Republic vs. Salem.

| 40

SECOND DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. SALEM INVESTMENT CORPORATION, MARIA DEL CARMEN ROXAS DE
ELIZALDE, CONCEPCION CABARRUS VDA. DE SANTOS, defendants-appellees,
MILAGROS AND INOCENTES DE LA RAMA, petitioners,

ALFREDO GUERRERO, respondent.

(G.R. No. 137569, June 23, 2000)

MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS:

1. On February 17, 1983, BP Blg. 340 was passed authorizing the expropriation of
lands of defendants. It included 1,380 sq meters (of TCT No. 16213) owned by
Milagros and Inocentes De la Rama.

2. The De la Ramas agreed to sell the entire property covered by TCT No. 16213
(4,075 sq m) to Alfredo Guerrero on December 14, 1988 for P11.8 M and
received P2.2 M as down payment.

3. On November 3, 1989, Guerrero filed in Pasay City RTC a complaint for specific
performance to compel the De la Ramas to proceed with the sale.

4. On July 10, 1990, the Republic of the Philippines filed the present case for
expropriation pursuant to B.P. Blg. 340 and P12, 970,350.00 was deposited
(10% of the approximate market value of the subject lands), a writ of possession
was then issued on August 29, 1990 in favor of the government.
5. On May 2, 1991, Guerrero filed a motion for intervention alleging the sale and his
complaint for specific performance which was granted by the RTC.
6. The De la Ramas appealed to the Court of Appeals but CA dismissed it on July
28, 1992. They tried to appeal to this Court but again failed in their bid as their
petition for review was denied on December 7, 1992.
7. On October 2, 1991, Guerrero filed an Omnibus Motion for the just compensation
to be deposited in court. As his motion for intervention and omnibus motion are
still pending, Guerrero filed with CA a petition for mandamus, certiorari, and
 Republic vs. Salem. | 40

injunction with temporary restraining order to enjoin the Republic from releasing
payment to the De la Ramas.
8. On January 12, 1993, CA granted the writ of mandamus.
9. De la Ramas filed on March 17, 1993 a Motion for Authority to withdraw the
deposit made by the Republic in 1991. It was denied as the trial court, on May 7,
1993, allowed the intervention of Guerrero and ordered the Republic to deposit
the amount of just compensation with the Clerk of Court of RTC, Pasay City.
10. De la Ramas filed an Omnibus Motion seeking clarification in the case for
specific performance, regarding the area covered by the contract, and asking that
a restraining order be issued until this motion was granted.
11. The trial court clarified that the area of land covered by the contract to sell
included the portion expropriated by the Republic.
12. Pasay City RTC issued its final decision in the action for specific performance
and a deed of absolute sale was executed in favour of Guerrero upon payment
by him of the sum of P8, 808,000.00 on January 11, 1994 and P1,608,900.00 on
February 1, 1994 of the purchase price. The entire amount was withdrawn and
duly received by the De la Ramas.
13. The De la Ramas sought the nullification of the order of the trial court in this
case, denying their motion for execution of the order approving the
recommendation of the appraisal committee, by filing a petition for certiorari and
mandamus in the Court of Appeals. This petition was, however, dismissed in a
decision dated July 29, 1994 of the appellate court.
14. On April 5, 1995, the Pasay City RTC Branch 111, declared Guerrero the rightful
owner of the 920-square meter expropriated property and ordered payment to
him of just compensation for the taking of the land.
15. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Guerrero is entitled to receive payment of just compensation for

the taking of land in question?

RULING:

Yes. Guerrero is entitled to receive payment of just compensation.

 Republic vs. Salem. | 40

Expropriation may be initiated by court action or by legislation. In both cases, just

compensation is determined by the courts.

The expropriation of lands consists of two stages. First, the authority of the
plaintiff to exercise eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise based on the facts
is determined. Second phase is concerned with the determination by the court of the
just compensation.
In this case, the first stage of expropriation was completed when B.P. Blg. 340
was enacted providing for the expropriation of 1,380 square meters of the land in
question.
In 1990, the government commenced the second stage of expropriation through
the filing of a petition for the determination of just compensation. This stage was not
completed, however, because of the intervention of Guerrero Therefore; the title to the
expropriated property of the De la Ramas remained with them and did not at that point
pass to the government.
It is true that the contract to sell did not convey to Guerrero the subject parcel of
land described therein. However, it created an obligation on the part of the De la Ramas
to convey the land, subject to the fulfilment of the suspensive conditions
The declaration of this contract's validity, which paved the way for the
subsequent execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale effectively, conveyed ownership of
said parcel of land to Guerrero.

CONCLUSION: The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.