Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Promulgated:
The Case
The Facts
1
Rollo. pp. 37-50. Penned by Associate Ju>.tice (now a member of this Court) Lucas P Bersamin
and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Alifio Hormachuelos and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (also now
a member of this Court).
2
Jd. at 78-80.
'Id. at 37-38 .
.~I d. at 38.
' Records. p. 6.
/
Dissenting & Concurring Opinion 2 G.R. No. 179334
In its Order12 dated June 28, 1995, the RTC of Malolos City granted
petitioners’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
based on the doctrine of state immunity from suit. Therefrom, respondents
filed an appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 51454, before the CA, which
reversed the RTC of Malolos and held that the doctrine of state immunity
from suit should not apply to cause injustice.13 Consequently, the RTC of
Malolos City was directed to hear the Complaint “for the purpose of
determining the just compensation to which [respondents] are entitled to
recover from the government.”14 The Decision15 in CA-G.R. CV No 51454
attained finality on March 6, 1999.16
6
Rollo, p. 38.
7
Id. at 38.
8
Id. at 37-38.
9
Id. at 51-54.
10
Records, p. 5.
11
Rollo, pp. 56-58.
12
Id. at 60-61.
13
Id. at 38-39.
14
Id. at 68.
15
Id. at 62-68.
16
Id. at 39.
17
Id. at 39.
18
Id. at 39.
19
Id. at 40.
Dissenting & Concurring Opinion 3 G.R. No. 179334
UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED.20
SO ORDERED.22
20
Id. at 40.
21
Id. at 78-80.
22
Id. at 80.
Dissenting & Concurring Opinion 4 G.R. No. 179334
SO ORDERED.23
Issues
II
III
Essentially, the issues raised in the instant petition revolve around the
following: (1) ownership of the subject property; (2) prescription and laches;
and (3) amount of just compensation.
26
Id. at 68.
27
G.R. Nos. 178158 & 180428, December 4, 2009.
28
Cimafranca v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68687, January 31, 1987.
Dissenting & Concurring Opinion 6 G.R. No. 179334
of the taking or at the time of the filing of the action; and (3) whether
respondents were entitled to damages.29
And even if the issues of laches and prescription are to be dealt with
substantively, still, these grounds have no leg to stand on. As aptly pointed
out in the ponencia, laches “finds no application in this case, since there is
nothing inequitable in giving due course to respondents’ claim.” Contrarily,
it would be the height of injustice if respondents would be deprived of just
compensation for their property, which was taken for public use and without
their consent, based on this equitable doctrine. Also, prescription will not bar
respondents’ claim since, as stated in the ponencia, the owner’s action to
recover the land or the value thereof does not prescribe where private
property is taken for public use by the government without first acquiring
title thereto.30
Accordingly, the only issue left for determination is the amount of just
compensation which respondents are entitled to receive from the government
for the taking of their subject property.
Both the RTC of Malolos and the CA found and granted just
compensation to respondents in the amount of PhP 1,500 per square meter,
as recommended by the PAC. Additionally, the CA granted 6% interest on
the total just compensation, reckoned from the time of the filing of the
Complaint until fully paid.
29
Rollo, p. 46.
30
Eusebio v. Luis, G.R. No. 162474, October 13, 2009, 603 SCRA 576, 583; Republic v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 147245, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 516, 528.
31
Ponencia, p. 9.
32
96 Phil. 170 (1954).
Dissenting & Concurring Opinion 7 G.R. No. 179334
which it is taken; the entry by the plaintiff upon the property may have
depreciated its value thereby; or, there may have been a natural increase in
the value of the property from the time it is taken to the time the complaint
is filed, due to general economic conditions. The owner of private
property should be compensated only for what he actually loses; it is not
intended that his compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury.
And what he loses is only the actual value of his property at the time it is
taken x x x.33
Indeed, in a number of cases,34 the Court has ruled that the reckoning
point for the determination of just compensation is the time of taking.
Nonetheless, I respectfully submit that there is a necessity to deviate from
such general rule in view of the attendant inequity and prejudice such
application entails.
In the instant case, it is not disputed that DPWH illegally took the
subject lot without the consent of respondents and the necessary
expropriation proceedings. To make matters worse, almost 55 years have
already passed from the time of taking, yet DPWH still failed to institute
condemnation proceedings. This is clearly indicative of DPWH’s lack of
intention to formally expropriate the subject property and consequently deny
respondents of the elementary due process of law. Thus, when respondents
were constrained to file a complaint before the trial court, they were the ones
who, in effect, commenced the inverse condemnation proceedings, which, to
my mind, is ironic. The prevalence of the taking of a subject property
33
Id. at 177-178; ponencia, p. 10.
34
Forfom Development Corporation v. Philippine National Railways, G.R. No. 124795,
December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 350; Eusebio v. Luis, G.R. No. 162474, October 13, 2009, 603 SCRA 576;
Manila International Airport Authority v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 161836, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 619;
Republic v. Sarabia, G.R. No. 157847, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 142.
35
See National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828, August
24, 2011.
36
Concurring Opinion of Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. in Mactan-Cebu International Airport
v. Tudtud, G.R. No. 174012, November 14, 2008.
37
Id.
Dissenting & Concurring Opinion 8 G.R. No. 179334
But if the Court is to peg the reckoning value of the just compensation
to PhP 0.70, it would, in effect, be condoning the wrongful act of DPWH in
taking the subject property in utter disregard of respondents’ property rights
and violation of the due process of laws.
Thus, while this Court has previously ruled, in a number of cases, that
the value of the property at the time of the taking which is controlling in the
determination of the value of just compensation, it is my submission that an
exception to the foregoing ruling must be made in cases where no
condemnation proceedings were instituted after a substantial period of
time from the time of illegal taking.
The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood that the
invariable application of the determination of just compensation at the time
of the actual taking, as in the cases cited in the ponencia, will grant
government agencies and instrumentalities the license to disregard the
property rights of landowners, violate the Constitution’s proviso on due
process of laws, and render nugatory statutory and procedural laws on
expropriation proceedings of private properties for public use. Both the RTC
of Malolos City and the CA were, therefore, correct in granting just
compensation to respondents in the amount of PhP 1,500 per square meter,
as recommended by the PAC. This way, government agencies and
instrumentalities would think twice before taking any unwarranted short cuts
in condemning private properties that violate the owners’ right to due
process of laws as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
38
Eusebio v. Luis, G.R. No. 162474, October 13, 2009.
Dissenting & Concurring Opinion 9 G.R. No. 179334
It should be noted that at the time the case was referred to PAC for its
recommendation on the value of the just compensation, the prevailing value
of the subject property is already at PhP 10,000 per square meter. As
indicated in PAC’s Resolution No. 99-007:
Given the foregoing perspective, the proper reckoning value for the
determination of just compensation in the instant case—as aptly held and
39
Rollo, p. 40; CA Decision, p. 4.
Dissenting & Concurring Opinion 10 G.R. No. 179334
granted by the RTC of Malolos City and the CA-is PhP I ,500 per square
meter.
For a better appreciation of the differing bases for the award of just
compensation, the comparative figures are as follows:
I
PhP 0.70 PhP 1,500 I
i.~· . --~--.
meters -
: 6°/o Interest (72 yrs:
I
The ponencia, thus, awards the measly total of PhP 27,066.032 as just
compensation to be paid by DPWH to respondents-the amount, except for
the 6% interest from the time of taking, essentially offered by DPWH to
respondents in early 1995 when respondents demanded payment for the
illegal taking of the subject lot in December 1994.
I
Accordingly, I vote to deny the petition and affirm the 'pealed July
3 I , 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals.