than the recommendation of
anyone of the commissioners. A consolidated decision was rendered by the
lower court, declaring and confirming that
On the other hand, Commissioner Atienza the lots mentioned and described in the
recommended a fair market value at P375.00 complaints have entirely been lawfully
per square meter. This appears to be the closest condemned and expropriated by the
valuation to the market value of lots in the petitioner, and ordering the latter to pay the
adjoining fully developed subdivision. private respondents certain sums of money
Considering that the subject parcels of land are as just compensation. Petitioner moved for a
undeveloped raw land, the price of P375.00 per reconsideration of the lower court's alleging
square meter would appear to the Court as the that the main decision had already become
just compensation for the taking of such raw final and executory with its compliance of
land. depositing the sums of money as just
Consequently, we agree with Commissioner compensation for the lands condemned, with
Atienzas report that the fair market value of legal interest at 6% per annum; that the said
subject parcels of land be fixed at P375.00 per main decision can no longer be modified or
square meter. changed by the lower court; and that PD No.
116 is not applicable to this case because it is 2.WON there was a just compensation
Art. 2209 of the Civil Code which applies. ofered to the plaintif?
ISSUE: Whether or not, in the computation of HELD: Point out that theres no need for
the legal rate of interest on just compensation Wycoco to present an evidence in support of
for expropriated lands, the law applicable is the land valuation in as much as it is in
Article 2209 of the Civil Code which prescribes a public knowledge that the prevailing market
6% legal interest rate or Central Bank Circular value of agricultural lands in Nueva Ecija is
No. 416 which fixed the legal interest rate at from P135,000.00 to P150,000.00 per
12% per annum. hectare. So the curt fixed the compensation
of:
HELD: The transaction involved is clearly not a
loan or forbearance of money, goods or credits P142,500.00- per hectare
but expropriation of certain parcels of land for a
public purpose, the payment of which is without 94.1690- hectares (land size)
stipulation regarding interest, and the interest P13,428,082- total compensation + actual
adjudged by the trial court is in the nature of damages P29,663,235.00 for unrealized
indemnity for damages. The legal interest profits and P8,475,210.00 legal interest
required to be paid on the amount of just
compensation for the properties expropriated is This must be paid by DAR .
manifestly in the form of indemnity for
damages for the delay in the payment thereof. DAR and LBP filed a separate petition before
Therefore, since the kind of interest involved in the CA and dismissed on May 29,97=Final
the joint judgment of the lower court sought to execution June6,07 and Feb. 9,99
be enforced in this case is interest by way of respectively. The dismissal prompted Wycoco
damages, and not by way of earnings from to file a petition for mandamus before SC
loans, etc. Art. 2209 of the Civil Code shall praying the execution of Cabanatuan courts
apply. decision and compelled Judge Caspillon to
inhibit himself from the hearing of the case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. It was
declared that the computation of legal interest CA modified the decision, deducted the
at 6% per annum is the correct and valid legal compensation due to Wycoco the amount
interest allowed in payments of just corresponding to 3.372 hectares for it was
compensation for lands expropriated for public found to have been previously sold to
use to herein private respondents by the Republic.
Government through the National Power
Sec 50 and 57 of R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive
Corporation.
Agrarian Reform law of 1988)
WYCOCO V. JUDGE CASPILLO
DAR as an administrative agency cannot be
[G.R. No. 146733, January 13, 2004]
granted jurisdiction over the cases of
FACTS: Felciano Wycoco owned 94.1690 eminent domain and over criminal cases.
hectares unirrigated and untenanted rice land The valuation of property in eminent domain
and voluntarily ofered to sell the land to DAR in is essentially a judicial function which is
line with the CARP for P14.9M vested with the Special Agrarian Courts and
cannot lodge with administrative agencies.
A notice of intention to acquire 84.5690
hectares for P1, 342, 667.46 by the DAR sent to Rule XIII Sec.II of New Rules of Procedures of
him. The amount raised to P2,594,045.39 and DARAB
later modified to P2,280,159.82 excluded the
Sec.II just compensation shall not be
idle areas.
appealable to the Board but shall be brought
He refused and prompted the DAR to indorse directly to the RTC designated as Special
the case to DARAB, fixing the just Agrarian Court
compensation.
So RTC or Cabanatuan has jurisdiction over
DARAB requested the LBP to open a trust the case at bar because it is the designated
account for Wycoco and deposited the as SAC.
compensation ofered by the DAR and the
RTC should have allowed the parties to
properties were distributed to the beneficiaries.
present evidences so a fair compensation
He filed a manifestation in VOS case no. 232 NE shall be determined. There are factors to be
93. While Cabanatuan Court acting as the considered such as the cost of acquisition,
Special Agrarian Court. size, shape, location and tax declaration, for
ignoring the said factors, remand of the case
for determination is necessary.
ISSUES: 1.WON the RTC of Cabanatuan has THIS CASE BE REMANDED TO RTC FOR THE
jurisdiction over the case? DETERMINATION OF JUST COPENSATION.
- Just Compensation (Writ of Possession) nullified for its being contrary to law and
public policy. PIATCO and other investors who
CITY OF MANILA V. OSCAR SERRANO funded the facilities for NAIA 3 cannot
[G.R. No. 142304, June 20, 2001] operate it and the government as well
FACTS: Ordinance No. 7833, enacted by the cannot took it over, for doing so the
City Council of Manila authorizing the government would enrich itself unjustly by
expropriation of certain properties in Manilas the PIATCO and other investors expense.
First District in Tondo: TCT Nos. 70869,105201, The government wanted to expropriate NAIA
105202, and 138273 of the Register of the 3, but isnt it illogical that a government
Deeds of Manila, which are to be sold to would expropriate the property it already
qualified occupants pursuant to Land Use owned? So, the expropriation would only be
Development Program of the City. limited to the facilities and improvement that
have been introduced to NAIA 3, with its
Lot 1-C, One of the lots to be expropriated. equivalent just compensation.
Consists of 343.10 square meters / 7 =
produced 49 square meters for each person. ISSUE: 1.Whether R.A. No.8974 or Rule 67 is
Covered by TCT No. 138272 from TCT No. 70869 applicable in property expropriation in the
case at bar?
This lot belongs to Feliza De Guia, upon her
death, said lot was transferred to Alberto De 2.Whether Judge Gingoyon can be compelled
Guia and then to Edgardo de Guia heir of to inhibit himself in the case?
Alberto, after the formers death. HELD: Prior to this case a decision to Agan v
The said lot was again transferred to Lee Kuan PIATCO has been rendered by the court, the
Hui-TCT No. 217018 and subsequently sold to 2004 Resolution: the government should
Demetria De Guia TCT No. 226048. fully paid first the owner of the properties
subject for expropriation before it took the
ISSUE: Whether or not the expropriation of the properties in its possession and ownership.
property is proper in relation to R.A. 7279? This decision is final and executor.