Eminent Domain – requires just compensation
(Sec. 9 Art 3)
Payment of just compensation if private
property is taken by state – Art. 435 of CC (No
person shall be deprived of his property except
by competent authority for public purpose upon
payment of just compensation.)
Net vs. CA – The term owner may also include
persons who have actual interest of property
taken by state. If land is expropriated by state,
my building is also included. So, State must pay
to land owner and building payment will be given
to lessee.
AMS case – SC ruled that a lessees of agricultural
land isn’t entitled just compensation for the
crops being expropriated. There is nothing in the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law that there
should be separate valuation of land and crops.
It should be tendered to owner not withstanding
any issue on crop ownership. Applies to
agricultural parcels.
Banaag vs. AMS – AMS demanded just
compensation for the crops planted in Banaag
land. The growing cops would ultimately belong
to land owner (according to Banaag). The
Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator awarded
to AMS because bananas are owned by AMS. SC
said that board had no jurisdiction of judging
ownership. There should be no separate
valuation on land and crops. All payments of land
and crops should be giving to land owner. An
agricultural lessee is not entitled to the
compensation. He can only demand payment
from land owner. SC said that compensation
shouldn’t be from state but from land owner.
Art. 1678 – tenant is entitled to an amount of ½
to the improvements he made to the tenanted.
Applies to agricultural parcel of land.
Compensation is tendered in money or check. In
agrarian reform cases, it takes form of
redeemable bonds by Land Bank (revertible to
cash).
What if no formal expropriation proceedings?
What is remedy by property owner where
property is taken by state without just
compensation? Can he file case even if state is
immune from suit? Yes. – Emiliano de los Santos
vs. IAC – state immunity from suit can’t be
availed of to perpetuate injustice against a
person. If state takes without just compensation,
it is opening up to suit even without its consent.
Amigable and de los Santos- case can be fled
directly to any court of law nothwithstanding CA
327 (money claims must be filed first with COA).
This doesn’t apply to just compensation because
it can be filed to any courts of law. Is there a
prescriptive period in filing of action? 10 years as
a rule in Oblicon… will it apply? NPC vs. Spouses
Campos and Rep. vs. CA – SC said that an action
to demand just compensation against state
doesn’t prescribe. (NO PRESCRIPTION PERIOD).
Especially if tolerated by property owner.
Can property owner instead demand just
compensation but demand recovery? Yes. It was
ruled therein that action to have recovery
doesn’t prescribe. If property is taken by state
without formal proceedings:
1. Demand payment of just compensation
2. Demand recovery may no longer be
allowed if owner is already in estoppel.
- In a Eusebio vs. Louis case, the City
of Pasig expropriated property. The
owner negotiated for payment of
just compensation. It bagged down
because they couldn’t agree on
value. When negotiation fell
through, owner filed for case of
recovery not for just compensation.
SC: While recovery of property is
remedy, the property in this case
has an owner of estoppel because
he negotiated for payment. He can’t
change his stand anymore. At first
he wanted payment then recovery.
The property is already a public land.
 - If property is already for public use,
it’s hard to recover so you can just
get just compensation.
- Atty. Galeon case – property f client
is used by NPC. The client didn’t
object entry after 15 years, he
demanded for just compensation
but ignored by NPC. They filed
ejectment because of client’s
tolerance. Remedy prayed is
recovery of property. NPC lawyer
filed answer citing Eusebio case. The
NPC argued that client is already in
estoppel but only just
compensation. Galeon said that
expropriator is an LGU but in his case
it is NPC. Property owner also
negotiated for payment of just
compensation. In Galeon, no
negotiation. NPC took bait and paid
for exorbitant fees.
- Strong ground for recovery:
possession was merely tolerated. All
you have to do is to serve demand
letter in 1 year so that action will not
prescribe.
In computing fair market value, put in acquisition
cost, potential use, and current value of current
properties. You have to consider location of
parcel of land.
Henson case – idle property but valuation was
based on neighboring subdivision. SC said it’s an
error because what should be based is character
of property and current value time at the time of
acquisition.
If what is to be expropriated is entire Lot A, what
you have to consider is acquisition cost, size,
shape, use, and etc. What is just a portion of the
area? Compute fair market value of actual area.
Pursuant to Sec. 6 Rule 67 of ROC – if only a
portion, amount equivalent to consequential
damage will be added to fair market value. What
if there’s depreciation of property? Amount of
damage is added to fair market value of
property. (JC = FMV + (CD –CB))
- What if value of consequential
benefit outweighs consequential
damage? Disregard other variables
like DC and CB so FMV nalang.
NHA vs. Reyes – SC UPELD VALIDITY OF
ISSUANCES MADE BY Marcos. It was prejudicial
to property owner’s interest
Ipsa VS. Dulay – Just compensation is a judicial
function. Courts of law not bound by
assessments by assessors office so court has to
come up with its own assessment.
If expropriation case, where should it be filed?
RA 7691 – it expanded first level court’s
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined by
assessed value thereof. If actin involves action or
title not less than 20K then MTC. If MORE THAN
20k, IT IS IN HIGHER COURTS LIKE RTC.
Barangay San Roque Talisay vs. Heirs of Pastor –
expropriation case musts be checked by RTC
regardless of property involved therein not
withstanding Ra. The thrust is about utilizing
private property for public use. It is incapable of
pecuniary estimation. So RTC regardless of
property.
Summons shall be served to property owner to
answer complaint. It happens if taker is delegate
of the Congress. If expropriator deposits to court
an amount equivalent to tax declaration, the
COURT MAY ISSUE WRIT OF POSSESSION
ALOOWING EXPROPRIATOR TO ENTER
PROPERTY. If LGU, 15% may only be deposited.
FAVORABLE LAWS TO PORPOERTY OWNER
(APPLICABLE TO GOVEREMNET
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS):
RA 8974 AND RA 10754 – Purported
expropriation is for government infrastructure
project then deposit must be 100 percent of BIR
zonal property (higher than assessed value)
Ra 8974- Applied to transmission lines also.
NPC Vs. Pobre – ED cases, the expropriator can’t
unilaterally drop the expropriation.
If COURT AFTER AVERMENT CONSIDERATIN
FINDS THE NECESSITY OF THE EXPRORPRIATION,
THIS FWILL ISSUE EXPROPRIATION ORDER. It is
not end of ED Case. An Order merely
exterminates first stage of expropriation.
Two stages of Expropriation
1st stage – necessity of taking determination
2nd stage – determination of just compensation
Board of Commissioners enter into property to
conduct ocular inspections. It has to notify
parties and should admit evidence provided for
the parties. Failure is denial of due process.
Rule 67 of ROC – It would appear that board of
commissioners is mandatory. When will it be not
mandatory? No issue or dispute as to the value
of property. If NECESSITY OF TAKING and they
are one in value, no need to appoint board
members of commission. In agrarian, it is
addressed to sound discretion of government
and owners. AGRARIAN AND NO ISSUE (NO NEED
FOR COMMISISONERS)
If board of Commissioners renders report, it
should be submitted to court and owners to
have comments. Is court bound to accept
report? No. Case of de la Cruz vs. NPC – IF legal
principles are applied or disregarded
preponderance of evidence, the Court may
disregard report. It may recommend for it to
submit another report. The court is not duty
bound to accept report. Court may come up its
own. Final decision is in Court so aid lang ang
Board.
Reckoning point of valuation: Republic vs.
Castellvi – it was computed as of the day of
taking but SC said determined as of filing of
expropriation complaint.
Eslaban vs. Onorio – SC said that where taking
precedes filing of complaint (DPWH case) the
valuation is determined as of the day of actual
taking.
Sec. 4 Rule 67 – the rule is now that valuation of
property is computed as of the filing of
complaint or actual taking… whichever comes
first.
Exception:
- LGU expropriator – the valuation
should be determined as of the
actual taking (Sec 19 RA 6160 (?))
even if after filing of complaint.
- No taking in strict constitutional
sense. (NPC vs. Heirs of Sangkay –
NPC argued that valuation should be
reckoned on entry. Property owners
said filing of compliant. SC sided
with heirs of Sangkay. The fact
remains that entry didn’t remain as
taking as of strict constitutional
sense) Castellvi case – entry must be
based on color of taking (?)
Republic vs. Castellvi – 6% interest per annum;
NHA vs. Reyes – 12 % but with way of penalty
because of the delay
Apo Fruits case and Land Bank vs. Rivera – SC
ruled that payment of JC is akin to forbearance
of money so 12 % but 2013 CB 799 fixing 6% - this
award stands as compensatory damages
interest. That’s why ED property owners can’t
demand for other back rentals. What will stand
as compensatory interest plus attorney’s fees.
Court determines expropriation is necessary,
Court will direct expropriator to pay JC owing to
the property owner. If he doesn’t pay JC? During
pendency of expro case, it may order
expropriation order. Can expropriator demand
transfer of name even if no full payment? No
(Rep. vs. Salem and Rep. vs. Lim – unless and
until there is full payment as awarded by court,
tile remains with registered owner thereof. It will
pass on if there is full payment of JC as awarded
by court. Without payment, ownership remains
with owner such as property owner can dispose
of property. In agrarian reform, this is an
exception. If FARMER BENEFICIARY DIDN’T PAY
IN FULL, HE CAN BE AWARDED CLOA.
What if no payment of JC, can owner demand
recovery? There are 2 conflicting ruling – NHA vs.
Reyes and Valdehueza (only remedy is to
demand JC or to ask satisfaction of award. Not
allowed.)
Vicente Lim case – you have to wait 5 years after
finality to file for recovery. No payment or non-
full, you have to wait 5 years after finality. Your
only remedy is to demand JC before that. If
ground for seeking recovery is non-payment as
adjudged for court, you have to wait 5 years. If
non utilization for public purpose, you don’t
have to wait for 5 years. You may file for actin for
recovery. The 5-year period is only for non-
payment or non-full payment.

Rep. vs. Lim – no payment or no full payment

after 5 years from finality of decision, recovery is
allowed.

How to reconcile both? First, determine finality

of decision (point of view of property owner)
approving expropriation. Only Remedy here:
demand JC pursuant to the decision or file for
writ of execution. 2nd, apply Reyes. After 5 years,
no full payment, you can invoke Rep. vs. Lim. In
this case, if no payment or non-full payment
after 5 years from finality of decision, the
property owner may now recovery property. 5
years based on sec. 6 Rule 39.

Under the rules, a party has 15 days from receipt

to file a motion for recon or appeal from
decision. If no filing or appeal, the decision
attains finality.

Recovery is allowed if there’s an expressed

reservation in separate agreement or decision. If
no reservation to recover, recovery is not
allowed. (MCIA vs. CA)

Lozada case – there is a built-in condition that

property is for public purpose for which it was
expropriated as stated in complaint. Failing in
this, owner may recover. That’s why Mr. Lozada
was allowed to recover. THIS IS THE
CONTROLLING RULE. HE HAS TO RETURN THE JC
HE RECEIVED.